Podcasts about distinguished scholar

This is Thinking in Public, a program dedicated to intelligent conversation about frontline theological and cultural issues with the people who are shaping them.Dr. Nigel Biggar is the Emeritus Regius Professor of Moral Theology at the University of Oxford and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Pusey House, Oxford. He received his Ph.D in Christian Theology & Ethics from the University of Chicago and his baccalaureate degree in Modern History from Oxford University. Professor Biggar was also appointed a Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire for services to Higher Education, in the 2021 Queen's Birthday Honours list. He's the author of more than 5 books and numerous articles which have appeared in publications such as The Financial Times, The Times of London, The Daily Telegraph, and The Spectator. It is his most recent book, The New Dark Age: Why Liberals Must Win the Culture Wars, that is the topic of this new episode of Thinking in Public.You can purchase The New Dark Age here.Sign up to receive every new Thinking in Public release in your inbox.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.

Guest: Dr. Alison Stuebe Maternal-Fetal Medicine Doctor Professor and Distinguished Scholar in Infant and Young Child Feeding, Department of Maternal and Child Health Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology UNC School of Medicine   CEU objectives for this episode: Identify at least three structural, emotional, or physiological challenges that impact milk production and breastfeeding success among mothers of preterm infants Describe strategies to support equitable, family-centered care for NICU mothers who choose to breastfeed Explain how stress, physical recovery, and mental health influence milk supply and maternal capacity to provide breast milk Explain at least two communication strategies that build trust with families, such as strengths-based conversations and nonjudgmental inquiry into feeding goals This episode is eligible for CEUs. Visit https://handtohold.org/resources/podcasts/nicu-heroes/ to complete the questionnaire. It is the sole responsibility of the individual to verify if this credit is valid and eligible for use in your State and/or for your discipline for licensure or certification renewal.  

Dr. José P. Zagal is a game scholar and Director of the School of Interactive Games and Media at the Rochester Institute of Technology and avid game player as well. He teaches courses on game design, ethics in video games, and experimental games. Professor Zagal taught his first university-level class in 2000, has since supervised multiple award-winning student projects, and many of his former students work at leading game studios worldwide. Dr. Zagal has edited and authored numerous books and articles on game ethics, games education, game design, role-playing games, and more. He most recently co-authored Seeing Red: Nintendo's Virtual Boy (MIT Press 2024) and co-edited Fifty Years of Dungeons & Dragons (MIT Press 2024) and The Routledge Handbook of Role-Playing Game Studies (Routledge 2024). He was honored as a Distinguished Scholar by the Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) and named a Fellow of the Higher-Education Videogame Alliance (HEVGA) for his contributions to games research. He also serves as the Editor-In-Chief of DiGRA's flagship journal Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association (ToDiGRA). Please check out these relevant links: RIT School of Interactive Games and Media The Quiet Year Prof. Zagal's Google Scholar Profile Tabletop Role-Playing Games in Chile: Early History, Context, and Adoption Cyberpunk 2020 Ghost Busters (West End Games) Phoenix Dawn Command Welcome to Dice in Mind, a podcast hosted by Bradley Browne and Jason Kaufman to explore the intersection of life, games, science, music, philosophy, creativity, and literature through interviews with leading creatives. All are welcome in this space. Royalty-free music "Night Jazz Beats" courtesy of flybirdaudio. Please follow us: Twitter/X: https://x.com/diceinmind Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/diceinmind.bsky.social

