Podcasts about norvik

  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

A father and son confront the impossible phenomena that wait patiently to strike from within terribly familiar places. MUSIC: “Duality” by Kyle Preston, “Blue Echoes” by Norvik, “The Horizon” by Maya Belsitzman and Matan Ephrat, all rights reserved. Patreon subscribers listen ad-free: patreon.com/sorennarnia Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

La música me sirve para evadirme de lo cotidiano. La música me sirve para evadirme de lo mundano. La música me sirve para ir a otros lugares. La música me ayuda a volar. Runar Blesvik, Andrea Salicini Ballandi, Antarctic Wastelands & Norvik, Javier Galea, Ashot Danielyan, Neil Diamond, Ben Pluck, Higgins, Fritz Mayr, Aphex Twin, Murcof x Vanessa Wagner, Lisa Bella Donna. 🎧 El playlist detallado: lostfrontier.org/t29.html#1048.

The race for industry recognition is on at Nor-Shipping 2025, with today's launch of the prestigious Next Generation Ship and Ocean Solutions Awards. Nor-Shipping 2025 plans to gather industry leaders from across the globe to debate methods, share knowledge, showcase innovation, and build the necessary relationships to navigate toward a future of sustainable success. The accolades support the exhibition and event week's main theme of #future-proof, as leading global innovators compete against one another to showcase truly defining projects and solutions. Both awards, which hold extra significance coming in Nor-Shipping's 60th anniversary year, will be judged by expert panels, with Remi Erikson, Group President and CEO, DNV, leading deliberations for the Next Generation Ship jury, and Kjerstin Braathen, Group CEO, DNB, taking charge for the Ocean Solutions Award. The Ocean Solutions Award focuses on trailblazing ideas, products, and concepts conceived to address some of the most pressing challenges facing the maritime and ocean industries. The Next Generation Ship Award assesses breakthrough newbuild, retrofit and conversion projects, with all ship types given equal consideration, regardless of size or segment. 'Your time to shine' The Next Generation Ship Award winner will be revealed at the Nor-Shipping Opening Ceremony at Oslo City Hall in Norway on 2 June, while the Ocean Solutions Award will be handed out at Nor-Shipping's Ocean Leadership Conference the following day. "All eyes will be on Norway next June and, as ever, our winners will have a unique opportunity to showcase their ambition, dedication and innovation to a global audience of key decision-makers," said Sidsel Norvik, Director of Nor-Shipping. "As befits our anniversary, next time promises to be our biggest and best Nor-Shipping yet, so I think that elevates attention levels to a new high. Ambitious businesses take note… this is your time to shine, demonstrating how your projects and solutions are capable of helping steer our industry towards bright, prosperous and sustainable horizons. We wish everyone the very best of luck." Addressing challenges, identifying opportunities The Next Generation Ship Award assesses breakthrough newbuild, retrofit and conversion projects, with all ship types given equal consideration, regardless of size or segment. Entrants will have to impress an international jury across key criteria of energy efficiency, innovation, suitability and flexibility, technology utilisation, safety and security, and environmental sustainability. The lucky winner will join past title holders including Terntank, 2023's winner for its 15,000dwt Hybrid Tanker newbuild series, and Havila Voyages, which secured the 2022 accolade for coastal cruise ferry Havila Capella. The Ocean Solutions Award, meanwhile, shifts the focus to trailblazing ideas, products, and concepts conceived to address some of the most pressing challenges facing the maritime and ocean industries. Entrants, who should be participants at Nor-Shipping 2025, must prove their solutions are either currently available or near commercialisation to ensure industry impact. AlfaWall Oceanbird won in 2023 for its folding wing sail system, with the first retrofit due to take place early next year onboard Wallenius Wilhelmsen's vessel Tirranna. Agenda setting "Nor-Shipping has always worked to provide a platform for the ideas and organisations which help to set the ocean business agenda, and our awards are an integral part of that mission," notes Norvik. "We want to showcase how the most innovative approaches can turn challenges into opportunities, recognising and rewarding the players pushing boundaries to deliver unique commercial and environmental benefits. It'll be exciting to see who is competing to #future-proof our industry, and scoop these coveted awards, in 2025." Nor-Shipping takes place at venues across Oslo and Lillestrøm 2-6 June 2025. Alongside the awards and main exhibition, a diver...