  Episode: 140 RAISING PPA assessment and treatment from the Ground Up: In Conversation with Jeanne Gallée     In this episode you will discover: · Assessment and Intervention Aren't Separate — Conversation itself can double as both. By listening closely and responding to what a client offers, in a "more art than science" way, clinicians gather meaningful data and provide support at the same time, rather than treating these as two distinct phases of care. · Rigid Testing Can Erase the Person Behind the Diagnosis — Traditional standardized assessments often serve the goals of an institution or research protocol more than the person being assessed. Frameworks like RAISE and the PACT scale shift the focus toward strengths, natural conversation, and what someone can still do, rather than repeatedly measuring decline. · PPA Needs Its Own Identity and Training Path — Because primary progressive aphasia sits uneasily between post-stroke aphasia care and traditional dementia care, clinicians often receive little formal training in it. A global survey found major gaps in education and confidence, underscoring the need for dedicated resources, like Dr. Gallée's PPA roadmap, built specifically for this population. Do you ever wish you could step back in time and undo the missteps and errors of the past? What if you had the opportunity to build something from the ground up? Certainly, knowing what you know now, you could begin in a better place. But of course, there's always pitfalls with new beginnings, even with the knowledge of lessons from the past. You could, however, make a positive impact on that new beginning. Welcome to the Aphasia Access Conversations podcast. I'm Jerry Hoepner, a professor from the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire, and co-facilitator of the Chippewa Valley Aphasia Camp, Blue Gold Brain Injury Group, Mayo Brain Injury Group, Young Persons Brain Injury Group, Brain In-Cog, and Thursday Night Poets. I'm also a member of the Aphasia Access Podcast Working Group. Aphasia Access strives to provide members with information, inspiration, and ideas about their aphasia care through a variety of educational resources. I'm privileged to introduce today's guest, Dr. Jeanne Gallée, who is a clinical scientist in the Department of Medicine at the University of Washington. Dr. Gallée is a licensed speech language pathologist practicing in the greater Washington state area. She completed her Bachelor of Arts in Cognitive and Linguistic Sciences at Wellesley College in 2016 and Doctor of Philosophy at Harvard University in Speech and Hearing Bioscience and Technology in 2021. She has been recognized as a Distinguished Early Career Professional by ASHA and a Distinguished Scholar by the Tavistock Trust for Aphasia. Her work is dedicated to improving assessment practices and functional outcomes for individuals living with aphasia and neurodegenerative conditions. Jerry Hoepner: Jeanne, it's really nice to see you again today, and to have this opportunity to have a conversation with you as a recent recipient of the Tavistock Scholar Program, and to talk about your work with individuals with primary progressive aphasia. So, thanks for being "on" today for the conversation. Jeanne Gallée: Thank you so much for having me, Jerry. I'm really honored to be here. Jerry Hoepner: Likewise, I'm really excited for this conversation, and as I just alluded to, I wanted to congratulate you on being awarded the first Tavistock Scholar with an emphasis doing work in primary progressive aphasia, and I thought maybe I could get your thoughts on being selected as a Tavistock Scholar. Jeanne Gallée: Thank you. It feels honestly incredibly remarkable in the sense that I think it represents a shift in how we're thinking about the separate diagnoses of progressive aphasia versus an aphasia that's due to an acute injury. And I'm really honored to be a part of that. I think there have been many discussions growing over the years, and I think we're seeing that shift in how we do think about addressing assessment and intervention and general care for people across the aphasia continuum. Jerry Hoepner: Agreed, I think there's been so much growth in the last five years in that area. I can remember at the outset of the pandemic, having discussions about "What do we do with people with primary progressive aphasia who were a part of our aphasia group? Should they be a part of our aphasia group? How do we pivot to that in an online context?" and it feels like we've come so far in our conversation about where primary progressive aphasia fits in in all of those different contexts. Jeanne Gallée: Right, I entirely agree, and I think the journey of my own work has already evolved in so many ways that I couldn't have imagined, like you say, five years ago I completed my doctoral work March 2021 and just seeing the phenomenal amounts of change that have really taken place since then has been incredible, and I feel very lucky to be part of that momentum right now. Jerry Hoepner: Absolutely, it's exciting to see these things move forward. And one of the differences that I see is primary progressive aphasia started out within the Life Participation Approach, just soundly from day one, as opposed to a lot of aphasia care, which has kind of evolved from this medical model, and how refreshing it is to see something built from the ground up. Done right, so to speak. I don't know if you have thoughts on that piece… Jeanne Gallée: No, I do. I think that's a really interesting point. I think I might be part of the camp that at times feels like progressive conditions get a little bit lost in the rehabilitation space, but I think you're absolutely right. I think the absence of pharmacological treatment, or a cure that has long standing effects for these progressive conditions has made rehabilitation specialists much more attuned to focusing on quality of life, life participation, maintaining autonomy, and so forth. So, I think I forget that perspective sometimes. Perhaps from the space that I work in, I tend to be in a more interdisciplinary environment where I feel on the opposite end. I'm often asked for justification for providing these types of services, and that fits in nicely with our previous discussion on how we do see that differentiation and how people with aphasia due to a progressive condition may be siloed from people who have the more quote unquote traditional aphasia symptoms. Jerry Hoepner: Yeah, that's a really good point. And you know, referring to those previous conversations we discussed that need for primary progressive aphasia to have a space of its own. It's tricky because it doesn't fit into post-stroke aphasia quite right, and it doesn't fit into the Alzheimer's and dementia world quite right. So, yeah, it's nice to see this developing in the Life Participation kind of context, really excited about Anna Volkmer's conference dedicated to primary progressive aphasia. Yeah, what an excellent point, that even though we feel like it's great to build it from the ground up, there's still people in that interdisciplinary context, who are very much looking at this, like,"Justify this. How is having conversations and doing activities with someone justifiable, as a, you know, as a skilled intervention?" Jeanne Gallée: Right. I think a lot of it comes back to misunderstandings about the scope of our profession. So, coming from the speech language pathology standpoint, we may have a perspective that other providers may not. And it's interesting, particularly when that confusion or disconnect happens in conditions that are communication led, where we see the symptoms primarily touching upon our ability to interact verbally or non-verbally to communicate. And it's fascinating, and I think speaking to that silo, we see PPA having been a relatively new and still considered very rare condition, but there's so much overlap with other conditions, right, in the kinds of symptoms that we see and there's so much where, as any speech pathologist with experience in acquired neurogenic communication disorders, we can see that we can apply our skill set, but again, likely due to the terminal nature of the condition, we end up seeing providers taking it a different route, or saying either there's only the pharmacological route, or we just let it lie or let it be as is, which we wouldn't do with any other condition. We wouldn't say that for someone with ALS. We would want to provide them the supports, even if they're temporary, to improve quality of life. So, it is an interesting, almost cultural phenomenon as well. I think. Jerry Hoepner: Yeah, that I think it's really fascinating, and I'm so glad you brought that up. It reminds me of kind of the phrase, the company we keep, right? It's easy to be amongst, you know, people who are in the [Life Participation Approach to Aphasia] LPPA world, who think the way that we think, and who do the way that we do. And I do a lot of work in the area of cognitive communication disorders with acquired brain injuries, and so forth, and there's been a remarkable shift in the last five years there as well towards a more Life Participation bio psychosocial approach, and some of the work that I've been passionate about for years has been more and more accepted. So you feel like when you're in that company of all of your people that everything's all good, but it also reminds me of something that my friend Natalie Douglas always says, which is that "We need to be out there amongst others who need to understand the importance of this kind of a perspective, and sharing that." And when you talked about those other professionals, I really didn't think about that until you said that. Right, really important to get them on the same page, and to help them understand why this is so important. Jeanne Gallée: Right? And I think that's where the conference that you mentioned, the first PPA only conference that's taking place this summer in London, is so special because one of the reasons why we were so motivated to have this type of a conference is that there wasn't really the space at the typical aphasiology conferences, and then the larger neurology-based conferences, or more broadly dementia-based conferences, also didn't quite feel like a home. I think, especially their studies of quality of life, in particular, we're really not seen as rigorous in those contexts. So, this conference, what's nice is that we have that uniting force of everyone being focused on PPA, but it's super interdisciplinary, and that I think will really promote some fantastic conversations. Jerry Hoepner: Wow, that's really encouraging and exciting to see that move forward. I'm not in the primary progressive aphasia world, although when we're at aphasia camp and things like that, certainly that's a part of my role. But as soon as I saw the call for papers come out, I'm, you know, texting and messaging all of my PPA folks to say, "Did you see this? This is great. Are you doing something?" It's very exciting. So, I'm excited to see where that moves in the future and to hear how things go this time around. That's great. Jeanne Gallée: Likewise, I'm really excited, and I do really believe it will lead to a whole future cascade of collaboration. Jerry Hoepner: Yeah, amazing. Well, before we delve into your amazing work, I've been reading your articles, and it's been just a pleasure to read it. I'm always impressed with how certain themes of importance can come across in different areas of our field, and it's been fun to see that. I wonder, because I'm looking at the list of collaborators, just some incredible collaborators on that list, in those papers, I'd love to hear a little bit about your mentorship, both in primary progressive aphasia and kind of thinking about the Life Participation quality of life kind of context as well. Jeanne Gallée: Yeah, I think in hindsight my mentorship experience seems more linear than it did in the moment. And I think it goes back to my original journey in my doctoral program. The program I was in, the Speech and Hearing Bioscience and Technology program at Harvard was a little bit different from others, where we didn't apply to work with a specific mentor, but truly just to get into the program. And they encouraged a pretty extensive shopping period to work with a variety of mentors to get a feel for topic area, mentorship style, and so traditionally first year students didn't even have any experiences, they just focused on the very time-intensive and rigorous coursework. I came in and started my first experience with Evelina Fedorenko at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who had worked with an undergrad. And that I think from the get-go gave me a very holistic view. I think, of the ways in which we could think about language, and in particular, the language network. So, there I was working on MRI studies of what activations do we see in the language network. In response to linguistic stimuli. And we were working with undergrads at MIT who were all healthy between the ages of 18 through 30, and I just felt at a certain point that I had this growing interest towards thinking about what happens when something goes wrong. So when it's atypical processing of language. I first thought I might be interested in pediatric population, so I was all over the place, but through the partnership that my program had with the MGH Institute of Health Professionals, I ended up having this amazing opportunity to be mentored by Evelina Federenko, as well as Sophia Vallila Rohter at the Institute of Health Professions, as well as the Frontotemporal Disorders Unit at Mass General Hospital, through my actual clinical training. So I had this quite hefty consortium of mentors, and I think that has its own set of challenges, right? It's a little bit less mentor-directed and more on the student to say, "This is exactly what I want to work on." But I think that allowed me to build a network of experiences and mentors, and that just has bled into every experience I've had since then. I also think the pandemic, you brought that up before, had a huge role in this, and all of a sudden people were very, very open to virtual meetings and connections and wanted connection. I think everyone felt very stuck at home and wanted to find more people and to find meaning and Anna Volkmer and I had the opportunity to meet at the Academy of Aphasia in Macau in 2019. And honestly meeting her in our connection has been also one of those launching pads for me to really jump out into the world of international collaboration. So all that to say, I think a lot of chance encounters and just a lot of plunging into possible conversations head first has led to this phenomenal mentorship team. And a lot of people who I collaborate with now I see as my inadvertent mentors, and that includes Anna, that includes Maya Henry at UT Austin, Amy Mooney in Oregon, just people who have consistently volunteered their time to mentor me in ways in which I can only say I would have never expected. Jade Cartwright and I have had such a phenomenal collaboration over the past few years as well, where we just had the same interests, and Zoom allowing, we were able to build on those. Jerry Hoepner: That's really an amazing answer to that question. I love the term inadvertent mentors, because I just think that those are the best mentors, where you're as much a mentor to them as they are to you. And it's just this really reciprocal relationship, but it's also built on this organic, like passion and interest for the same kinds of topics. Where it's not forced and that's a really nice kind of look back on your entire process. I was also struck by the term "mentor shopping", or "mentor shopping period", whatever. And I think that's really great that you had an opportunity for that not to be so mentor-led, and I mean it clearly shows through when you talk about your clinical experience and how that was connected to your research experience, and kind of all used to create this amalgamation of who you are. I mean, it's clear in talking with you, it's clear in reading your work that you have that strong, multi prong kind of basis. It's not just research, it's not just this specific area of research, it's really broad and the clinical connection is there, so that makes a lot of sense when I hear you talk about that, for sure. Jeanne Gallée: Oh, thank you. Yeah, I think in hindsight, again, it seems more linear, and in the moment it sometimes felt a little wild, I will say, in terms of just wrangling what do I actually want to pursue, and how. And I'm still figuring that out. But I think this community of collaborators and mentors is truly what has kept me in the field and as well. Jerry Hoepner: Yeah, I think when you can connect with other people who are passionate about the work that you're doing. I can't imagine sitting at alone in my office doing a project, and I mean it's just so much more fun when you're doing it with other people. And other people who can expand the way that you think, which I'm sure everyone that you've mentioned on that list really does, when you can say, "Well, I think we should do it this way" and someone says, "Have you thought about…" and it just completely wrecks your world in a good way, "Like, oh my gosh, I didn't think about that, that's so exciting!" and then you just get into this back and forth. Yeah, very fun to hear about that. And again, it clearly shows through in the work that you do. In our previous conversations, you also mentioned this idea, and this again built on those clinical foundations that your initial mission was really to help develop interventions for people with primary progressive aphasia, and then you kind of got not off track, but inadvertently focused on working on assessments. You mentioned that there's just such a need, and this is so common in a lot of areas, but there's a need for more person-centered, ecologically valid strength-based assessment, and that the traditional measures just don't tell us enough. So, I'm really excited to talk about the work that you're doing on assessment, and how that brings us closer to what we need from an intervention standpoint, too. Jeanne Gallée: Yeah, so that really is at the heart of what has been my experience. Also, right from the get-go, we started talking about the differences, or the possible differentiation that the field has historically taken in thinking about post-stroke aphasia versus primary progressive aphasia. One of my first real PPA projects in my doctoral work was meant to be a naming treatment study for people living with PPA, and one of the roadblocks I kept hitting was also my mentors and reviewers telling me that I was trying to add too many things. And in that process I realized I don't think just using something that exists for post-stroke aphasia is going to be the best way to address the patients I'm seeing right now. And it's not because there's something wrong with that treatment. That treatment was not designed for these individuals. And that led to many more rabbit holes, and you know me really just feeling this existential crisis of "Well, why are we working on the stimuli that we are, and why are we asking questions about these ones?" And I have so much respect for the assessments that exist, and the individuals behind them, and the time they invested in making them. I am also of the belief that we can move forward and improve our processes. There are certain assessments that may be widely used and have so much again power behind them. You know, we have best associated certain assessments with characterizing a diagnosis, but what I ended up seeing in my placements and throughout my clinical work is that many assessments serve more of a mission of an institution or a research protocol than the person being assessed. And in the face of a person with a terminal condition who is using their precious time to serve you in that space, I just think it's so much more important, or that much more important, to really consider what is most functional for them. What will serve them? And how we, how can we give back to that person? And again, part of that emotion, I think, comes from having worked in many research-centered spaces, where someone might not get intervention afterwards, or they might not understand why they are participating in up to five hours of assessment, and I think that's where that passion for focusing on reprioritizing the patient or the client really came from. Jerry Hoepner: I think that attention to "what's in it for them", is really important and clearly based in kind of where your heart is at and where your clinical mindset is at. Because it's easy to go in and say, "Well, we need this data. We need all the data that we get." but to what end, right? Like, how is it going to help? And how is that going to give us any more information about how to help this person, then what they can't do, right? So, I appreciate that mindset a lot, you know. It makes me think, and this is a little off track, and we didn't talk about this question earlier, but what a shift it will be clinicians working with people with primary progressive aphasia, and how they'll be able to shift from using kind of the existing tools that were out there for other purposes to moving towards tools that are designed specifically for people with PPA, and maybe just a snapshot of your thoughts about that piece. Jeanne Gallée: So I think it's really important to know where the field comes from, the work in which it was grounded in. So, I think it, it makes sense to talk about standardized assessment scores. It makes sense to talk about, you know, the specific assessments that can help us quickly differentiate presentations or needs, right? So, using the symptom-led approach, can we identify specific behaviors really quickly in a standardized way? I think the issue comes in when we stop being dynamic in how we use them. It's very easy to use an assessment in a way that feels rote. It feels just like a test, and it's like you said, "just collecting data for the purpose of collecting data." And lose that aspect of humanity. And maybe I'm putting words in other clinicians' mouths, but especially when a certain condition is rare, like PPA is. You may not have very much experience with seeing someone with PPA, or any type of progressive condition, and feel really stuck and needing to be in the motivation of being really professional, sticking to a certain set of tests. "This feels right." Right, this is what someone told me to do. I can fill this out, and there's something very potentially vulnerable or scary about just going with your gut in those moments. And what Anna Volkmer and I have spoken about so often is just the power of having a conversation with someone, and seeing what you can learn from that conversation, not only about the person themselves, but their communication behaviors. And how you can get so much from that conversation, including the trust and comfort of the client in front of you. Jerry Hoepner: Absolutely, yeah. One of the things that I think about when you're talking about that is, in working with people with acquired brain injuries and traumatic brain injuries one of the things I've learned is they will tell you, or they will ask, right? They'll say, "What is this? "What kind of information is this giving you?" "Why do we have to do this stupid test?" And I think that's good. I think that's a mindset that we should have when we're thinking about all of the assessments that we do. Why are we doing this? Is this really necessary? And they're very willing to say, "If it's necessary, that's fine, I'll do it, but are you getting something from this that I'm not seeing?" Right, I love that question, and I think it speaks to what you just said, right? Like, there's so much information that we can gather from conversations, from our interactions with people, we should be thinking about getting that, and if we're doing something else, we should have a why directly following, yeah. Jeanne Gallée: Yes, the why is so important, and you're right. Sometimes we do just need to get certain information. I think for me, one of the most striking moments early on in my training was having small talk. You know, just conversation with a person with semantic variant primary progressive aphasia, and thinking, "Wow, this all feels quite typical. I'm curious about why they're here? What their testing will look like…" and then moving on to the Boston Naming Test and immediately seeing the challenges that came. That dichotomy is really helpful to have in those moments, but again, there's the argument of why are we asking about the name abacus, right? Why are we using that right now, and how does that represent how someone is performing functionally in their everyday life? Jerry Hoepner: Absolutely, yeah, totally. I agree. Can you share a little bit about the RAISE framework, which I really love, because it relates to the way that I think about assessment from the standpoint of counseling, like you build on relationships and connections. William Miller is famous for saying, "The last thing you should ever do at the beginning of a session is assessment." You're beginning of a relationship with someone, don't assess first thing. So, I love that piece, and then thinking about the pact, and I'll let you kind of expand those, but I'll let you unpack them – ha ha- but how that starts to move us towards intervention. Jeanne Gallée: Right. So the RAISE assessment framework was really built out of those conversations, and I guess realizations on my own part about that discomfort with the really rigid end that assessment can…I'll restate that. The rigidity that assessment can have, so again speaking to really, really standardized sets and rigid protocols of specific measures that someone uses, and like you said, having the experience of multiple research participants, as well as patients, asking "Why are we doing this? I know I'm not good at this. Why are we doing it again and again?" And in those moments, not feeling like I had the power to really justify exactly why we were doing everything, apart from, "Oh, this is important for the research study." Which it was, but just feeling like there was that aspect of humanity that was missing, and coming up with my own toolkit in those moments to fill in those blanks. So right after the completion of my PhD, Anna Volkmar and I started speaking a lot more about the power of conversational assessment. And then that led into conversations where we worked with Anne Whitworth, Deborah Hersh, and Jade Cartwright, where again, through the power of Zoom across all times. I was pregnant with my first, and meeting everyone usually at midnight my time. I already was nocturnal at that point!  Where we would just be discussing all of these issues, and what was amazing about this is that, particularly Anne and Deb come from more of the post-stroke aphasia world, and had these amazing principles grounded in those populations where Deborah Hersh had also really come forward with the concept of therapeutic assessment. So as you had said assessment and intervention shouldn't be separate, they belong together and coexist at all times if we're smart about it. And what we ended up doing, first informally and then formally through the more official Delphi process is coming up with a set of principles as a framework for assessment. So, to take a step away from, "Oh, it's just Lucy Goosey, we're having a conversation and chit chat." What we're actually promoting is a pretty structured set of principles to guide the ways in which we can cultivate assessment for individuals with PPA and their loved ones. Jerry Hoepner: Yeah, absolutely. I was kind of scanning on my computer, I was trying to think of the name. I love this name of the article, where it says, 'Please don't assess me to death, or something like that. Jeanne Gallée: Yes, yeah. Jerry Hoepner:  Yeah, and, and thinking about that whole entire process from beginning to end as a relationship, as you know, not discreetly assessment, not discreetly intervention, I think it's just really important. Can you talk a little bit about the PACT and kind of where that has moved things in terms of the assessment piece, but also kind of set a set up for intervention and what that looks like? Jeanne Gallée: Great, so the PACT the Progressive Aphasia Communication Toolkit kit builds off of what we put forth with the RAISE assessment framework. So with RAISE we promote that the relationship might be temporary, it might be a single interaction, or it might be long term, and we cultivate that through conversation and then the PACT is a set of scales that leverages that conversation, we take that natural or as natural as can be interaction and use it to come up with a concrete framework of communication strengths. So that might all sound very esoteric. To make that more concrete, there are four scales to the PACT. They're all clinician ratings, where the clinician is asked to look at a pre-recorded conversation that would occur naturally in a clinical or research context, and then on a scale from four to zero, rate the person speaking's strengths. So within the domains of speech and voice, as well as language and social pragmatics, as well as discourse, and the point or the purpose of that was to really anchor a person's communicative ability in one of these more natural environments with a provider. We collect so much phenomenal qualitative data, but at times it can feel challenging to quantify it and the hope with the PACT is that we can quantify our very real, possibly subjective evaluation of a person's communication at a certain moment in time. Jerry Hoepner: Yeah, and what I love about that, and you might have a slightly different thought about this, because you're deeper into it, but from an assessment standpoint, you can then do that all the way through. You can say, "Here's where they are this year, here's where they are next year, here's where they are the year after that, or you know, two years ago, or whatever your lens is at that point." You can do that without kind of this constant repeating of, "Okay, let's see how bad you are today compared to a year ago, or compared to two years ago." Just a very different mindset. And I love the focus on "What can you still do? What what's working? And how can we leverage what's working to really help you to actually communicate today?" As opposed to saying, "Oh boy, the ship is sinking." which is kind of the typical approach. Jeanne Gallée: Yes, that exactly what you're saying. The tendency tends to focus on what's no longer there. And while that might be helpful in clinical trials to characterize a person's performance diagnostically and the trajectory of a diagnosis over time. It really does not serve the person who goes home after the assessment, nor their loved ones to help them maintain that autonomy and quality of life, and also caregiver burden. And that is actually one of the points I really love about the PACT, is it builds on that RAISE aspect, that final tenant of evolution or adaptation over time. There's no repeat measure conflict here, where you know something might seem familiar. One of the unique parts of the PACT is that the clinician doesn't fill out the scale while they're talking to the person, they're really just recording them talking, so it is on the clinician side where, as often as they'd like to, they could implement the structured prompts of the PACT and then fill out the scale and see how performance might vary over time. They might see effects of context of the conversation, or the environment, or maybe the time of day, you know, phase of life, but it remains a way to use that really important information you gather through these conversations without recreating a testing environment frequently. Jerry Hoepner: I really love that framework. I think there's a lot of room for that to be used in other contexts as well. I just think it's really a wise way of thinking about it. I also, you just mentioned caregivers and caregiver burden in this context, and how does that fit into this entire RAISE framework, the PACT, and so forth. Jeanne Gallée: I think for both the RAISE assessment framework as well as the PACT the carers play an essential role in the sense that if they are available and present in the patient's life, then they are involved in the process. And so within the RAISE framework, the care partner is involved to provide feedback or to be given feedback, and in the PACT the same occurs, where if they are present at the time of the conversation, they are involved in the conversation. What I tend to do in the people I have piloted the PACT, I say come in as you would naturally, but then also take a step back. Let the person that with PPA that we're talking to take the lead, but I want you to interact as you would naturally. And then they're separately also asked to comment on the strengths that the person with PPA has. Their feedback is so integral because if they are present in a person's life, they play an essential role in promoting anything that we do work on in speech therapy. Jerry Hoepner: Absolutely, yeah, really well said. And I wanted to dig in, partly because I have envy of this figure, the roadmap figure for PPA, and I think it really sets up well for as we think about professionals out there too, like what's the roadmap, not just for the person and their partner, but what's the roadmap for clinicians, future clinicians, all of that. Maybe you can talk a little bit about that figure. Jeanne Gallée: I'd be delighted to. So, this was one of those, I would say classic for me moments where I had an idea and went to PowerPoint and started playing around with a visual of what I was thinking. The roadmap paper in no way is meant to be the only guide for how we can work with a person with PPA, but was really born out of discussions with Amy Mooney, as well as Zoe Ezzes, and Kristin Schafferr Mendez through the National Aphasia Association about the possible gaps in education or preparation a person might experience when first working with people living with PPA.  There are so many ways in which we could say, "Oh, just work on this exact task. Work on these.." and that can feel so lost and unanchored, unmoored moreover. And I wanted to provide the clinical toolkit that I've been using to help me think about my broader approach. So to not get lost in the weeds, but just generally think about what's my purpose here, what's my journey, and so at the center of this road that I created is the tenant of providing that person-centered care, like we aim to with the RAISE assessment framework, so really bringing it back to establishing that honest and holistic and person-centered relationship with your client and their care partners. And focusing on creating a journey that's unique to the client that I think can feel hard when there are so many unknowns with a condition like PPA, where you're always working with an interdisciplinary team. Which you may or may not have contact with. So the first part of this roadmap is really defining your role. Who are you as a professional, and what kinds of support can you provide, and part of defining your own role includes defining your role relative to the rest of the interdisciplinary team. How can you provide a different approach from the neurologist or the neuropsychologist who play vital but very different roles in a person's care journey? Part of that definition also includes advocating across professions, so a classic conundrum that people with communication-led disorders face is that they may not have certain challenges in other domains, but their communication results in a domino effect of difficulties. And so, as the speech language pathologist, coming up with ways in which you can provide supports to other providers or your client to improve their communication can be essential for that comprehensive care. That might include coming up with a communication notebook that has a single page related to specific questions or common topics when talking to the neurologist or the physical therapist or other providers. And then part of this roadmap includes referring out. So having the humility and confidence to say I can't help with this in the ways that you may need. I will either refer you to a specialist within our field or outside of our field to help with these specific aspects, and I think that's just responsible care. Jerry Hoepner: Absolutely. Really well described, and such a perfect. A segway to my next question. I always tell my students, assessment isn't just the first and last session that you're working with someone, and the same goes for intervention, right? It's not excluded from the beginning and the end, right? Like, you can't do intervention on day one, you can't do it on the last day, right? I think we kind of silo those things as well, you know, we assess and we intervene every day side by side. Can you share a little bit of your perspectives on this? And, and how that relates to kind of what we just talked about in terms of that roadmap? Jeanne Gallée: Yeah, I think part of the challenge with some of these concepts is that it's very helpful to have experience in working with individuals, whether it is through formal speech therapy or elsewhere, to feel comfort with the unknown. Because a lot of it relies on your ability to listen and to respond to what you notice. You may inadvertently put in assessment by asking follow-up questions to a point a person made when you were talking about their commute. Ad you may offer different technological supports or just visual supports to your client in that conversation in a way to build up supports to see, "Oh, do we see a difference in how they're responding to what I'm saying? And how I provide support? Or when I dial it back, do we see a completely different direction?" So, it is this beautiful, possibly more art than science approach of responding to what a person is giving you. And there are so many individual differences in all of us.  I always joke about how when I used to collect data on the picture description using both age match controls and people with PPA, I would almost burst out laughing when some of the controls provided responses, because I would get one to two sentences sometimes because see the difference in motivation. A person who does not have a communication concern, does not see the need to show exactly what they can do. And would benefit from some encouragement to show exactly how much they can say, whereas a person with PPA, who might have an Aphasia Quotient that recognizes their aphasia, might speak for five to 10 minutes to show exactly everything that they can accomplish. And so I think having that in your back pocket is really important when it comes to thinking about coming up with your recipe of all the ingredients of your assessment and intervention approach and counseling approach. So, I think that's where most of my work comes from, is that there is no one size fits all, but there are certain ingredients or components that we need to apply, and the exact ratios depend on the person you're working with. Jerry Hoepner: That is such a good description of dynamic assessment and intervention and how that I agree, probably more art than science. And that's hard for people who want a black and white answer, like "Step one…" but it's so true, and, and being effective in working in this context, that really moves us nicely into a recent paper that you did, those global perspectives on the management of PPA, and I was struck by the numbers here. Only 40% of respondents said that they had received training in primary progressive aphasia at their university, and they identified all of these needs, right, like online instruction, sample tools, and activity dealing with end of life care and trainings for end of life care. When you mentioned counseling, that totally relates to what we're up against in terms of counseling, right? No one feels confident or has very good self efficacy. Tey don't know if what you know the lines are, what part is theirs and what part is someone else. And I think just really important to like I said, lay out a roadmap and help people to understand what we were just talking about in terms of that art and science of how do you navigate this space when it has to be individualized for every person, and that can feel uncomfortable for a lot of people. So, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on that, and kind of what you learned from that context. Jeanne Gallée: Yeah, so this research study. Was really an amazing endeavor on part of everyone who was involved. It felt like a grassroots effort to find the speech language pathologists around the world who aren't associated with a particular institution who do work with primary progressive aphasia. So of course it will never be a fully representative sample of every clinician who does so, but I do think we worked very hard to cast a wide net. So we used a snowball method. I contacted almost 40 institutions and governing bodies to find speech language pathologists who do have experience with PPA, because while more and more non-specialist providers will be seeing this patient population, we wanted to hear from the people who currently are in the field and creating their own expertise and toolkits to work with these individuals. So, what we found is that a lot of people are out on their own creating their own wheels, so to speak. And it just really led to that beautiful conclusion of now with the power of our globalization of education and sharing of resources, we can come up with a resource that's shared worldwide. Of course, there will be adaptations to fit different contexts, cultures, languages, but one of the issues has been that the systems of care for PPA have often relied upon very specific individuals. And that's reflected in the educational level. Even I was in the master's program between 2017 and 2019, I didn't hear about PPA formally in my coursework, and if it was mentioned we did not go into any of these aspects of specialized care. Part of that might have been because I didn't take very specific courses that then you know were optional or precluded, so I might have missed it, but I really didn't receive that education in the classroom. I received it through my clinical training, which I would argue is possibly even more valuable, right? You have that experiential training. But I think for clinicians who might want to transition in their careers, or you know, inadvertently in their place of work, are transitioning based on who shows up, that is a huge disservice. Jerry Hoepner: Yeah, agreed. And it's a complex issue, right, because I can remember actually teaching about this back before Tom [Sather] was in my department. I taught the aphasia class and the acquired cog class, and I was thinking, like, where do I talk about primary progressive aphasia? Do I talk about that in acquired com? Do I talk about that in aphasia? Do I do it in both? Where do I talk about end of life care, and like, how does that fit in, because that's, you know, at that point I was teaching dysphasia, too. Believe it or not, and I'm like, it's kind of there, it's kind of here, it's kind of, it's kind of in counseling, it's all right. So that makes it tricky to have kind of a uniform message when it's all over the place. And love to just get your thoughts on that too. Like, where do you put that stuff? Like, it's it's PPA, it's end of life care, it's aphasia, it's right, it's counseling, it's so many things at once. Jeanne Gallée: It is so many things at once, and I do think that speaks to the fact that it may well need its own class as part of progressive conditions. Jerry Hoepner: Yeah. Jeanne Gallée: But I do think a large part of what we share there is that understanding of we may also need to shift the identity of who we think about when we think about life care. And when we think about a progressive condition. Since a huge flavor, so to speak, of PPA is the fact that it is early onset, and especially with our cultural shifts, and you know, people starting families later in life. The face of a person with PPA looks very different from, at least in my childhood, of what looked like typical Alzheimer's disease dementia. And it's a younger, possibly more dynamic working person, possibly with little kids at home. And I think that's where that symptom-led approach has been most beneficial for my practice. Where we think about "What are you experiencing and how is it impacting your life?", rather than saying "This is the diagnosis, let's put you over here in this box." Jerry Hoepner: Yeah, the idea of putting it in a box and siloing things really resonates in this context, and I love what you said about identity, right? The identity - what we all have in our mind's eye when we think about end of life care is not the typical person with primary progressive aphasia. Like I can remember as an elementary school student visiting the nursing homes and singing to the residents and things like that, and this was not, this was not the group of people that we were thinking about in that context. Very, very different, and I just think that's a really good mindset shift to recognize how actually broad that is. I'm sure there's people listening to this who work in, you know, end of life pediatric care who want to slap me in the face right now, but right, we have such a different mindset when we're thinking about end of life care, and that reset that you just made super important. Jeanne Gallée: Yeah, yeah, and easier said than done, I think, As well as just seeing who shows up to the University of Washington support groups, and just the own perspectives that individuals bring there. But I think we can do it. I think, as a field, that will be the way in which we can become the best generalist provider, so to speak, where we take general principles of addressing symptoms or situations, and then apply those to diagnoses across the spectrum. Jerry Hoepner: Absolutely, really well said, and a great place to kind of wrap up our questions, but I want to give you the opportunity, are there points that you want to share before we kind of close our conversation? Things that we missed. Jeanne Gallée: I think the general thread throughout our conversation has just spoken to the power we do have as providers or researchers working with patients with primary progressive aphasia or related conditions, I think when we feel that our expertise in the newest theories or approaches might be lacking, we can always rely upon our empathy and full body listening, just to bring in elements that go across the lifespan, and that in of itself can lead to so many honest and transparent choices in our clinical care that can best serve our communities. I think we are much more empowered than we think we are. Jerry Hoepner: Absolutely, that's a really important thread through many places where clinicians feel uncomfortable. They've got it there and they just have to gain that confidence, and being empowered to step into those moments. Well said. Well, Jeanne it's been just a really fun conversation. I'm sure we could talk all afternoon, but I look forward to catching up to you at future conferences and things like that. It's been my pleasure to have this conversation. So, thank you for being a part of it. Jeanne Gallée: Right back at you, Jerry. Thank you so much. This has been a really fun conversation, and like you said, I hope to meet in person in the near future. Jerry Hoepner: Agreed. On behalf of Aphasia Access, thank you for listening to this episode of the Aphasia Access Conversations Podcast. For more information on Aphasia Access, and to access our growing library of materials, please go to www.aphasiaaccess.org. If you have an idea for a future podcast series or topic, email us at info at aphasia access.org Thanks again for your ongoing support of Aphasia Access.   Resources and Readings 1) The RAISE Assessment Framework: Gallée, J., Cartwright, J., Volkmer, A., Whitworth, A., & Hersh, D. (2023). "Please Don't Assess Him to Destruction": The R.A.I.S.E. Assessment Framework for Primary Progressive Aphasia. American journal of speech-language pathology, 32(2), 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00122  Gallée, J., Volkmer, A., Whitworth, A., Hersh, D., & Cartwright, J. (2024). Applications of the R.A.I.S.E. Assessment Framework to Support the Process of Assessment in Primary Progressive Aphasia. American journal of speech-language pathology, 33(5), 2280–2290. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00085 2) A roadmap for clinicians just starting to work with PPA: Gallée, J. (2023). A Roadmap to enhance care for people living with primary progressive Aphasia: What Can Be Done Now?. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 8(5), 847-862. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_PERSP-23-0002  3) Aspects of language functioning in early and late-onset Alzheimer's disease dementia: Gallée, J., Gibbons, L. E., Choi, S. E., Lee, M., Scollard, P., Trittschuh, E. H., Mez, J., Saykin, A. J., Foldi, N. S., Mukherjee, S., & Crane, P. K. (2025). Facets of language performance in early-onset and late-onset Alzheimer's disease dementia. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 21(9), e70705. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.70705 4) The Progressive Aphasia Communication Toolkit (in production at Alzheimer's & Dementia, but here is the preprint): Gallée, J., Cartwright, J., Henry, M. L., Mooney, A. R., Stark, B. C., Volkmer, A., Dietz, A., Nakano, C., Battista, P., Beales, A., Beber, B. C., Cadório, I., Caldwell, M., Davies, K., Ezzes, Z., Gauch, M., Graney, T., Grobler, S., Haley, K. L., Hausmann, A., … Crane, P. K. (2025). The Progressive Aphasia Communication Toolkit (PACT): A Strengths-Based Approach to Multidomain Evaluation for Intervention. medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025.11.25.25340904. https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.11.25.25340904 5) A global survey on SLP perspectives on the management of PPA: Gallée, J., Cartwright, J., Grasso, S., Jokel, R., Lavoie, M., McGowan, E., Pozzebon, M., Beber, B. C., Duboisdindien, G., Montagut, N., Norvik, M., Sugimoto, T., Townsend, R., Unger, N., Winsnes, I. E., & Volkmer, A. (2024). Global perspectives on the management of primary progressive aphasia. Scientific reports, 14(1), 19712. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-70156-5 6) Aspects of language functioning in early and late-onset Alzheimer's disease dementia: Gallée, J., Gibbons, L. E., Choi, S. E., Lee, M., Scollard, P., Trittschuh, E. H., Mez, J., Saykin, A. J., Foldi, N. S., Mukherjee, S., & Crane, P. K. (2025). Facets of language performance in early-onset and late-onset Alzheimer's disease dementia. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 21(9), e70705. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.70705