Guten Morgen/Tag/Abend/Nacht (CIRCLE ONLY ONE, PLEASE), dear listeners. I am ecstatic to be able to deliver to you a uniquely fresh tapestry of solace and beauty. This quest was brought to life from a single entity that ascends skyward to the highest reaches of the IMAGINARY NORTH. You might be asking 'well, what makes THIS particular episode so unique?". Well, it's a celebratory session of the glorious label IMAGINARY NORTH, curated by ambient artist extraordinaire KILOMETRE CLUB (Daniel Field). Having started in 2022 (a mere 2 years since publishing this), the label is already leading the charge in finding unbelievably focused artists that are producing some of the finest ambient moments. Yes, dear listener, all selections (and much more) can be found via a single BANDCAMP page (drift there, thank me later). This amalgamation of sound is GMO-free and enriched with nutritious inspiration to replenish the minds of carbon-based souls. If you've been looking for a single source of flawless serenity within an oasis of sound and color, look no further, I'm leading your right to it. A single path to a source chocked full of unlimited opportunities for quenching your mind with symphonic enrichment within the ambient realm?!? Say no more. I've got you covered and you didn't even need a doctor's prescription for it. As we begin the ascent towards the IMAGINARY NORTH, allow your vessel to relax and sink a bit deeper into your soul cushion. The slight shifting that you feel is merely your deep breaths as they inhale the mystique of each sketch. These sketches will funnel into a grand tapestry. Take a moment to gaze upon an amalgamation in process as it conjures up a blissful mosaic that represents our peaceful journey to the IMAGINARY NORTH. Turn on, tune in, drift to the Imaginary North... https://www.imaginarynorth.ca/  https://www.tonepoet-music.com https://www.facebook.com/tonepoetmusic   TRACK LISTING “Station ID” by Kilometre Club (Daniel Field) from Imaginary North (Start Time: 00:00) “Another Storm” by Maussene from Imaginary North Transmission 002 (Start Time: 00:16) “Bathe In Colour (Excerpt)” by Gollden & Willows8ng from Bathe In Colour (Start Time: 04:05) “Airliner (with Hollie Kenniff)” by Kilometre Club from An Alphabet Of Distance (Start Time: 07:32) “Remaining (Kilometre Club Rework)” by Marie from Remaining Fragments (A Rework Album) (Start Time: 10:23) “Pages Of” by Arbee and Norvik from Prints (Start Time: 17:56) “Calm Nights” by Bahrambient from Imaginary North Transmission 002 (Start Time: 20:55) “Glimmering” by Papi Thereso from Imaginary North Transmission 007 (Start Time: 23:15) “Languishing” by Six Missing from Today Until Tomorrow (Start Time: 25:50) “Inlets (Reimagined) (Excerpt)” by Willebrant from Today Until Tomorrow (Start Time: 32:10) “Alpha Mound” by Glist from Imaginary North Transmission 007 (Start Time: 36:19) “Finding Your Way Home (Feat. Mouad Abbad, Jehanne Bastoni)” by The Missing Note from Symphonic Reverie - An Orchestral Journey (Start Time: 41:58) “Astral Reverie” by Mirai No Hagaki & TL30 from Lunar Illusions (Start Time: 44:37) “Overfloater” by Hymns57 from Ambient Guitar Chronicles (Start Time: 49:08) “Slow Breaths” by Brannan Lane & Ambient Solstice from Imaginary North Transmission 003 (Start Time: 52:48) “Granite” by IKSRE from Imaginary North Transmission 006 (Start Time: 57:30)