Watch or listen to Amy Orr-Ewing, International Author, Speaker and Theologian, being interviewed by Lorna Dueck. In this episode, Amy shares about her new book, Forgiveness, and why it is one of the most misunderstood teachings of Christianity. She explains how the Bible calls us to forgive without minimizing harm, ignoring abuse, or abandoning justice. They explore how Christian forgiveness speaks into today's cultural moment, from cancel culture and political division to our struggles with anger, resentment, and injustice. In this episode, Amy and Lorna discuss:The weaponizing of forgiveness against victims, and what healing actually looks like.The distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation in Scripture.Where science and the Bible intersect regarding trauma recovery.How trauma impacts the nervous system and how healing involves emotional, spiritual, and physical restoration.The suffering of Jesus reveals how seriously God takes human pain and wrongdoing while making forgiveness possible.How repentance and God's grace offer forgiveness even when reconciliation with others is seemingly impossible.Amy's hope that the church can rediscover forgiveness as a transformative and life-giving practice rooted in the Gospel.Read the transcript: https://biblesociety.ca/transcript-scripture-untangled-s13-ep1 =====Dr. Amy Orr-Ewing is an international author, speaker and theologian who addresses the deep questions of our day with meaningful answers found in the Christian Faith. She is the author of multiple books including bestsellers ‘Where is God in All the Suffering?', ‘Why Trust the Bible?', ‘Mary's Voice', and her latest ‘Forgiveness Reclaiming its Power in a Culture of Outrage and Fear' releases in 2026.Over the last twenty five years, Amy has spoken in more than 40 countries as a public advocate for the Christian faith including public lectures and open forums on university campuses, and addressing Politicians and Parliamentarians in the UK Parliament and staffers on Capitol Hill, the Senate and the West Wing of The White House. Amy speaks at conferences, businesses, banks, and churches about how theology connects with the deepest questions of life.In 2023, Amy was awarded the Alphege Medal for Evangelism and Witness by the Archbishop of Canterbury. She holds a DPhil (doctorate) from the University of Oxford and is Honorary Lecturer at the School of Divinity, University of Aberdeen, Distinguished Scholar at Wheaton College Illinois and Founder of Advocate Collective. Amy is married to Frog and they have three wonderful sons.Canadian Bible Society: biblesociety.caHelp people hear God speak: biblesociety.ca/donateConnect with us on Instagram: @canadianbiblesocietyThe Bible Course: biblecourse.ca

Forgiveness is one of the hardest, but most crucial parts of the Christian life. In this episode with Amy Orr-Ewing, we talk about why forgiveness matters right now, especially in a culture shaped by outrage, cancellation, and competing visions of justice. Amy helps clarify the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation, why real forgiveness doesn't minimize harm or remove consequences, and how the cross makes a way to take evil seriously while still offering grace. We also get into trauma, shame, enemy love, and what it looks like to practice forgiveness in our lives and communities without cheapening it.Dr. Amy Orr-Ewing is an international author, speaker and theologian who addresses the deep questions of our day with meaningful answers found in the Christian Faith. She is the author of multiple books including bestsellers ‘Where is God in All the Suffering?', ‘Why Trust the Bible?', ‘Mary's Voice', and her latest ‘Forgiveness Reclaiming its Power in a Culture of Outrage and Fear' releases in 2026.Over the last twenty five years, Amy has spoken in more than 40 countries as a public advocate for the Christian faith including public lectures and open forums on university campuses, and addressing Politicians and Parliamentarians in the UK Parliament and staffers on Capitol Hill, the Senate and the West Wing of The White House. Amy speaks at conferences, businesses, banks, and churches about how theology connects with the deepest questions of life.In 2023, Amy was awarded the Alphege Medal for Evangelism and Witness by the Archbishop of Canterbury. She holds a D Dphil (doctorate) from the University of Oxford and is Honorary Lecturer at the School of Divinity, University of Aberdeen, Distinguished Scholar at Wheaton College Illinois and Founder of Advocate Collective. Amy is married to Frog and they have three wonderful sons.Amy's Book:ForgivenessAmy's Recommendations:The Mind of the MakerThe Body Keeps the ScoreConnect with Joshua: jjohnson@shiftingculturepodcast.comGo to www.shiftingculturepodcast.com to interact and donate. Every donation helps to produce more podcasts for you to enjoy.Follow on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Threads, Bluesky or YouTubeConsider Giving to the podcast and to the ministry that my wife and I do around the world. Just click on the support the show link belowGo to mennomedia.org to order the Anabaptist Community Bible. Use code SHIFTING for 20% off. Support the show

Interviewer info Lyssa Rome is a speech-language pathologist in the San Francisco Bay Area. She is on staff at the Aphasia Center of California, where she facilitates groups for people with aphasia and their care partners. She owns an LPAA-focused private practice and specializes in working with people with neurogenic communication disorders. She has worked in acute hospital, skilled nursing, and continuum of care settings. Prior to becoming an SLP, Lyssa was a public radio journalist, editor, and podcast producer. In this episode, Lyssa Rome interviews Jessica Obermeyer about group treatment for aphasia. Guest info Jessica Obermeyer, PhD, CCC-SLP, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Her area of specialization is acquired adult neurogenic language disorders. Dr. Obermeyer's research interests include discourse production in aphasia, treatment efficacy, and the cognitive requirements of language production. Prior to earning her doctorate, she worked in a variety of clinical settings where she specialized in assessment and treatment of adult neurogenic populations.     Listener Take-aways In today's episode you will: ● Recognize the role of written communication in clients' daily activities, including texting, email, and online tasks. ● Adapt ARCS-W treatment components to match each client's preferred writing modality (handwriting vs. typing). ● Identify candidates with aphasia who are well-suited for discourse-level writing treatment. Lyssa Rome Welcome to the Aphasia Access Aphasia Conversations Podcast. I'm Lyssa Rome. I'm a speech language pathologist on staff at the Aphasia Center of California, and I see clients with aphasia and other neurogenic communication disorders in my LPAA-focused private practice. I'm also a member of the Aphasia Access Podcast Working Group. Aphasia Access strives to provide members with information, inspiration, and ideas that support their aphasia care through a variety of educational materials and resources. I'm today's host for an episode that will feature Dr. Jessica Obermeyer, who was selected as a 2024 Tavistock Trust for Aphasia, Distinguished Scholar, USA and Canada. Dr. Obermeyer is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Her area of specialization is acquired adult neurogenic language disorders. Dr Obermeyer's research interests include discourse production and aphasia treatment efficacy and the cognitive requirements of language production. Prior to earning her doctorate, she worked in a variety of clinical settings, where she specialized in assessment and treatment of adult neurogenic populations. Jessica Obermeyer, welcome to the podcast, and thanks for being here. Jessica Obermeyer Thank you. It's a pleasure. Lyssa Rome So I wanted to get started with a question we often ask, which is: How did you get into this? Was there an aha moment for you and what led you to research aphasia? Jessica Obermeyer That's a great question. I think it was more of a slow awakening and journey to realizing that this is how I wanted to spend my days. When I started studying speech language pathology, I knew I wanted to work in adult rehab with people with traumatic brain injury, stroke, and aphasia. But as an undergraduate and a masters student, I worked on a lot of research related to traumatic brain injury and cognition. But then I had some exposure to aphasia research, and as a clinician, I just loved working with people that had aphasia. I loved running aphasia groups. I started aphasia groups, and when I decided to go back for my PhD, that is what I wanted to focus on. I also had the opportunity to work in adult outpatient, so I got to see a lot of people that had aphasia and were at different points in their rehabilitation journey. And those experiences just made me want to continue and especially do research that could develop and evaluate different treatment approaches for people that had aphasia. Lyssa Rome One of the sort of through lines in your research has been discourse. And I'm curious about how you landed on that as the focus of your work, why discourse? Jessica Obermeyer It's how we talk. It was always, you know, something I was interested in. I think, as a clinician, I felt really daunted by discourse, because it is laborious, you know, it takes a lot of time to think about how you're going to analyze it. But I was always so fascinated by all the linguistic components that make up discourse as a clinician. And then I think as a researcher, I really appreciate how important it is. Everything we do in our day to day lives is often at a discourse level, and that looks so different depending on the type of discourse. So your text exchange is discourse, your emails, your conversations, the interaction with a barista. You know, every kind of functional way that we communicate is often at a discourse level. But it's so different depending on what that interaction looks like, and that's just endlessly fascinating to me as a researcher… challenging but fascinating. Lyssa Rome Challenging both to evaluate and, I guess, to some extent, to treat. One of the things that I really appreciate is that it's how we communicate in our daily lives, and so if we're thinking about life participation and sort of functional approaches to treatment, to my mind, discourse is kind of where it's at. So I'm really excited to get to talk to you more about it. So speaking of discourse, I thought we could talk about your work on ARCS. Maybe we could start by telling us a little bit about the origins and how you became involved in researching. Jessica Obermeyer Yes, I'd be happy to. I started doing research with ARCS as a doctoral student. So it's been a long time, but the origin of ARCS, or Attentive Reading with Constrained Summarization, started with Yvonne Rogalski and Lisa Edmonds, and they published the first paper, I think, in 2009, but someone should go back to check that, and it was originally for someone that had primary progressive aphasia. And then there was another paper published for two people with Wernicke's aphasia. So in the original version, it's based on constrained summarization, and constrained only in that you're giving someone guidelines for how to summarize so they have to read through a segment of text. Usually it's a current event article, but clinically, you could use pretty much any written text. And I've actually done it with someone listening as well. Typically with ARCS, you would have someone read a segment of written text and then summarize it with the constraint or guideline to be specific. So avoid words like it, stuff, thing, he, she. So use that really intentional word retrieval. That's not what we typically do. We often use non-specific words, but it's that therapeutic, like try to go for the really precise and specific word exercise that retrieval and to also stay on topic, so try not to add a tangent, or, you know, additional information that's not related to what you're reading. And then in my work, I've added an additional guideline that's just based on what that person needs. So if they're repeating a lot, then that might be part of the guideline. Often, the guideline is to try to include the essential information that you've identified already. So that's the origin of ARCS. And as a doctoral student, I really wanted to do treatment research. I became really interested in cooperative learning theory, in how people can work together in their learning, collaborate to improve learning. And when I was doing that, reading and thinking about cooperative learning, writing seemed like such an excellent tool for that, because I think one of the hard things about spoken language is that it's just gone. You say it, it's gone. It's very hard to monitor, which I'm acutely aware of right now in this recording. But with written text, you have this wonderful record of what you've produced, and that can be really helpful for thinking about language and planning, especially in an approach like ARCS or ARCS-W that emphasizes this planning, process-driven component, where you're thinking about, "What do I need to include in this discourse? What's important? What's not important? And what have I actually produced? Does that meet, you know, the guidelines I've tried to meet?" So that's how writing actually got pulled into it. And I wanted to keep the spoken language because, I don't know that I've ever met someone with aphasia who told me they didn't want to continue exercising their spoken language, but the writing was just I think, an important addition, because there are so few written discourse treatment options. And it allowed for this emphasis on monitoring and planning and some of the cognitive components of discourse that can be hard to address. Lyssa Rome And maybe you could say a little bit about what you found when you've studied ARCS-W, so the Attentive Reading and Constrained Summarization-Written. Jessica Obermeyer Well, people have improved, which is great. So the one of the things about ARCS and ARCS-W that's maybe unique when we think about aphasia treatment as a whole, is that it's not a treatment with trained items, so no items are repeated. You're working on the process of discourse production, this process of monitoring and trying to be specific, be efficient, you know. In written discourse, people have made improvements in correct information units or CIUs. So at the word level in discourse, the amount of informative and correct information that they're producing, people have made improvements at the utterance level, where they're producing more relevant utterances and more utterances that have a basic sentence structure, and then this hasn't been looked at in all of the studies, but for some of the participants, where we've measured things like main concepts, the amount that the person is conveying the main ideas or concepts in the discourse has improved for some people as well. And then at this spoken discourse. So ARCS-W, it's half spoken, half written. Basically, people have also made similar improvements. So it's been encouraging so far, ARCS-W I would say, compared to ARCS is for people in the more mild aphasia end of the spectrum, especially with the writing component. Any clinician who's worked with people with aphasia will know that writing is often a stressful thing for people with aphasia. So it's for people that are writing at a phrase level already. It doesn't mean that their spelling is perfect, but if they're really struggling to get out a single word, this is probably not the ideal you know treatment for them, but for folks that are more on the mild end who want to work on spoken and written discourse, we have seen some positive results in their spoken and written discourse production. Another thing that I think is really important for this treatment is that it is so multi-modality. When we write normally, we're reading as well. You know, we're not just writing in a vacuum. A lot of the time. We're rereading our text, we are reading that text message and then responding to it. So I like that. I like multi-modality treatments. I like that this is a treatment that allows people to address multiple types of language goals, while, you know, keeping it pretty simple and low tech. Lyssa Rome I think that that really hits on one of the reasons that I like using ARCS-W in my work with people is that It can be used with so many different kinds of texts. So I've used both, you know, work emails, if their goal is to get back to work, newspaper articles that interest them, simplified newspaper articles that interest there's so many possibilities. And anyway, it's exciting to hear you talk about that. Jessica Obermeyer Yeah, I think that as a clinician, that's why I liked ARCS. It was so flexible, so easy to implement. And that's definitely one of the things I like about ARCS-W as well. Make treatment work hard for you. Lyssa Rome So that is interesting to people as well. Where are you going next with your ARCS research? Jessica Obermeyer Great question. I'm writing up results from about six people we ran over the last couple years, so that, I hope, gets submitted for publication soon. And I would really like to adapt this treatment a little further to use more assistive technology for folks that are really wanting to write, but aren't wedded to handwriting or typing in a traditional sense. So can we use speech-to-text? I always mix it up. And can we use methods to support people producing written language that are, you know, different than just typing it? Because people have really different needs in their life. So if that is a way to meet their writing needs, excellent, and I'd like to do that in the future. Lyssa Rome I think that gets back to this idea that it's so flexible, right? You could adapt it in so many different ways. I think that that's really exciting, because it sort of further underscores the flexibility of this approach. And we were talking earlier, before we started recording, about using the same ARCS framework, or ARCS-W framework for material that clients have listened to, things like podcasts or TED Talks. So it seems like it's so adaptable, which is part of what I think makes it really exciting. Jessica Obermeyer I think that's a great idea. We actually did use listening and then summarization for one of the participants in the first arc study, because that met their profile. That's how they wanted to interact with the treatment, and it worked out really well for them, and it's a great way to incorporate people's different interests. Not everyone wants to read, so being able to listen is a great option. And in the treatment for everybody, they always select their writing modality so they can either hand write or type, depending on what's relevant for them. In the population of people that have aphasia now, and I know that this will change over time, people have really different comfort levels with technology and with typing. So if someone says, "No, I never typed. I want to handwrite," then we can do that. And if, if it's the other, we can type. So I think listening is just another way to make it meet someone's needs better. Lyssa Rome I was hoping that you could talk a little bit more about the similarities and differences between different types of discourse. So spoken and written discourse, typed and versus handwritten discourse. Tell us a little bit more about that. Jessica Obermeyer Yeah, of course. Well, I should, I guess, start off by saying, working on the ARCS-W treatment research, I recognized just how little information is out there on written discourse and the majority of discourse measures that we use in aphasiology are based on spoken discourse production. But there are differences in how we speak versus how we write. So in spoken language, we've already talked a little bit about this, it's temporal, it's just gone. So writing is tangible. You have a record of your writing, and that can be really beneficial for people with aphasia. But of course, there's there's other things that can make writing more challenging as well. With spoken language, of course, we have the suprasegmental components of what we're saying. So we have our tone and our facial expression and things that allow us to impart meaning without actually saying it, and we don't have that in writing. Although things are shifting with text messaging technologies, we can add emojis and memes that help us communicate information. But I think when we're thinking about traditional writing, it doesn't have those additional components, and therefore people have to be more explicit with their word choice and a little more clear in what they're trying to say. People are often more efficient in writing. They use fewer words than they would in speaking. So those are some of the differences. We can't automatically correct our written output because we see that our partner doesn't understand. Because in writing, there's this distance between when we're writing versus when we think someone's reading it. Even in more instant platforms like text messaging, we don't know exactly when someone's reading something or how their face looks when they read it, in the way we know with speaking. So those differences do impact how we complete the task. And of course, the context of writing changes it dramatically. So you write notes to yourself really differently than you write a research paper or a work email. And that's not so different from speaking, right? The context is still going to impact how we speak or write, very much. So in my work, I've looked at how writing and typing are the same or different. And this is a pretty new area. There's a couple papers out there on it now, and I think it's gaining traction, which is great, because most people write through typing in their daily life now. What I found is that at a group level, it's pretty similar. Writing and typing look pretty similar for people that have aphasia. But individually it can be very different. So an individual person with aphasia might have a strength or weakness in handwriting versus typing for lots of different possible reasons, like their experience, or hemiparesis, their desire to do one or the other. But it's not, the patterns aren't completely clear. I think clinicians are probably really used to hearing that every individual with aphasia has the potential to be different. So I think that keeps with written and typed language output, handwritten and typed. Some of my recent work has been related to looking at different writing modalities for people with aphasia. So are there differences in their handwritten versus typed discourse production. There's a couple papers out on this now, and hopefully there'll be even more as it gains traction. And I think it's getting more attention in the research literature because of how important writing is in our daily lives now. I mean, most activities of daily living are now completed through, you know, the virtual world, so banking, shopping, lots of messaging are completed through reading and writing now. So that's kind of why I became interested in also working with ARCS-W and having people handwrite versus type, depending on their interest and comfort level. It was always interesting to me why certain people picked one or the other, and kind of what I was seeing. There is some research out there that shows that handwriting is advantageous for learning. So the specificity of how we're moving our fingers to create letters is helpful for retention and learning items, but when we're thinking at the discourse level, when we're not using the same items necessarily, things could potentially be a little different. So I was interested in just exploring some of those differences and patterns that might emerge, and if there was anything I could figure out that might be driving a pattern. So if someone's better at typing than handwriting, is there a reason that they're better? So what I have found so far, and it's it's pretty preliminary, is that at the group level, handwriting and typing look very similar for people with aphasia, so oftentimes, there's not a big difference in the total words that they produce, and that's been confirmed by a larger study as well from Jaime Lee and colleagues. But then when we look at the individual level, that's when you can start to see differences. And I don't think any clinician would be surprised to hear that people with Aphasia are variable or different. So we know that that is common, but it's been pretty interesting and striking in my own work to see how at the group level, these differences just totally even out. But then when we look at individuals, you do see that, you know, someone is more proficient with typing, someone else is more proficient with handwriting. So in a study I did, I think from 2024, we had people fill out this historical information about their typing experience and exposure, we knew about if they had a hemiparesis or not, and so were they able to use both hands or one hand for handwriting or typing? And like I said, we did find these individual differences for some people, but there wasn't a really clear pattern in what was driving those differences? Was it that they hadn't worked with a keyboard a lot? Was it that they only had the use of one hand? And we just didn't have enough data potentially to discern any specific patterns? Lyssa Rome We've talked a little bit about different types of discourse, written, spoken for written, typed versus handwritten. But I wanted to kind of come back to how we measure and analyze discourse, and wanted to ask about a more recent paper and have you describe a little bit about your work on discourse measurement and training clinicians to measure discourse? Jessica Obermeyer That paper is a perceptual rating paper. We've talked a lot about discourse in this chat, and I think probably one of the first things I might have mentioned was how daunting discourse analysis can be. So researchers are aware of that, and always kind of thinking that discourse is so rich, it provides us so much information about someone's linguistic ability, but also their success with communication in a way that other levels of language don't necessarily tell us. So how can we benefit from that rich information in a way that clinicians can do. Because with discourse analysis, you know, in the clinical session, it might not take that long. You're having someone participate in 10 minutes of conversation—that is not a lot of time in your session. The time is all backlogged. The time is after the session is over, and you're trying to transcribe what they've said and then identify discourse measures that you're interested in. And another thing that makes discourse just complex and dynamic is that there's not one measure, you know, there's not a measure of word retrieval and discourse. There are lots of measures that can give you insight into word retrieval and discourse. So this project I did with my collaborator, Marion Lehman, who also works on discourse, and especially conversation. We wanted to see if it was possible to train people to rate conversation samples from people with aphasia on linguistic measures, so measures of language ability. So there are other perceptual rating scales, but a lot of them might be looking at speech acts like initiation or presence or absence of errors. And we were really interested in if these, if perceptual ratings, could map on to the things we're doing in our labs, so you know, correct information units or the degree of informativeness, utterances that have basic structure, coherence, you know, these measures that we are spending many hours, you know, coding line by line, or even word by word, for some. So she and I developed this training and introduced—so the paper that's published, we used research assistants in our research labs, and we exposed them to the linguistic measures that we were interested in. Had them watch some practice videos, and then told them how we had coded them. So what was the value based on our lab coding? And then we did five test samples, so there were four linguistic measures. The training lasted about three hours, and I did five test samples. And we got some really good feedback from the RAs who did the training and rating samples. We had some promising results for especially two of the measures that we used in their training, and now we're really interested in extending that work with clinicians. So the people that were in the study before had very limited experience listening to people that had aphasia. They hadn't worked with people that had aphasia, they hadn't done extensive clinical training. We're hopeful that if we can use their feedback to fine tune the training and rating procedures and recruit some clinicians to participate, that hopefully we could get even better results and hopefully provide a tool to clinicians where they can be thinking about linguistic components of conversation in a way that's more feasible to their schedule and their workload, because we recognize how much time it takes. And I think it's, it's just a barrier to entry, even, because if someone is feeling like, "I can't do this, I don't have time to do this," then it's hard to even learn about or get started. Lyssa Rome Yeah, I'm so happy to hear that you're that you're focused on the feasibility for clinicians who have productivity requirements, who don't necessarily have a lot of time at the end of the day to do that kind of really in depth analysis. I think it's exciting. Jessica Obermeyer Oh, for sure, and clinicians, I think, work a lot of extra hours, but they have a whole caseload, you know, so balancing everybody's needs and being able to to provide excellent care to everybody is, is always a challenge, and hopefully, hopefully we'll, we'll be able to continue this work. We're trying to get some funding for the project because we want to be able to pay SLPs who participate in the research. Lyssa Rome As we start to wrap up, I'm wondering what you would like clinicians who are listening to this podcast to take away from what we've talked about today, from your work. Jessica Obermeyer I think one takeaway would be for clinicians to think about incorporating handwriting and typing into their existing treatment practice. So I've talked a lot about ARCS-W. ARCS-W is not for everybody. It is a very specific treatment approach for people that have mild aphasia who want to work on discourse-level writing. But there are so many ways to have people engage with handwriting and typing that will serve them in their daily life. So we've talked a lot about how literacy is just such a big—it's a bigger part of our lives than it was 20 years ago. People can achieve a lot of independence and autonomy if they're able to interact with reading and writing and complete it successfully. So I would really encourage clinicians to think about how they can incorporate reading and writing into their existing treatment. A study I was involved with— Liz Madden surveyed SLPs on their practices assessing and treating reading and writing, and one of the take-homes from that project was that clinicians evaluate writing more than treating it. And especially handwriting, versus typing. But I think that given the way society is moving, asking people like, "What's important for you, handwriting or typing?" and let's make that our practice. Lyssa Rome I appreciate how person centered and flexible that advice is right. We're trying to meet people where they're at and recognizing that our treatment can be tailored to the person who's sitting in front of us. I'm curious to hear what is coming next for you. What are you excited about in your work? Jessica Obermeyer That's actually a great segue about how we can tailor treatment, because that is one of the projects that I'm working on now, how we can think about treatment in terms of what are the things that make it work, versus things that maybe aren't essential components of the treatment? With the last study I did with ARCS-W of the things that we were really trying to understand better was: Did it matter if people hand wrote or typed? Did they have the same kind of level of generalization to the other writing modality? And in that study, it doesn't seem that they did. And I think there's really specific reasons for that, because we're working at this discourse level without repeated items. And so you might not see the same impact of that handwriting learning boost, because we're not repeating things as often. That's one of my real interests is thinking about how we work on treatment, how we deliver treatment, how clinicians can deliver treatment. Because I am very guilty of this. Working on writing takes a long time. It takes a long time for people with aphasia to produce written discourse level text. So in the ARCS W studies, it's an hour-and-a-half treatment session where we only work on ARCS-W. But I know I recognize that that's like not most clinicians' daily life, and it doesn't mirror what therapy many people with aphasia receive. So thinking about treatment in a more component-based and mechanistic way that makes it easier for clinicians to adapt to their their practice is is one of the things I would like to flesh out in the future. And then continuing to work on this training and perceptual rating protocol. One of the things my colleagues and I would like to do is create a training that can be shared freely, where clinicians can easily get access to it, and then collect more robust data. I mean, only if we get good results, of course. If we don't, we will not be sharing it. But those are the big things I'm thinking about in the next couple of years, and then beyond that, even more. Lyssa Rome Well, I look forward to reading more of your work and to seeing what comes next as well. Dr. Jessica Obermeyer, thanks so much for talking with us. I really appreciate it. Jessica Obermeyer It's been a pleasure. Thank you. Lyssa Rome And thanks also to our listeners for the references and resources mentioned in today's show. Please see our show notes. They're available on our website, www.aphasiaaccess.org. There, you can also become a member of our organization, browse our growing library of materials and find out about the Aphasia Access Academy. If you have an idea for a future podcast episode, email us at info@aphasiaaccess.org. Thanks again for your ongoing support of Aphasia Access. For Aphasia Access Conversations, I'm Lyssa Rome. Resources Obermeyer, J. (2024). Using and modifying standardized restorative treatments in aphasia: Clinician perspectives. American Journal of Speech‑Language Pathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00349 Obermeyer, J., Leaman, M., & Oleson, J. (2025). Feasibility and preliminary data for a training protocol and perceptual rating scale of linguistic conversation measures in aphasia. American Journal of Speech‑Language Pathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_AJSLP-24-00420 Obermeyer, J. A., Rogalski, Y., & Edmonds, L. A. (2021). Attentive reading with constrained summarization-written, a multi-modality discourse-level treatment for mild aphasia. Aphasiology, 35(1), 100-125. Obermeyer, J. A., & Edmonds, L. A. (2018). Attentive reading with constrained summarization adapted to address written discourse in people with mild aphasia. American Journal of Speech‑Language Pathology, 27(1S), 392–405. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_AJSLP-16-0200 Obermeyer, J. A., Leaman, M. C., & Edmonds, L. A. (2020). Evaluating change in the conversation of a person with mild aphasia after Attentive Reading with Constrained Summarization–Written treatment. American Journal of Speech‑Language Pathology, 29(3), 1618–1628. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-19-00078 Obermeyer, J., Edmonds, L., & Morgan, J. (2024). Handwritten and typed discourse in people with aphasia: Reference data for sequential picture description and comparison of performance across modality. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 33(6S), 3170-3185  

The topic of this episode is, “Why should we care about Congress's power of the purse?”Well, we are just getting through the FY2026 budget process, which Congress was supposed to finish nearly half a year ago. And the next budget process has begun.During the second administration of Donald Trump, we have seen an escalation of the longstanding battle between the executive branch and the legislative branch over federal revenue-raising and federal spending. Mr. Trump famously unleashed the Department of Government Efficiency, and he has refused to spend money appropriated by Congress. In other cases, he has repurposed money appropriated for one purpose to another purpose. And this is to say nothing of some of the peculiar revenue-raising maneuvers he has made, such as seizing oil from Venezuela, selling it, and then tucking the money in an overseas bank account.Should we be bothered by any of these doings? Should we really care whether Congress or the president exerts more or less power over the federal purse?To discuss these questions, I have with me Shalanda Young, who has an extraordinary amount of expertise and experience in federal budgeting matters. Ms. Young presently is a Distinguished Scholar in Residence and Adjunct Professor of Law at New York University's law school.Previously, Ms. Young was the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget from 2021 to 2025. In that position, she also led the development of all four of President Joseph Biden's budgets and presented them before Congress each year. She was also a lead negotiator for the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 that averted a first-ever debt default and lifted the Nation's debt ceiling. Ms. Young came to the executive branch with a load of legislative branch experience. She worked for the House Appropriations Committee for nearly 15 years and served the Committee as the Staff Director.So who better to discuss Congress's power of the purse?Read the full transcript here.

Under what circumstances might climate change lead to negative security outcomes? Over the past fifteen years, a rapidly growing applied field and research community on climate security has emerged. While much progress has been made, we still don’t have a clear understanding of why climate change might lead to violent conflict or humanitarian emergencies in some places and not others. Busby develops a novel argument – based on the combination of state capacity, political exclusion, and international assistance – to explain why climate leads to especially bad security outcomes in some places but not others. This argument is then demonstrated through application to case studies from sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. This book will provide an informative resource for students and scholars of international relations and environmental studies, especially those working on security, conflict and climate change, on the emergent practice and study of this topic, and identifies where policy and research should be headed. [ dur: 38mins. ] Joshua Busby is a Professor of Public Affairs and a Distinguished Scholar at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law. He is the author of State and Nature the effects of climate change on security and many other publications. With protests rocking Iran, how much are these protests historically consistent with the long history of protests in Iran. We explore this history in light of the new round of protests How much more violent has the Iran state been against protesters? [ dur: 20mins. ] Ervand Abrahamian is Professor Emeritus at City University of New York. He is the author of A History of Modern Iran and Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria. This program is produced by Doug Becker, Ankine Aghassian, Maria Armoudian, Anna Lapin and Sudd Dongre. Climate Change, Human Rights, War / Weapons,  Refugees, Bangladesh, India, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Security 

The following conversation is definitely a wild ride*! It's not an argument often made, but I believe that one of the effects of our industrialised education systems is to create the illusion that the world is full of somewhat fixed and ordered things, that don't move or change much. Of course, we teach our children about orbiting planets, the water cycle or change in historical periods. But, for example, in episode 208, Vanessa Andreotti gave a great example of how we name objects in the world, such as trees, in order to teach about them. In doing so, we draw a boundary around a tree that separates it from all non-trees. This sounds kind of philosophical and abstract, but I think the effects of it are very real. Most young people then learn to read the world as a collection of more or less fixed objects, rather than as patterns of relations. My guest this week has been exploring the depths of these questions for a long time through the lens of movement. As you will hear, Professor Thomas Nail started this line of inquiry researching human migration, and went on to develop an entirely new discipline of the philosophy of movement by pulling at the threads of how far our collective obsession with order and stasis goes! And it definitely goes back at least a couple of thousand years!Thomas Nail is a Distinguished Scholar and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Denver and author of numerous books, including The Figure of the Migrant, Theory of the Border, Marx in Motion, Theory of the Image, Theory of the Object, Theory of the Earth, Lucretius I, II, III, Returning to Revolution, and Being and Motion.Some useful links:https://liberalarts.du.edu/about/people/thomas-andrew-nailhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Nail The Philosophy of Movement website: https://philosophy-of-movement.com/'The Birth of Chaos Before Physis': https://youtu.be/c3S4w7C2dGg?si=H-1RlmaK7p3x7C4a The Philosophy of Movement: https://www.youtube.com/live/YQUtX64uqNc?si=EeP3mP4Z-6_4-DK1What is New Materialism paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337351875_WHAT_IS_NEW_MATERIALISM'The Random Walk of the Brain' (article in Salon): https://www.salon.com/2021/08/28/walking-and-spontaneous-fluctuations-brain/ *In the conversation, Thomas uses the word 'cosmogony' which in hindsight I wished I had asked him to define. Simply put it is a theory about how the cosmos or universe originated.

In Dreams of Fields: Memory Traces of Iowa's Past, Roy R. Behrens, a former Professor and Distinguished Scholar at the University of Northern Iowa, takes readers deep into the Midwest as he delves into the people associated with Iowa's rich history. Filled with twenty-five personal essays, Behrens' book features prominent Iowans, as well as those Read More

Shawn Bushway has a PhD in economics and public policy from the Heinz College at Carnegie Mellon University and has spent his career in criminology, where he has been recognized as a Distinguished Scholar for the Division of Corrections and Sentencing and a Fellow of the American Society of Criminology. He has published two books and over 100 peer-reviewed articles in journals.Mentioned on the ShowLearn more about the Bushway Opportunity Score: https://www.bushwayopportunityscore.com/Connect with Shawn on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shawn-d-bushway-91a1494aTimestamps(00:00:00) — Shawn Bushway joins O'Brien McMahon on People Business.(00:03:12) — What's the origin story for how you got into criminology?(00:05:41) — As a culture in the US, how have our beliefs around crime and criminals changed over time?(00:08:49) — Do foreign countries have other sentiments about criminals? (00:12:49) — What are the misconceptions and what is the reality around recidivism?(00:26:47) — Which factors should you look for in recidivism?(00:35:38) — What about white collar crime? Is there a higher risk to hiring someone to a white collar job who has committed a white collar crime?(00:43:30) — The Bushway Opportunity Score: helping employers make solid decisions in hiring(00:45:31) — What factors can be considered for offenders in the hiring process? (00:49:55) — Once these people get hired, are they materially the same as every other employee, or are there differences—maybe positive or negative?(00:56:12) — Closing thoughts and encouragements

On November 11, BigTentUSA hosted an urgent and inspiring virtual conversation with Joyce Vance — former U.S. Attorney, MSNBC legal analyst, and author of the new book Giving Up Is Unforgivable — moderated by Vanita Gupta, NYU Law Scholar and Director of the Center for Law and Public Trust at NYU Law School.Framed around Joyce's powerful new book, the discussion explored the threats facing American democracy — including the Administration's ongoing efforts to limit voting rights, the erosion of the rule of law, and the dangers posed by attempts to expand executive power. Joyce offered expert legal analysis on these challenges and what they mean for the future of the country.Throughout the conversation, Joyce shared riveting stories of hope and resilience from her decades in public service, inspiring us all to stay engaged, defend our democratic values, and never give up.Joyce Vance's new book “Giving Up is Unforgivable" is available now: https://www.joycevance.com/ Check out Joyce Vance's Substack “Civil Discourse”: https://joycevance.substack.com/ Tune into Joyce Vance's Podcasts “#SistersInLaw”: https://www.politicon.com/podcast-title/sisters-in-law/  and “Insider”: https://cafe.com/cafe-insider-podcast/ ABOUT THE SPEAKERSJoyce White Vance is a Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Alabama, a legal analyst for NBC and MSNBC, and the author of the Civil Discourse newsletter. She co-hosts the podcasts #SistersInLaw and Insider with Preet Bharara. A former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama under President Obama. Joyce lives in Alabama with her husband, retired Judge Robert Vance Jr., their four kids, a collection of pets—and she knits, a lot.Vanita Gupta is a Distinguished Scholar in Residence and Director of the Center for Law and Public Trust at NYU Law. She served as the 19th Associate Attorney General of the United States (2021–2024), leading key Justice Department divisions and initiatives on police reform, reproductive rights, and environmental justice. Previously, she was President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and led the DOJ Civil Rights Division under President Obama. Earlier, at the ACLU and NAACP Legal Defense Fund, she helped overturn wrongful convictions in Tulia, Texas. She is a magna cum laude graduate of Yale College and NYU Law. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit bigtentnews.substack.com

Congress has the power of the purse, not the president. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to decide how much the federal government spends and for what purposes. While presidents and Congress have always engaged in a push-and-pull over funding, President Trump has taken unprecedented steps to ignore this constitutional framework and impose his own spending priorities. Experts break down these efforts, the lawsuits challenging them, and the impact of these actions on Americans' daily lives. Speakers:Shalanda Young, Former Director, White House Office of Management and Budget; Distinguished Scholar in Residence, NYU School of Law; Doris Duke Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Georgetown McCourt School of Public PolicyLauren Miller Karalunas, Counsel, Brennan Center Democracy ProgramHost, Michael Waldman, President and CEO, Brennan CenterIf you enjoy this program, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. If you're listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a five-star rating. Recorded on October 28, 2025.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

Do you know what kakistocracy means? You'll find out in this episode with guest Bill Black. Because, yeah, this is an educational podcast. A lot of us learned the term ‘elite control fraud' from Bill in past episodes and you'll hear more about it here. Bill is a great storyteller. His experience as a regulator trying to enforce laws against the great crooks of the world gives him a lot of material. If you haven't already heard our first episode with him, check it out: “Exposed: A Serial Whistleblowers Story” He's the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One – one of our favorite book titles. At the start of this week's interview, Bill explains: “...The absolute paramount form of control fraud is President of the United States of America. And they set about optimizing it as soon as they got in power. Remember all those executive orders and things that Trump would sign? “... Among their very first acts was to say, we will no longer enforce the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Now this is an act that says, no, it's not okay to bribe public officials in other countries. It's actually a crime. And Trump was saying way back in time, long before he even was talking about the presidency, how we shouldn't have a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. That it was stupid. Of course you should be able to bribe people. It's good for business. “And if you think that's bad, the New York Bar Association took the same position. Because they were the commercial lawyers for all the firms that were bribing folks all over the world.” Bill describes a shift to the final stage of elite control fraud. Corrupt actors no longer bother hiding their crimes. They flaunt them. This serves as "free advertising" to attract more bribes and creates a price war among those seeking favors, while simultaneously intimidating opponents. Bill also talks to Steve about further manipulation of financial regulations and the intersections of elite control fraud within the cryptocurrency market. He goes through the real reasons crypto is useful to the ruling class and how these dynamics affect everyday people. William K. Black is Distinguished Scholar in Residence for Financial Regulation, University of Minnesota School of Law. He is a white-collar criminologist, a former financial regulator, former banker, and serial whistleblower. He is a co-founder of Bank Whistleblowers United (BWU). @WilliamKBlack on X

From September 20, 2024: Bob Bauer, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at New York University School of Law, and Liza Goitein, Senior Director of Liberty & National Security at the Brennan Center, join Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to review the emergency powers afforded to the president under the National Emergency Act, International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the Insurrection Act. The trio also inspect ongoing bipartisan efforts to reform emergency powers.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's been a long (and eventful) summer. But the leaves are just beginning to turn and there's a cool breeze in the air, which means it's time for a new season of Digging a Hole! We kick off this season with a wide-ranging discussion on the limits of executive power, the role of courts in checking the executive branch, and what progressives should do after Trump 2.0. To help guide us through these thorny issues, we're thrilled to welcome to the pod Bob Bauer, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at NYU School of Law.In 2020, at the end of Trump 1.0, Bauer, with Jack Goldsmith, authored After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency. Bauer and Goldsmith's title did not prove prescient, however, and the second Trump administration presents a bevy of new challenges to our constitutional system. We begin the episode by discussing the expansion of executive authority and the extent to which the Supreme Court is responsible for enabling the second Trump administration. Sam and David query when and how we can know whether the Court is rolling over for the administration. Sam then continues prosecuting the case against courts generally, and Bauer parries by explaining why it remains necessary for progressives to engage with the courts. David closes the pod by teasing out Bauer's views on whether progressives should change their approach to election law. We hope you enjoy!This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review.Referenced ReadingsAfter Trump by Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith“Progressives and the Supreme Court” by Bob Bauer“Election Law for the New Electorate” by Nicholas StephanopoulosNYU Law Democracy ProjectWhat are Sam & David reading?Sam is reading Sarah Bilston's The Lost Orchid.David is reading Vladimir Kogan's really amazing new book No Adult Left Behind: How Politics Hijacks Education and Hurts Kids

In this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Eos Foundation's Andrea Silbert interview Dr. Gil Troy, senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, Distinguished Scholar in North American History at McGill University, and editor of Theodor Herzl: The Collected Zionist Writings and Addresses of Israel's Founder. He offers […]

In this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Eos Foundation's Andrea Silbert interview Dr. Gil Troy, senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, Distinguished Scholar in North American History at McGill University, and editor of Theodor Herzl: The Collected Zionist Writings and Addresses of Israel's Founder. He offers an overview of Herzl's upbringing in 19th-century Vienna, the antisemitic events that shaped his worldview, and how the infamous Dreyfus Affair spurred his determination to establish a Jewish State. Dr. Troy highlights Herzl's most influential works, including The Jewish State and the Old New Land, and explained how they bolstered support for the Zionist movement. He also reflects on Herzl's role in creating the First Zionist Congress and his impact as the “spiritual father of the Jewish State,” addressing how his influence continues to confront rising global antisemitism today. Dr. Troy concludes the interview with a reading from Theodor Herzl: The Collected Zionist Writings and Addresses of Israel's Founder.

How did the addition of lifeboats after the Titanic shipwreck contribute to another tragedy in Chicago harbor three years later? How efficient are wild animals as investors, and how do dog breeds become national symbols? Why have scientific breakthroughs so often originated in the study of shadows? How did the file card prepare scholarship and commerce for the rise of electronic data processing, and why did the visual metaphor of the tab survive into today's graphic interfaces? Why have Amish artisans played an important role in manufacturing advanced technology? Why was United Shoe Machinery the Microsoft of the 1890s? Surprises like these, Edward Tenner believes, can help us deal with the technological issues that confront us now. Since the 1980s, Edward Tenner has contributed essays on technology, design, and culture to leading magazines, newspapers, and professional journals, and has been interviewed on subjects ranging from medical ethics to typography. Why the Hindenburg Had a Smoking Lounge: Essays in Unintended Consequences (American Philosophical Society Press, 2025)--named for one of the paradoxes that can result from the inherent contradictions between consumer safety and product marketing--brings many of Tenner's essays together into one volume for the first time, accompanied by new introductions by the author on the theme of each work. As an independent historian and public speaker, Tenner has spent his career deploying concepts from economics, engineering, psychology, science, and sociology, to explore both the negative and positive surprises of human ingenuity. Edward Tenner is an independent writer and Distinguished Scholar in the Smithsonian's Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation. He was a visiting scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton and teaches the course Understanding Disasters at Princeton University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

How did the addition of lifeboats after the Titanic shipwreck contribute to another tragedy in Chicago harbor three years later? How efficient are wild animals as investors, and how do dog breeds become national symbols? Why have scientific breakthroughs so often originated in the study of shadows? How did the file card prepare scholarship and commerce for the rise of electronic data processing, and why did the visual metaphor of the tab survive into today's graphic interfaces? Why have Amish artisans played an important role in manufacturing advanced technology? Why was United Shoe Machinery the Microsoft of the 1890s? Surprises like these, Edward Tenner believes, can help us deal with the technological issues that confront us now. Since the 1980s, Edward Tenner has contributed essays on technology, design, and culture to leading magazines, newspapers, and professional journals, and has been interviewed on subjects ranging from medical ethics to typography. Why the Hindenburg Had a Smoking Lounge: Essays in Unintended Consequences (American Philosophical Society Press, 2025)--named for one of the paradoxes that can result from the inherent contradictions between consumer safety and product marketing--brings many of Tenner's essays together into one volume for the first time, accompanied by new introductions by the author on the theme of each work. As an independent historian and public speaker, Tenner has spent his career deploying concepts from economics, engineering, psychology, science, and sociology, to explore both the negative and positive surprises of human ingenuity. Edward Tenner is an independent writer and Distinguished Scholar in the Smithsonian's Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation. He was a visiting scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton and teaches the course Understanding Disasters at Princeton University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

How did the addition of lifeboats after the Titanic shipwreck contribute to another tragedy in Chicago harbor three years later? How efficient are wild animals as investors, and how do dog breeds become national symbols? Why have scientific breakthroughs so often originated in the study of shadows? How did the file card prepare scholarship and commerce for the rise of electronic data processing, and why did the visual metaphor of the tab survive into today's graphic interfaces? Why have Amish artisans played an important role in manufacturing advanced technology? Why was United Shoe Machinery the Microsoft of the 1890s? Surprises like these, Edward Tenner believes, can help us deal with the technological issues that confront us now. Since the 1980s, Edward Tenner has contributed essays on technology, design, and culture to leading magazines, newspapers, and professional journals, and has been interviewed on subjects ranging from medical ethics to typography. Why the Hindenburg Had a Smoking Lounge: Essays in Unintended Consequences (American Philosophical Society Press, 2025)--named for one of the paradoxes that can result from the inherent contradictions between consumer safety and product marketing--brings many of Tenner's essays together into one volume for the first time, accompanied by new introductions by the author on the theme of each work. As an independent historian and public speaker, Tenner has spent his career deploying concepts from economics, engineering, psychology, science, and sociology, to explore both the negative and positive surprises of human ingenuity. Edward Tenner is an independent writer and Distinguished Scholar in the Smithsonian's Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation. He was a visiting scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton and teaches the course Understanding Disasters at Princeton University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How did the addition of lifeboats after the Titanic shipwreck contribute to another tragedy in Chicago harbor three years later? How efficient are wild animals as investors, and how do dog breeds become national symbols? Why have scientific breakthroughs so often originated in the study of shadows? How did the file card prepare scholarship and commerce for the rise of electronic data processing, and why did the visual metaphor of the tab survive into today's graphic interfaces? Why have Amish artisans played an important role in manufacturing advanced technology? Why was United Shoe Machinery the Microsoft of the 1890s? Surprises like these, Edward Tenner believes, can help us deal with the technological issues that confront us now. Since the 1980s, Edward Tenner has contributed essays on technology, design, and culture to leading magazines, newspapers, and professional journals, and has been interviewed on subjects ranging from medical ethics to typography. Why the Hindenburg Had a Smoking Lounge: Essays in Unintended Consequences (American Philosophical Society Press, 2025)--named for one of the paradoxes that can result from the inherent contradictions between consumer safety and product marketing--brings many of Tenner's essays together into one volume for the first time, accompanied by new introductions by the author on the theme of each work. As an independent historian and public speaker, Tenner has spent his career deploying concepts from economics, engineering, psychology, science, and sociology, to explore both the negative and positive surprises of human ingenuity. Edward Tenner is an independent writer and Distinguished Scholar in the Smithsonian's Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation. He was a visiting scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton and teaches the course Understanding Disasters at Princeton University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/technology

How did the addition of lifeboats after the Titanic shipwreck contribute to another tragedy in Chicago harbor three years later? How efficient are wild animals as investors, and how do dog breeds become national symbols? Why have scientific breakthroughs so often originated in the study of shadows? How did the file card prepare scholarship and commerce for the rise of electronic data processing, and why did the visual metaphor of the tab survive into today's graphic interfaces? Why have Amish artisans played an important role in manufacturing advanced technology? Why was United Shoe Machinery the Microsoft of the 1890s? Surprises like these, Edward Tenner believes, can help us deal with the technological issues that confront us now. Since the 1980s, Edward Tenner has contributed essays on technology, design, and culture to leading magazines, newspapers, and professional journals, and has been interviewed on subjects ranging from medical ethics to typography. Why the Hindenburg Had a Smoking Lounge: Essays in Unintended Consequences (American Philosophical Society Press, 2025)--named for one of the paradoxes that can result from the inherent contradictions between consumer safety and product marketing--brings many of Tenner's essays together into one volume for the first time, accompanied by new introductions by the author on the theme of each work. As an independent historian and public speaker, Tenner has spent his career deploying concepts from economics, engineering, psychology, science, and sociology, to explore both the negative and positive surprises of human ingenuity. Edward Tenner is an independent writer and Distinguished Scholar in the Smithsonian's Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation. He was a visiting scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton and teaches the course Understanding Disasters at Princeton University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

How did the addition of lifeboats after the Titanic shipwreck contribute to another tragedy in Chicago harbor three years later? How efficient are wild animals as investors, and how do dog breeds become national symbols? Why have scientific breakthroughs so often originated in the study of shadows? How did the file card prepare scholarship and commerce for the rise of electronic data processing, and why did the visual metaphor of the tab survive into today's graphic interfaces? Why have Amish artisans played an important role in manufacturing advanced technology? Why was United Shoe Machinery the Microsoft of the 1890s? Surprises like these, Edward Tenner believes, can help us deal with the technological issues that confront us now. Since the 1980s, Edward Tenner has contributed essays on technology, design, and culture to leading magazines, newspapers, and professional journals, and has been interviewed on subjects ranging from medical ethics to typography. Why the Hindenburg Had a Smoking Lounge: Essays in Unintended Consequences (American Philosophical Society Press, 2025)--named for one of the paradoxes that can result from the inherent contradictions between consumer safety and product marketing--brings many of Tenner's essays together into one volume for the first time, accompanied by new introductions by the author on the theme of each work. As an independent historian and public speaker, Tenner has spent his career deploying concepts from economics, engineering, psychology, science, and sociology, to explore both the negative and positive surprises of human ingenuity. Edward Tenner is an independent writer and Distinguished Scholar in the Smithsonian's Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation. He was a visiting scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton and teaches the course Understanding Disasters at Princeton University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

From April 12, 2024: The Insurrection Act is a provision that allows the president to deploy the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement. It's been invoked dozens of times by presidents to respond to crises in the over 230 years that it's been around, but it hasn't been reformed in centuries. In recent years, the Insurrection Act has come back into public focus because of its implication in a number of domestic crises, prompting a renewed conversation about whether it's finally time to curb the sweeping powers afforded to the executive in this unique federal law.On April 8, the American Law Institute released a set of principles for Insurrection Act reform, prepared by a group of 10 individuals with backgrounds in constitutional law, national security law, and military law. The co-chairs of this group were Jack Goldsmith, Lawfare Co-Founder and Harvard Law School Professor, and Bob Bauer, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at New York University School of Law. They joined Lawfare Associate Editor Hyemin Han to talk about the history of the Insurrection Act, to parse out the recommendations the American Law Institute is making for reform, and to make the case for reforming the act in 2024.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The Poultry Nutrition Blackbelt Podcast, Dr. Lisa Bielke from North Carolina State University talks about how probiotics, prebiotics, and phytogenics are changing the way we think about poultry health. She shares how tools like omics and machine learning are helping us better understand the gut microbiome, vertical transmission, and how birds recover from disease. Get a closer look at where poultry health is headed. Listen now on all major platforms!"I've seen big changes in where things are going—prebiotics, synbiotics, phytobiotics—we're getting better at using them and understanding how they work."Meet the guest: Dr. Lisa Bielke holds a Ph.D. and M.S. in Poultry Science from the University of Arkansas and a B.S. from Texas A&M University. She currently serves as the Distinguished Scholar and Prestage Endowed Chair of Turkey Health Research at North Carolina State University. Her work centers on microbiology, omics technologies, and improving gut health in poultry.Liked this one? Don't stop now — Here's what we think you'll love!Dr. Ryan Arsenault: Gut Health in Poultry | Ep. 46Dr. JT Pope: Innovative Feed Systems | Ep. 50Dr. Wilmer Pacheco: Multi-Carbohydrase Enzyme for Poultry | Ep. 82What you'll learn:(00:00) Highlight(01:22) Introduction(02:32) Evolving nutritional strategies(04:24) Omics in poultry health(05:43) Manipulating microbiomes(06:36) Targeted outcomes(11:18) Big picture outlook(14:28) Closing thoughtsThe Poultry Nutrition Blackbelt Podcast is trusted and supported by innovative companies like:* Kerry* Kemin- Poultry Science Association- Anitox- BASF

Joseph Scott Morgan, Distinguished Scholar of Applied Forensics at Jacksonville State University and host of the hit podcast, Body Bags, joins us to discuss the autopsies and autopsy photos in this case. What does he see, what can we know, and what does that tell us about what happened that night in 1993?Check out our new True Crime Substack the True Crime TimesCheck out our other show The Prosecutors: Legal Briefs for discussion on cases, controversial topics, or conversations with content creators.Get Prosecutors Podcast MerchJoin the Gallery on FacebookFollow us on TwitterFollow us on InstagramCheck out our website for case resources:Hang out with us on TikTokSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In these first months of his second term, President Trump has fired or attempted to fire thousands upon thousands of federal workers.  Notable among those affected by this unprecedented flexing of executive authority are leaders of independent agencies.  Peter Shane joins Lindsay Langholz to discuss two recent cases that have significant implications on our system of checks and balances and just how far the president is allowed to go when it comes to control over independent agencies.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Lindsay Langholz, Senior Director of Policy and Program, ACSGuest: Peter Shane, Distinguished Scholar in Residence and Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law Emeritus at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.Link:  Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions, Just SecurityLink:  LawfareLink: Does Evidence Matter? Originalism and the Separation of Powers, by Cass SunsteinLink: The Supreme Court's Fed Carveout: An Initial Assessment, by Lev MenandVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Bluesky | LinkedIn | YouTube -----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2025.

What is a constitutional crisis? For some, a constitutional crisis is when the president defies the Supreme Court, for others it is when a president simply defies a federal judge's order. Under the reign of President Trump and his administration, the country has dealt with a number of incidents where judicial orders have been disregarded. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Rümeysa Öztürk, Mahmoud Khalil are three individuals who have taken center stage in the battle between the courts and the Trump administration, and the quest for due process.   In this episode, Craig is joined by professor Kent Greenfield, the Dean's Distinguished Scholar at Boston College Law School. Craig & Kent discuss whether the country is currently in a constitutional crisis, the Trump administration's defiance of a Supreme Court order involving the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States,  the power of  judicial vs. executive branches, and the consequences for defying the rule of law. Mentioned in this Episode: Bipartisan Letter Coordinated by Kent Greenfield, Professor and Dean's Distinguished Scholar at Boston College Law School, and the American Constitution Society

What is a constitutional crisis? For some, a constitutional crisis is when the president defies the Supreme Court, for others it is when a president simply defies a federal judge's order. Under the reign of President Trump and his administration, the country has dealt with a number of incidents where judicial orders have been disregarded. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Rümeysa Öztürk, Mahmoud Khalil are three individuals who have taken center stage in the battle between the courts and the Trump administration, and the quest for due process.   In this episode, Craig is joined by professor Kent Greenfield, the Dean's Distinguished Scholar at Boston College Law School. Craig & Kent discuss whether the country is currently in a constitutional crisis, the Trump administration's defiance of a Supreme Court order involving the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States,  the power of  judicial vs. executive branches, and the consequences for defying the rule of law. Mentioned in this Episode: Bipartisan Letter Coordinated by Kent Greenfield, Professor and Dean's Distinguished Scholar at Boston College Law School, and the American Constitution Society Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Presidents have long pursued policy prerogatives through the Department of Justice, but traditionally, there's been a clear division between those and the Justice Department's enforcement decisions. On March 5, 2025, the NYU Law Forum and the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law co-hosted an all-star panel of experts who have served in senior positions at the White House and in the Department of Justice to assess the degree to which the division between the President and the Justice Department has now changed. Among the topics they discussed are: What is the origin of and reason for the Justice Department's measure of independence? How has this independence worked given the Justice Department's mix of political and career employees, and how is the current administration observing those lines?  The expert panel consisted of Vanita Gupta, a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at NYU School of Law and the former Associate Attorney General of the United States; Lisa Monaco, a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at the Reiss Center on Law and Security and the former Deputy Attorney General of the United States; and Breon Peace, the former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.  Trevor Morrison, a former Associate White House Counsel, the Dean Emeritus, Eric M. and Laurie B. Roth Professor of Law, and a Faculty Co-Director of the Reiss Center on Law and Security, moderated the discussion.  Show Notes: Vanita GuptaLisa MonacoTrevor Morrison (Bluesky)Breon PeaceJust Security's coverage of the Department of JusticeJust Security's coverage of the Trump administration's executive actions Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Dr. Henry Nau who serves as Distinguished Scholar at the Ronald Reagan Institute. They discuss the legacy of President Ronald Reagan, exploring his economic policies, leadership style, and the significance of his ideas in shaping contemporary politics. Dr. Nau emphasizes the importance of understanding Reagan's record and the impact of his beliefs on his presidency, particularly in the context of the Cold War and his approach to negotiation.

More than 950 law scholars from around the country have signed on to a bipartisan letter decrying President Trump's slew of illegal executive orders and actions. Christopher Wright Durocher talks with principal author and coordinator of the letter Kent Greenfield about what prompted these scholars to speak out and where this crisis may lead.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Christopher Wright Durocher, Vice President of Policy and ProgramGuest: Kent Greenfield, Professor and Dean's Distinguished Scholar, Boston College Law School Link: More than 950 Law Scholars Sound Alarm on Constitutional Crisis Link: “We Believe We Are in a Constitutional Crisis”: Law Professors and Law Teachers Stand Against Administration's Illegal and Unconstitutional Actions  Link: Why Shouldn't the President Be Able to Fire Who He Wants in the Executive Branch?, by Shirin AliVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law PodcastEmail the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.orgFollow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube-----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2024.

Guest: Peter M. Shane is the Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law Emeritus at Ohio State University and a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at the New York University School of Law. He is the author of several books including, Democracy's Chief Executive: Interpreting the Constitution and Defining the Future of the Presidency and the host of “Democracy's Chief Executive: The Podcast.”  Peter Shane: @petermshane. The post The Expansion of the Presidential Power appeared first on KPFA.

“Together, we shall write an American story of hope, not fear” Joe Biden proclaimed as he took his oath of office in January 2021. His supporters argue that what the President was able to accomplish in four years is nothing short of remarkable. They point to his success at passing the largest infrastructure program since the 1950’s, expanding health care, enacting gun control legislation, and expanding NATO as incredible accomplishments that have cemented his legacy as a transformative president along the likes of FDR and Lyndon Johnson. To his detractors, Joe Biden will be remembered as an ineffective leader who presided over an era of hyperinflation, global instability, and mistrust in institutions. The effects of excessive federal spending, a disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, and an unprotected southern border will be felt for generations. And capping off his disastrous tenure with an unconditional pardon for his son severed the last threads of trust in government and added fuel to the growing fire of populist resentment. Arguing in favour of the resolution is Timothy Noah, staff writer at The New Republic Arguing against the resolution is Gil Troy, presidential historian and Distinguished Scholar of North American History at McGill University You can vote on who you think won this debate. Go to our website www.munkdebates.com to become a free member and cast your vote. The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 15+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ Senior Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Editor: Kieran Lynch

  Dr. Janet Patterson: Welcome to this Aphasia Access Aphasia Conversations Podcast, a series of conversations about the LPAA model and aphasia programs that follow this model. My name is Janet Patterson, and I am a research speech-language pathologist at the VA Northern California Healthcare System in Martinez, California. Today, I am delighted to be speaking with Dr. Elizabeth Madden, an Assistant Professor at Florida State University in the School of Communication Sciences and Disorders and an affiliate of the Institute for Successful Longevity. Liz also leads the FSU Aphasia Research Laboratory. Liz's research, teaching and clinical interests focus on rehabilitation of aphasia, and specifically on understanding the relationship between spoken and written language abilities in individuals with aphasia and developing behavioral treatments to address reading and writing disorders post stroke. Her work also addresses the impact of aphasia on the friendships and social well-being of people with aphasia and their care partners. These Show Notes accompany the conversation with Liz but are not a verbatim transcript.   In today's episode you will hear about: the power of friendship and what people with aphasia and care partners think about how aphasia can affect the ability to create and sustain friendships, the definition of literacy and its behavioral components, and behavioral treatments for reading comprehension deficit in aphasia.   In 2024, Liz was named a Distinguished Scholar USA by the Tavistock Trust for Aphasia UK. The Tavistock Trust aims to help improve the quality of life for those with aphasia, their families and care partners by addressing research capacity related to quality-of-life issues in aphasia. Congratulations on receiving this honor, Liz. Aphasia Access collaborates with the Tavistock Trust for Aphasia in selecting the awardees and is pleased to have the opportunity to discuss their work and the career influence of the Tavistock Award.   Welcome Liz, to Aphasia Access Conversations.   Dr. Liz Madden: Thank you, Janet. I'm really happy to be here today. I also say thank you to Aphasia Access and to the Tavistock Trust for Aphasia. I'm very grateful for this award and excited to have this conversation.   Janet: I'm excited to be talking to you, my friend and research partner in several endeavors that we've been working on over the last few years.   Liz, as we've said, you were named a Tavistock Trust Distinguished Scholar USA for this year, and you join a talented and dedicated group of individuals. How has receiving the Tavistock Award influenced your clinical and research efforts in aphasia,   Liz: I first wanted to extend that thank you to the Tavistock Trust for Aphasia, and specifically Henrietta, the Duchess of Bedford and the honorable Nicole Campbell, and just a very gracious, sincere thank you for all the time and effort and support they give to aphasia researchers. I would say, I'm just delighted and very humbled to be recognized this year. I would say further that this award motivates my work that is focused on trying to really make an impact on the lives and quality of life and successful living for people who have aphasia and continuing my work. My beginning work was really more impairment focused, which some of that we will talk about, and I really value that. But having this award, and the more I stay in the field, it is extending that and making sure that everything I'm doing always is directly related to helping the lives of people with aphasia.   Janet: That leads right into the question I'd like to begin with Liz, which is about your recent work investigating the role of friendship for persons with aphasia. I believe in the power of friendship and community during joyful times and also during the sad times in one's life. In Aphasia. Access podcast episode number 119, Finding the person in front of aphasia, I talked with your friend and colleague, Dr Lauren Bislick, with whom I believe you collaborate to investigate friendship and aphasia. How did you become interested in this aspect of aphasia, and what can you tell us about your work in this area and your collaboration with Lauren?   Liz: Lauren and I did our Ph.D.'s together. We both were mentored by Diane Kendall at the University of Washington, so Lauren and I are Ph.D. sisters. Also, we were both at Project Bridge, led by Dr. Jackie Hinkley in 2018. That's really where my interest in friendship began. That conference brought together researchers, speech-language pathologists, people with aphasia, and their friends and family. I was the researcher at a table, and we ended up being Team Friendship. Lauren was also at this meeting, but she was at Team Yoga; Lauren does a lot of work with friendship, but also with yoga. My other colleague who does a lot of friendship work with me is Dr. Michelle Therrien here at FSU. She primarily works with children who use AAC, but her main research is friendship. She and I had already had some conversations about the importance of friendship, particularly for people who have communication disorders. The idea was we leave the conference and to take action and carry out some of the goals that were generated from that discussion. So that's when I reached back out to Lauren, because she was at that conference. Then I also reached out to my friend, Michelle Therrien, and other individuals who became part of our Team Friendship, Dr. Sarah Wallace, who's also one of our good friends and collaborators, and Rachel Gough Albritton who is one of Jackie Hinkley's former doc students and here at FSU as well. and the office of research. That is the background of some conversations before Project Bridge, but really for me, coming back and actually starting studies addressing different aspects of friendship, which I know we'll talk more about, was really brought about by the Project Bridge conference.   Janet: That is quite a story, and I can see you sitting around the table and developing Team Friendship - good for you.   We all know, Liz, that one of the unfortunate consequences of aphasia can be the loss of or the diminishing of friendships, or the disruption of the communication skills important to developing and sustaining friendship and community. What have you learned from people with aphasia about their successes and challenges in sustaining and creating new friendships.   Liz: Yes, good question. Well, at that conference that I mentioned, there were five or six people with aphasia, and initially our table was labeled something like, What happens in the long run? and we started having conversations. It was very clear after our initial conversation that the group centered on relationships and friendship, so we shifted to being friendship only. I will say, just at that table, it became very clear to me, that's what rose to the top when the group was thinking about the bigger picture of living life.   In a research project we've done there was a small sample of 15 people with aphasia, and we talked to them over time. I think the timing of a conversation is really something important to keep in mind when we're talking to people with aphasia about any topic, of course, but particularly friendship. From other studies we've noticed that responses are really different. If we're talking during the early days, maybe the acute days, versus the chronic days, we'd get really different responses. Just a quick summary, again, this was 15 people and a unique set. Most people in our study were a part of aphasia groups, and, of course, really motivated to do research. But I will say, when we looked at their responses, when asked to think back to the early days, all different aspects of friendship, how supported they felt, or how they were able to communicate, and we compared it to their responses in the now. Overall, the pattern was less satisfaction, feeling less supported or less able to engage in those earlier days, but more of a recovery pattern over time, but again, not for everybody. There were still a few people in our group that were reporting not having many friends. Our paper had a different light, a positive light about friendships. Some of the other papers out there have a more negative tone. It's a very important area we need to address. I was happy to see this group reporting, now that they had been living with aphasia for several years, their pattern of more negative responses early, and a recovering pattern now. They reported making friends with other people who have aphasia, and finding at this point, who are those good friends.   There's other great work being done by other colleagues, Brent Archer, Jamie Azios and Katie Strong, who are studying the same topic. They had a great paper that describes who stuck around, they were examining the next steps of what it takes to support the positive recovery that we know does happen for some people.   Janet: I like the positive perspective you are taking. Given that one has had a stroke, and given that the this is the situation in life, what is the positive? What can you do? Who are your friends? Look at positive ideas rather than publishing research on all the negative aspects. Kudos to you for doing that.   Liz: Thanks, all of it's important, right? We have to know that. I think we had a special group. I think we had a particularly positive outcome, and it was good to know that friendships don't disappear for everyone. But I think there's something that those people had done and that their friends had done, that we're still trying to learn more about.   Janet: Thank you for that work. Liz. It makes me think about the aphasia journey in that it involves not just the person with aphasia, but also their care partners and all the people around them. In your investigations of friendship, what do the care partners of persons with aphasia tell you about their successes and challenges in sustaining and developing friendships? These friendships could be individual friendships or partner friendships or group friendships through social, religious or professional activities or even community groups.   Liz: Thank you for this question. I think it's sometimes a forgotten group that we overlook, the care partners, and the critical role they play in the recovery of people with aphasia. I always try to have us remember we want the care partners to do well on their own as people, and so we've done a couple projects. We've just finished data collection on a much larger study of 80 aphasia care partners, and I'm just getting into those data. We did a Qualtrics survey and also did experience sampling, where we used a phone app, and four times a day for two weeks, participants got these little pings, and they had to tell us, Where are you? What are you doing? Who are you with? How are you feeling? When was the last time you interacted with a friend? Was it a text? I don't have the amazing outcomes for you yet. This project was a much bigger follow-up to a project a few years ago with 35 care partners. We, of course, wanted to interview them but then COVID was happening, so we settled for a really nice Qualtrics survey.   I will say that these individuals were surprised when we were reaching out to them. They kept trying to schedule their loved one with aphasia, and we said, “No, we want to talk to you about your friendships.” And they were surprised, asking, “You want to talk about me.' I will say they were very excited that we wanted to know about them. Back to the timeline I shared earlier in that very small study, the profile was opposite. We asked them about their friendships before they were caregivers, the early stages of caregiving, and then now, and their comments kind of make sense. Across the group they reported in the early stages, they felt like they had really great friends, support and satisfaction. People were rallying around them, coming to the hospital to support them. Many of them had been caregiving for a very long time when we did a comparison, and their reported friendship satisfaction and support was actually lower now. The questions were not the same and the groups were different, but as I told you a few minutes ago, the people with aphasia were more negative in the acute stage, and our small group were more positive now with how they're feeling about their friendships, and the care partners were the opposite. They were feeling more supported in the beginning, and now as time has gone on, some of them report the friends aren't there as much. Some of them felt like they were a burden, or they didn't know how to engage, being very selfless. They have dropped their own social interests to take care of their loved one. We did see in that project, that the longer, the more months a person had been caregiving, was correlated with poor self-perceived friendships and also how they perceived their loved one's health. That was just their perception. If they perceived their loved one to have more health concerns, not just a feature but overall health, they also tended to rate themselves as not as satisfied with their friendship. Bringing in that piece of information and the caregiving burden into our new projects, we did actually get scales on resilience and caregiving burden depression. In this new project we replicated some of our same questions, and we're now trying to look more at overall well-being, seeing how resilience and purpose in life and caregiving burden might play a role.   Janet: That reminds me of the commercials, when you are taking off in an airplane or when you are thinking about being a care partner, you do have to take care of yourself as the care partner before you can give the best care to the person with aphasia. Anything that we can do to focus on the person the with aphasia, and also focus on the care partner, I think, is good in terms of developing and sustaining friendships,   Liz: Yes. Care partners definitely have a lot more to say, and we haven't actually been able to do face to face interviews yet, but we did have a lot of really rich, open ended responses and surveys that we're still looking through. A piece I'm really interested in, is we have that one-time perception when they did our one-time survey, now we have their responses, we can track how people respond over a two-week period, were they always at home with their loved ones and not responding to friends? I think there's just a lot and again, trying to understand from this group what are the positives. Who are the people that have these positive responses? Then, of course, the next big steps are trying to provide more research resources and interventions for both care partners and people with aphasia. Our group has not yet reached out to friends, so that's a big part to come. I think other researchers have examined friends and a key part intervening with these friends too.   Janet: People with aphasia and care partners have different friendship styles and needs, and when aphasia disrupts communication, it can also affect the way a person approaches friendship. As speech-language pathologists, I believe that we can play a role in guiding a person with aphasia and a care partner to develop communication skills that can support friendship efforts. Liz, what are some ideas or actions that you might think of for speech-language pathologists in a busy clinical practice? What kind of actions can they take to support friendship activities, for a person with aphasia, recognizing, of course, that we are all different in our friendship activities. Also recognizing that you're at the very beginning of some of this work, I'm hoping that you have some ideas you might be able to share with us.   Liz: Yes, actually our very first friendship project addressed this topic. It was led by Michelle Therrien, and we surveyed about 40 speech-language pathologists trying to find out their view of the role that they think they should play. They find friendship to be very important. They find it to be in their scope of practice. But not surprising, were not aware of resources. They felt overwhelmed with how much speech-language pathologists have to cover, right? But it was really good to know that the group we reached out to found it to be a very important part of their practice that they want to address. I think you hit on something really important, that we teach and adopt having a person-centered care model, and we know that it's part of what we ask about. The simplest thing is asking. We don't need tools. We just need to make sure it's part of what we ask, making sure we're talking about relationships, talking about friendships.   There are some really great tools that do exist. There's the Stroke Social Network Scale by Sarah Northcott and Katerina Hillary from the UK. Katie Strong, Brent Archer, Jamie Azios and Natalie Douglas are a wonderful group who have been studying friendship. They've used the Social Convoy Model in some of their papers. It has a great visual that they have used, and therapists can also use. Basically, it is mapping out the social network of who's most important, which could be used one time, or as a pre-post measure. There are different ways, formal or informal, of trying to monitor someone's social network or how they feel supported. I don't think there's a target number of friendships and I don't think more means better, but it could be just making sure we're checking in and that we know that's an important part of therapy. We want them to be able to communicate and interact with friends. Speech-language pathologists are creative in to how to make that happen.   Janet: I agree with that view Liz, and I hope that speech-language pathologists will feel comfortable being creative and asking people about their friendships or what they might need to help maintain or sustain their friendships.   I would like to turn now to the topics of reading and literacy, which I know you have been investigating. While these terms are related, they are not synonymous. Would you please explain the difference between them and how you are investigating both in your research?   Liz: Yes. Thanks. That is a good question. To be honest, the first answer is not very scientific. When I was writing papers it was getting cumbersome to always write reading and spelling/ writing. The term came to be when I wanted to make sure that I was making it clear that I wasn't just focused on reading, but also concerned with the spelling and writing components. With my colleagues, Jessica Obermeier and Aaron Bush, we started using the term literacy for some of our work. People will have different ideas of what literacy might entail. I have been describing treatment as “literacy focused”, working on reading and spelling and writing.   My initial work was very much focused on reading, and over the past several years I became more interested in trying to also add on the spelling component. If we're working on spelling and writing it gives us a chance to inherently work on the reading. If we're only focused on reading, it doesn't bring in the writing. There's a time for them to be separate, I fully agree. There are also times where they can be targeted at the same time.   Janet: That makes perfect sense. When I think about how we discussed in the past, reading for pleasure, or reading to gain knowledge, or reading for information, or reading for safety, so many different aspects of reading, literacy also factors into how you use reading in those situations.   Liz: Yes, and so in a lot of day-to-day communication, you need both, right? It's for text messaging, right? We need to read it and respond in a written way, also emails. There are lots of instances where for the for the interaction to go well, we need to be able to read and respond in writing, such as filling out forms, email, texting, social media. For a lot of interactions we need both for there to be a successful written language exchange.   Janet: Liz, as part of our work with the Academy of Neurologic Communication Disorders and Sciences, Aphasia Writing Group, you and I were part of the team who critically reviewed treatment approaches for reading comprehension deficits in persons with aphasia. You've also investigated, as you mentioned earlier, specific aspects of reading deficits in persons with aphasia. What are some of the insights that you have gained from this work? And by the way, it was such a pleasure doing that critical review of treatment for reading deficits, and there was a lot of interesting information that came to light in that paper.   Liz: Yes, thank you. I was going to comment that I remember we thought we were going to have all these papers to go through and really and that review, we were very much focused on papers where the main outcome was reading comprehension. When we stuck to what our aim was, there really weren't that many papers that that met the aim of that project. So that really brought to light that it really is an area of our field that doesn't have enough attention.   Some of my recent projects, as I mentioned with Aaron Bush and Jessica Obermeier, we've talked to people with aphasia and gotten their perspective of before and early days. I really like doing this research over time. Things change, but we learned just how important reading and writing are to people with aphasia, and that they really want to work on it. I think we've seen when we looked in the literature, there wasn't much there. When we've talked to people with aphasia and speech-language pathologists, they want to work on reading, and they're not sure how. That further motivates me that this is an area to work on.   In some of my beginning work, I was Diane Kendall's research speech language pathologist for a few years before I did my Ph.D., and I exclusively delivered her phono motor treatment. In that research trial, the main outcome was word retrieval, but the therapy that she designed inherently worked a lot on reading and writing. We retrained every phoneme - how to say it, what your mouth is doing, and also the graphemes that go with the phonemes. As her research speech pathologist, that's really when I got very interested in reading. I'd be in these sessions, and we'd finally bring out the graphemes that go with the phonemes. I recall telling people that this is going to get better – and it did not. That connection between the phonemes and the graphemes, for a lot of people, wasn't there. In that clinical experience as her research speech pathologist is when I realized that the treatment improved reading for some people, but not for everyone. So that's my background of really getting focused on reading.   In the last few years, I've been working on adapting that original version of treatment that was for word retrieval. I've added some components to make it more focused on reading. I've been working with Olga Burkina, who's at the Kessler Stroke Foundation, and has an NIH grant where she is pairing exercise with this reading focused phono motor treatment. It's fun to be a part of that group exploring the idea of doing aerobic exercise to improve the brain blood flow, and to see if that's going to help improve reading treatment. Again, the idea being going forward is what the treatment might change.   There are some other projects also. I'm working with Will Graves at Rutgers. He is using computational modeling to have us stop guessing which treatment. We're trying to get a really good baseline assessment, trying to find out about semantic impairment, phonological impairment, and then we're using this reading focused phono motor treatment. We also have a reading focus semantic feature analysis. I really enjoy getting to work with different researchers who have these wonderful, big questions, and that I'm getting to support it as the speech-language pathologist on these projects focused on reading and writing and phono motor treatment. So those are some exciting projects I'm involved in right now.   Janet: That's exciting, because you started out by saying there were only a few papers that we found that really address reading treatment, and you're right.  It's daunting, then how do you select the reading treatment? How do you help this person with aphasia who wants to improve their reading comprehension? I think it's exciting that you've got all these different avenues and are working with a variety of people to investigate treatment.   Liz: Yeah. And the one thing I'll add to that is part of that, that review we did, for some people those treatments are helping reading comprehension. But for some people, I've been trying to work on the next step. I have a very small dataset where I've added a semantic comprehension stage to my adapted photo motor treatment. I'm in the very early stages of this and I'm sure it's fine to say, but I've been having these really exciting conversations with Kelly Knollman-Porter and Sarah Wallace. They're also Tavistock Trust recipients, and they study reading from a different perspective, using text to speech, compensatory and very focused book reading. They're very comprehension focused, so we're at the very early, fun stages of where we are in our thinking. I think there might be a middle step we are missing, but we are talking about taking these impairment focused treatments, which I think have a role, and have a participation, functional part of it. That's another emerging, new collaboration, where we are coming to reading from different perspectives, and we're trying to see where we can get with that goal, back to this comprehension question, improving functional reading, maybe from impairment and compensatory approaches.   Janet: I think that's the right approach to take, and I think it's exciting, because we have to remember that everybody reads differently. Some people like reading, some people don't enjoy reading. They read what they have to, but they don't particularly enjoy it. So, if we all come to it from different perspectives, we all have different strengths that we bring, and different deficits as well, and different needs or designs, just as is so many things with aphasia. Start with the person with aphasia, asking What do you want to read? What problems are you having? Then use that as a guide to selecting an impairment-based treatment or text to speech treatment, or whatever. I think that's exactly the right approach.   Liz: The one thing the treatment we were talking about, phono motor treatment, in general, is a phonology treatment. The good thing is that my focus is asking, is it improving reading? I'm also extending it to writing. We do know at its core, it's a language treatment, so it is nice that it can be tweaked to serve the person's main interests. I think that's important, that we are trying to work on what people want to work on, but we want to make sure we're improving, if we can, not just one language modality, and we know that these abilities are supported by similar brain structures and underling cognitive processes. That's something else we've been trying to work on, being person centered and at the same time trying to maximize generalization - lots of pieces. I am finding now what's most motivating and exciting is trying to make sure that we're doing things that people with aphasia find important, and how also to keep the whole science moving forward in this way that's going to have functional, important outcomes. That people with aphasia are going to be able to do what they want to do to the best that they can.   Janet: Absolutely! But then there's the scientific challenge of how do you collect the data? How to best observe specific outcome data on performance measures, but also collect the person-centered data. How do you collect data that really can speak to whether you're having a success and whether this might be generalizable or transferable to another person?   Liz: I think it's important that we need both. I always say, and some of my collaborators may not like it, but if in the person reported outcome, a person with aphasia is telling us that they feel better and that they are communicating better in life, and those measures should not be optional, those measures to me, a critically important part of seeing this treatment successful. There are different ways to do that and different ways to capture their perspective. For example, if trained reading words moved this much and if the patient reported outcome change is greater, then I find that to be a success. If the reverse happens, I find treatment not successful. If my probes showed gain but the person with aphasia does not see it or feel it, then I don't find treatment to be a success. So, I think it's really important that persons with aphasia tell us different things, and we need to have many assessments in both of those categories. I think, when possible.   Janet: You're absolutely right. When you think about many of the treatments that we're doing, they are not necessarily easy, and they take time, and you have to stay the course. I think you know, I've been interested for a number of years in motivation and engagement, and what keeps people motivated and doing what they're doing. If you've got a treatment that you can see over time, small changes in your specific reading outcomes, but not so much of a change in the person centered outcomes, or person reported outcomes, how do you know the person is still really engaged and motivated and willing to slog through your treatment in order to get to the place that you hope they will? I think you're correct when you're assessing the importance of the person reported outcome.   Liz: Yeah, that's good. And then that's a whole other like measure in itself, right? The key of motivation we've talked about in some of the trials. The one person who didn't do very well, and just in our conversation, sometimes it for different reasons. That wasn't motivating for that person. There's that's a whole very important piece that a lot of us have a lot of room to improve in how we capture that and support that.   Janet: Which is a challenge when we're trying to devise treatments for, say, reading or anything that can be applicable to a wide range of persons with aphasia. Kudos to you for meeting that challenge as best you can.   Liz: We're working on it. But I do really think that it's changing. Sometimes I feel like there are impairment-based people and life participation people, and I don't think it needs to be that way. It's fine if we only study one area. We can't all study everything, but I think as a whole they complement each other very well. And so I'm just excited to see that it seems like things are moving in a really exciting way, where people who study aphasia in various different ways now seem to have the main outcome, asking is this going to help people with aphasia feel better, communicate better, and look forward to something different in life? I think we're all seeing that that's what we're supposed to be doing, and how we do it is going to look really different, and that's great. I think we're moving in the right direction.   Janet: Very well said. I think, and you obviously do as well, that literacy and reading skills are crucially important to individuals with aphasia in so many ways, such as life skills reading or pleasure reading. Acknowledging that we all have different skill levels and preferences, what are some ideas that you might have identified that speech-language pathologists can use to support the literacy and reading desires and activities for a person with aphasia?   Liz: Great question. I think my answer is very similar to the question about what can SLPs do to help support friendship? I think being person centered. You said earlier, right, we all have different interests. Somebody might say it's not one of my goals and I really don't want to spend a lot of time on this. But just having those conversations and person-centered measures and using supported conversation we can easily gather important information. There are some really good patient-reported outcome measures that ask about reading, so maybe use some of those existing tools. The Comprehensive Aphasia Disability Questionnaire has a nice scale that talks about different aspects of reading as well as other aspects of language. But at the minimum, I think finding a way, even just to draw your own scale and then trying to find out in their life, what are different activities where they want to or need to engage, right? Texting, email, restaurant. I mean, we think about it, we're reading all the time throughout life. So, I think finding the reading need is a general interest and then getting really specific is one way to do it. Another thing could be, as I mentioned before, our brain relies on similar structures and language networks when we are engaging in spoken language and written language. So oftentimes improving our reading and writing improves our spoken abilities and vice versa. So even if it's not the main goal in treatment, for example if the main outcome might be word retrieval, I really believe multimodal learning is important. If, after you've gone through what you want to do say writing it, having them repeat it, maybe copy it, even though that's not the main goal, and it's not slowing the therapy, if it's working for you and your client, then I really think, at the minimum, using written language to support spoken language has a good role. I also think the opposite can be true using spoken language to support written language. So I do think that it's important that we know we are addressing all of language, and that that language skills really do usually move up and down together in aphasia.   Janet: Well said, again. Liz, thank you so very much for joining me today in this fascinating look into friendship, literacy, reading and aphasia. And again, hearty congratulations to you on being named Tavistock, Distinguished Scholar. On behalf of Aphasia Access, I wish you well in your research and clinical efforts, and thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. At this point, I'd also like to thank our listeners for supporting Aphasia Access Conversations by listening to our podcast, including this fascinating discussion with Liz Madden.   Liz: Thanks so much, Janet, I feel like you could just chat with you all day. Thank you again for giving me a chance to highlight some of my work. Also I want to thank everyone with aphasia who has participated in my projects, all my students and collaborators, Aphasia Access and the Tavistock Trust for Aphasia. Thanks again.   Janet: For references and resources mentioned in today's podcast, please see our Show Notes. They are available on our website, www.aphasiaaccess.org. There you can also become a member of our organization, browse our growing library of materials, and find out about the Aphasia Access Academy. If you have an idea for a future podcast episode, email us at info@aphasiaaccess.org. For Aphasia Access Conversations, I'm Janet Patterson, thanking you again for your ongoing support of Aphasia Access. References Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (1987). Social networks in adult life and a preliminary examination of the convoy model. Journal of Gerontology, 42(5), 519–527. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/42.5.519 Archer, B.A., Azios, J.H., Douglas, N.F., Strong, K.A., Worrall, L.D. & Simmons-Mackie, N.F. (2024). “I Could Not Talk . . . She Did Everything . . . She's Now My Sister”: People with Aphasia's Perspectives on Friends Who Stuck Around. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 33, 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-23-00205 Azios, J.H., Strong, K.A., Archer, B, Douglas, N.F., Simmons-Mackie, N. & Worrall, L. (2021). Friendship matters: A research agenda for aphasia. Aphasiology, 36(3),317-336. https://10.1080/02687038.2021.1873908   Madden, E.B., Bislick, L., Wallace, S.E., Therrien, M.C.S. & Goff-Albritton, R. (2023). Aphasia and friendship: Stroke survivors' self-reported changes over time. Journal of Communication Disorders, 103, 106330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2023.106330 Madden, E., Conway, T., Henry, M., Spencer, K., Yorkston, K., & Kendall, D. (2018). The relationship between non-orthographic language abilities and reading performance in chronic aphasia: An exploration of the primary systems hypothesis. Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research, 61, 3038-3054. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0058 Madden, E. B., Torrence, J., & Kendall, D. (2020). Cross-modal generalization of anomia treatment to reading in aphasia. Aphasiology, 35, 875-899. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2020.1734529   Purdy, M., Coppens, P., Madden, E. B., Freed, D., Mozeiko, J., Patterson, J., & Wallace, S. (2018). Reading comprehension treatment in aphasia: A systematic review. Aphasiology, 33(6), 629–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2018.1482405 Strong, K.A., Douglas, N.F., Johnson, R., Silverman, M., Azios, J.H. & Archer, B. (2023). Stakeholder-engaged research: What our friendship in aphasia team learned about processes and pitfalls. Topics in Language Disorders, 43(1), 43-56. https://10.1097/TLD.0000000000000302   Therrien, M., Madden, E. B., Bislick, L., & Wallace, S. (2021). Aphasia and Friendship: The Role and Perspectives of Speech-Language Pathologists. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 30(5), 2228-2240.   Resources   Stroke Social Network Scale reference and materials: https://cityaccess.org/tests/ssns/      Aphasia Access Conversations Episode #119 - Finding the person in front of aphasia: A conversation with Lauren Bislick

Hi Only One in the Room listeners! Today we're introducing you to another podcast we think you're really going to enjoy. It's called Something You Should Know with Mike Carruthers. Every episode of Something You Should Know delivers fascinating insights that can help us all understand our world – and each other – a little better. In today's episode, Mike talks about how status affects our path to success and how to reduce anxiety: SYSK: Why Status Is Critical to Your Success & Why Is There So Much Anxiety? In the average lifespan, there are 2 separate years (and they are decades apart) where people report being the happiest. Can you guess what they are? Listen and find out. https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/07/22/study-23-and-69-are-the-happiest-ages/ The higher your status, the more likely you are to be successful. So how do you acquire high status? You might think power grants you status but that's not really it. People of high-status exhibit 2 qualities – and you can too, according to my guest Alison Fragale. She is a Distinguished Scholar of Organizational Behavior at the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and has been featured in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Financial Times and other media outlets. She is author of the book Likeable Badass (https://amzn.to/47a5P5c). Anxiety! You hear it talked about a lot. It seems as if more people are more anxious than ever before. So, what is anxiety, why does it seem to be on the rise and what is the best way to address it and reduce it? Here with some fresh insight into worry and anxiety is Russell Kennedy, M.D., who has dealt with his own debilitating anxiety. He is also a neuroscientist and author of the book Anxiety Rx: A Revolutionary New Prescription for Anxiety Relief―from the Doctor Who Created It (https://amzn.to/3ANfrqw). Noises have colors. At least some of them do. You have probably heard of white noise but there is also pink, brown and black noise. Listen as I reveal what they are. https://www.wired.com/story/colours-of-noise/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Good news! If you enjoy today's episode, there's plenty more to learn from Something You Should Know – Mike and his recent guests have discussed topics like the bystander effect, how animals communicate, introversion vs. extroversion, and so much more! You'll learn something new and useful in every episode. Look for Something You Should Know wherever you get your podcasts! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to an interview with the author of Likeable Badass: How Women Get the Success They Deserve, Alison Fragale. In her book, Alison addresses the recurring questions from high powered and early career women alike: How do women thread the needle of kindness and competence in the workplace? How can women earn credit for their accomplishments, negotiate better, and navigate complex office politics without losing the goodwill of their peers?   Alison Fragale is the Mary Farley Ames Lee Distinguished Scholar of Organizational Behavior at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Kenan-Flagler Business School. As a research psychologist, award-winning professor, international keynote speaker, and author, she is on a mission to help others — especially women — use behavioral science to work and live better. Her scholarship has been published in the most prestigious academic journals in her field and featured in prominent media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Financial Times, Boston Globe, and Inc. She lives in Chicago with her husband and three children, who are all named after professional athletes. For more information, visit AlisonFragale.com.   Get Alison's book here: https://shorturl.at/uPfaJ Likeable Badass: How Women Get the Success They Deserve   Here are some free gifts for you: Overall Approach Used in Well-Managed Strategy Studies free download: www.firmsconsulting.com/OverallApproach   McKinsey & BCG winning resume free download: www.firmsconsulting.com/resumepdf   Enjoying this episode? Get access to sample advanced training episodes here: www.firmsconsulting.com/promo

Welcome to Strategy Skills episode 490, featuring an interview with the author of Likeable Badass: How Women Get the Success They Deserve, Alison Fragale. In her book, Alison addresses the recurring questions from high powered and early career women alike: How do women thread the needle of kindness and competence in the workplace? How can women earn credit for their accomplishments, negotiate better, and navigate complex office politics without losing the goodwill of their peers?   Alison Fragale is the Mary Farley Ames Lee Distinguished Scholar of Organizational Behavior at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Kenan-Flagler Business School. As a research psychologist, award-winning professor, international keynote speaker, and author, she is on a mission to help others — especially women — use behavioral science to work and live better. Her scholarship has been published in the most prestigious academic journals in her field and featured in prominent media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Financial Times, Boston Globe, and Inc. She lives in Chicago with her husband and three children, who are all named after professional athletes. For more information, visit AlisonFragale.com.   Get Alison's book here: https://shorturl.at/uPfaJ Likeable Badass: How Women Get the Success They Deserve   Here are some free gifts for you: Overall Approach Used in Well-Managed Strategy Studies free download: www.firmsconsulting.com/OverallApproach   McKinsey & BCG winning resume free download: www.firmsconsulting.com/resumepdf   Enjoying this episode? Get access to sample advanced training episodes here: www.firmsconsulting.com/promo  

In the spirit of Oktoberfest, this episode of the Christopher Lochhead: Follow Your Different is a look back into our conversation with Professor Edward Slingerland, a distinguished scholar and author of Drunk: How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way into Civilization. They delve into the cultural and historical significance of alcohol consumption, examining its role in human civilization. Professor Slingerland argues that alcohol has been pivotal in social bonding, creativity, and even the development of agriculture. They discuss how different cultures approach drinking, highlighting the benefits of moderation and the potential harms of excessive consumption. The episode offers a nuanced perspective on alcohol's impact on society. You're listening to Christopher Lochhead: Follow Your Different. We are the real dialogue podcast for people with a different mind. So get your mind in a different place, and hey ho, let's go.   Edward Slingerland on Why Humans Enjoy Getting Drunk Professor Slingerland begins by addressing a fundamental question: why do humans enjoy getting drunk? The simple answer is that it feels good. However, this leads to a deeper inquiry: why has evolution allowed us to enjoy getting drunk? The prevailing narrative suggests that our attraction to intoxication is an evolutionary mistake. Substances like alcohol are often seen as hijacking our brain's reward circuits, providing pleasure without any evolutionary purpose. Contrary to this view, Professor Slingerland argues that alcohol has played a significant role in human evolution. Unlike other pleasurable activities that evolution tolerates because they are not overly costly, alcohol consumption can cause real harm. But despite its potential dangers, humans have been focused on making and consuming alcohol for thousands of years. Archaeological evidence shows that humans were brewing beer around 13,000 years ago, well before the advent of agriculture. This suggests that our desire to get intoxicated may have driven the development of agricultural societies.   Alcohol and the Development of Societies One of the key arguments in Professor Slingerland's book is that the first plants domesticated by humans were often those with psychoactive properties, not necessarily those that were nutritionally beneficial. For instance, the ancestor of maize was cultivated for its potential to make beer rather than for food. This desire for intoxication may have been a primary motivator for settling down and forming agricultural societies. Once humans transitioned to agricultural societies, they faced new challenges. Life in these communities was often stressful and monotonous compared to the more egalitarian and diverse lifestyles of hunter-gatherers. Alcohol provided a means to cope with these stresses, enhancing mood and reducing anxiety. This is still true today; many people enjoy a drink after work to mark the transition from a stressful day to a more relaxed evening.   Alcohol and Creativity Alcohol has a long history of being used to enhance creativity. Humans rely heavily on creativity for survival, especially in adapting to changing environments and competing with other groups. However, there's a tension in our brains between the need to innovate and the need to focus. Alcohol can help loosen inhibitions and foster creativity by temporarily downregulating the prefrontal cortex (PFC), which is responsible for executive functions like focus, impulse control, and decision-making. The famous saying "write drunk, edit sober" encapsulates this dynamic. Different psychoactive substances can enhance different cognitive functions. Alcohol can help loosen inhibitions and foster creativity, while stimulants like caffeine can improve focus and task management. This balance between creativity and focus is crucial for innovation and problem-solving. To hear more from Professor Edward Slingerland and the culture of drinking through the ages,

Bob Bauer, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at New York University School of Law, and Liza Goitein, Senior Director of Liberty & National Security at the Brennan Center, join Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to review the emergency powers afforded to the president under the National Emergency Act, International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the Insurrection Act. The trio also inspect ongoing bipartisan efforts to reform emergency powers.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the average lifespan, there are 2 separate years (and they are decades apart) where people report being the happiest. Can you guess what they are? Listen and find out. https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/07/22/study-23-and-69-are-the-happiest-ages/ The higher your status, the more likely you are to be successful. So how do you acquire high status? You might think power grants you status but that's not really it. People of high-status exhibit 2 qualities – and you can too, according to my guest Alison Fragale. She is a Distinguished Scholar of Organizational Behavior at the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and has been featured in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Financial Times and other media outlets. She is author of the book Likeable Badass (https://amzn.to/47a5P5c). Anxiety! You hear it talked about a lot. It seems as if more people are more anxious than ever before. So, what is anxiety, why does it seem to be on the rise and what is the best way to address it and reduce it? Here with some fresh insight into worry and anxiety is Russell Kennedy, M.D., who has dealt with his own debilitating anxiety. He is also a neuroscientist and author of the book Anxiety Rx: A Revolutionary New Prescription for Anxiety Relief―from the Doctor Who Created It (https://amzn.to/3ANfrqw). Noises have colors. At least some of them do. You have probably heard of white noise but there is also pink, brown and black noise. Listen as I reveal what they are. https://www.wired.com/story/colours-of-noise/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Timon is joined by Mark David Hall, professor at Regent University, to discuss his new book, “Who's Afraid of Christian Nationalism?”    #MarkDavidHall #America #Christianity #History #ChristianNationalism #UnitedStates #News #Trump #Election   Mark David Hall is a Professor in Regent University's Robertson School of Government and a Senior Fellow at the Center for Religion, Culture, and Democracy, an initiative of First Liberty Institute.  He is also Distinguished Scholar of Christianity & Public Life at George Fox University, Associated Faculty at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University, and a Senior Fellow at Baylor University's Institute for Studies of Religion.   Learn more about Mark David Hall's work: https://www.markdavidhall.org/about https://www.regent.edu/faculty/mark-david-hall/   Purchase Mark's new book "Who's Afraid of Christian Nationalism?": https://www.amazon.com/Whos-Afraid-Christian-Nationalism-Existential/dp/B0CZR6BSKS   ––––––   Follow American Reformer across Social Media: X / Twitter – https://www.twitter.com/amreformer Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/AmericanReformer/ YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@AmericanReformer Rumble – https://rumble.com/user/AmReformer Website – https://americanreformer.org/   Promote a vigorous Christian approach to the cultural challenges of our day, by donating to The American Reformer: https://americanreformer.org/donate/   Follow Us on Twitter: Josh Abbotoy – https://twitter.com/Byzness Timon Cline – https://twitter.com/tlloydcline   The American Reformer Podcast is  hosted by Josh Abbotoy and Timon Cline, recorded remotely in the United States, and edited by Jared Cummings.   Subscribe to our Podcast, "The American Reformer" Get our RSS Feed – https://americanreformerpodcast.podbean.com/ Apple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-american-reformer-podcast/id1677193347 Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/1V2dH5vhfogPIv0X8ux9Gm?si=a19db9dc271c4ce5

In this episode, Rob and Vinnie continue their discussion with OT scholar Tremper Longman. They discuss Rev 13 and the Beast and what the book of Revelation means for the church today.  Dr. Tremper Longman III (B.A. Ohio Wesleyan University; M.Div. Westminster Theological Seminary; M.Phil. and Ph.D. Yale University) is Distinguished Scholar and Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Westmont College. He has written over thirty-five books including commentaries on Genesis, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Daniel, Nahum, and Revelation. Among his most recent books include Confronting Old Testament Controversies: Pressing Questions about Evolution, Sexuality, History and Violence and Revelation through Old Testament Eyes. His book The Old Testament as Literature just appeared with Baker Books. He is also Senior Translator of the New Living Translation. He is married to Alice and has three sons and seven granddaughters, and a grandson. He and Alice now live in Alexandria, Virginia. Reading Revelation through OT Eyes Confronting OT Controversies the Bible and the Ballot Daniel NIVAC Please "follow" this podcast and give a review on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Your review will go a long way toward helping others find this podcast. Then share it with others so that we can get the word of the Gospel of the Kingdom to more people!   Also, our goal is to keep these episodes free of charge. I do not intend to ever hide them behind a paywall. I can only do this if those of you who have been blessed by them and can afford to give ($5, $10, $25, or more/month) do so. You can give a tax-deductible contribution by following this link.  

Ali Velshi is joined by Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School Leah Litman, Senior Columnist at The Boston Globe Opinion Kimberly Atkins Stohr, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Former Deputy National Security Advisor in the Obama Administration Ben Rhodes, Professor of Law at NYU Melissa Murray, Special Correspondent at Vanity Fair Molly Jong-Fast, Distinguished Fellow at Conservation International Monica Medina, Distinguished Scholar of Environmental Studies at Middlebury College Bill McKibben, and author of “Heavy: An American Memoir” Kiese Laymon

Ali Velshi is joined by Staff Writer with The Atlantic Anne Applebaum, NBC's Hala Gorani, Distinguished Scholar of Environmental Studies at Middlebury CollegeBill McKibben, Authorof “Kingdom of Rage” Elizabeth Neumann, Staff Writer with The Atlantic David Graham, President andCEO of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Noah Bookbinder, Executive Director of Yellowhammer Fund Jenice Fountain, Author of “The Giver” Lois Lowry

Is Christian belief rational? Join Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. for an off-campus conversation with Fr. Thomas Joseph White, O.P. to find out — and to learn about a new book from Fr. Thomas Joseph White, O.P.! You can watch this interview on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/VI_iUH355y4 About the speaker: Fr. Thomas Joseph White is the Rector Magnificus of the Pontifical University of St. Thomas (Angelicum) in Rome. Originally a native of southeastern Georgia in the US, Fr. White studied at Brown University, where he converted to Catholicism. He did his doctoral studies in theology at Oxford University, and is the author of various books and articles including Wisdom in the Face of Modernity: A Study in Thomistic Natural Theology (Sapientia Press, 2011), The Incarnate Lord, A Thomistic Study in Christology (The Catholic University of America Press, 2015) Exodus (Brazos Press, 2016), The Light of Christ: An Introduction to Catholicism (Catholic University Press, 2017), and The Trinity: On the Nature and Mystery of the One God (Catholic University Press, 2022). He is co-editor of the journal Nova et Vetera, a Distinguished Scholar of the McDonald Agape Foundation, and a member of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas.

The Insurrection Act is a provision that allows the president to deploy the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement. It's been invoked dozens of times by presidents to respond to crises in the over 230 years that it's been around, but it hasn't been reformed in centuries. In recent years, the Insurrection Act has come back into public focus because of its implication in a number of domestic crises, prompting a renewed conversation about whether it's finally time to curb the sweeping powers afforded to the executive in this unique federal law.On April 8, the American Law Institute released a set of principles for Insurrection Act reform, prepared by a group of 10 individuals with backgrounds in constitutional law, national security law, and military law. The co-chairs of this group were Jack Goldsmith, Lawfare Co-Founder and Harvard Law School Professor, and Bob Bauer, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at New York University School of Law. They joined Lawfare Associate Editor Hyemin Han to talk about the history of the Insurrection Act, to parse out the recommendations the American Law Institute is making for reform, and to make the case for reforming the act in 2024. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ali Velshi is joined by former Federal Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, Independent Journalist Noga Tarnopolsky, President and Founder at Futuro Media Maria Hinojosa, Professor of Philosophy at Yale University Jason Stanley, former Manhattan Asstistant District Attorney Catherine Christian, Executive Director of Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center Mary McCord, NBC News' Guad Venegas, Senior Fellow for American Statecraft Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Aaron David Miller, Professor of Law & Dean's Distinguished Scholar at University of Miami School of Law Caroline Corbin