Last time we spoke about the failure of diplomacy between the Empires of Russian and Japan as well as the Yellow Peril. The Russians said they would demobilize and pull out of Manchuria, but when the time actually came to do so, they suddenly had a change of heart. Japan felt threated, but extended the hand of diplomacy trying to thwart beginning a war against a great power. Tsar Nicholas II was being egged on by his cousin Kaiser Wilhelm II, who utilized  Yellow Peril rhetory to push Russia into a war with Japan. The Russians did not put up a serious effort when it came to diplomacy, basically insulting Japan. Japan could only swallow so much, until she would take violent actions. The entire world was in for quite a shock, because a Sun was about to rise and a Bear was about to tumble.    #74 The Russo-Japanese War Part 1: The Surprise attack on Port Arthur   Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. On January 13th of 1904, Japan proposed to Russia that she would recognize Russia's sphere of influence over Manchuria if Russia would respect her's over Korea. It was a generous offer to maintain the peace, but Russia counter proposed that Japan respect her sphere of influence over Manchuria, and that Korea was basically open grounds. It was to be frank, an insult. It seemed clear to the Japanese the Russians were not serious about diplomacy, in fact they were biding time to build up their military strength in Asia. In February of 1904, Prime Minister Katsura's cabinet decided for war. You really have to take a step back and look at what a colossal decision that was. Russia was a great power, Japan was considered an emerging regional power. Japan had defeated the Qing dynasty, yes, but in the minds of the great powers, this was nothing more than two lesser nations battling it out. A lot of the attitudes of the day were as you can imagine, racist. The idea of a non white nation going to war against a white nation let alone a great power, was ridiculous. So how did Japan think she was going to defeat a larger empire like Russia? For Japan the prospect of victory would rely on a pre-emptive strike against her fleet anchored at Port Arthur, sound a bit familiar? Yes in many ways you can think of this as a Pearl Harbor prequel. The idea similar to Pearl Harbor was to deliver a surprise attack and then issue the formal declaration of war. In the Pacific the Russian Far East fleet consisted of 7 battleships, 6 cruisers and 13 destroyers at Port Arthur. At Vladivostok there were 4 first class cruisers, with a number of torpedo boats. At Chemulpo in Korea were the protected cruisers Varya and gunboat Koreyetz. A crucial component of the conflict would be commanding the sea ways. Both nations recognized this fact all too well. The Russian far east fleet was constrained from year the round training by being icebound in Vladivostok for 3 months of the year. Her fleet was also a ragtag bunch with different armaments, speed, armor and flexibility. Russia was dependent on foreign built ships, though she was fully capable of building her own. Russia had ships built from Britain, Germany, France and the US. The Russian navy was based on conscription at 7 years with 3 years of reserve.  The IJN combined fleet consisted of 6 battleships, 10 cruisers, 40 destroyers and 40 smaller vessels, led by Vice Admiral Heihachiro Togo. The Russian ships were a hotchpotch of differing types, armaments and speeds, with a varied amount of armor protection. The Japanese ships were nearly all British built, uniform and faster. Alcohol excess amongst Russian crews was a serious problem. Baltic crews spent the 6 months of winter ashore because the gulf of Finland froze and because of bureaucratic demand for uniformity. So did the crews of the Black Sea fleet. Thus, Russian sailors spent less time at sea and less time training. The Japanese navy under British instruction spent more time at sea, and trained intensively. Japanese sailors were literate, while most Russian sailors were not. These variables would come out to play when dealing with steam-driven warships, the most technologically advanced weapons of the day.   Japan held an advantage over the Russians: an intricate spy network run by Baron Akashi Motojiro. He was sent as a roaming military attache all over Europe and, by 1902, moved to Saint Petersburg, setting up a network using locally-based Japanese merchants, workers and others sympathetic to Japan, making sure to pay more than the Russians did. He gathered valuable information on troop movements and naval development, and began to support Russian extremists such as Litvinoff, Orlovsky and Lenin. It is alleged he recruited the famous spy Sidney Reilly, who went to Manchuria and Port Arthur secretly gathering intelligence and, if it is to be believed, alongside his acquaintance Ho Liang Shung, stole the Port Arthur harbor defense plans and sold it to the IJN. Allegedly, Vice-Admiral Togo was given some false information from Reilly and other spies around Port Arthur about the garrison there being on full alert. This led him to not want to risk his capital ships against a well-prepared enemy. He thus elected to send a destroyer force to surprise-attack Port Arthur. To prepare for the war, the Japanese had troopships prepared in predetermined positions, already loaded with provisions and munitions. Aboard his flagship, Admiral Togo read to his admirals a message from Emperor Meiji before all of them lifted a glass of champagne and gave a few bonzai's. The Japanese press were forced into utmost secrecy, everything possible was concealed. As the combined fleet departed on the morning of February the 7th, they had an agreement, whether at Port Arthur or if the Russian fleet found them first, the Japanese would fire first.  The IJN combined fleet made a rendezvous south of Chemulpo around Lindsay island. They were met by the Akashi who had been tasked with surveying the Russian navy's movements in the region. The Akashi reported the Russian naval forces had not departed Port Arthur, everyone sighed with relief. The Russian naval forces outside Port Arthur were the unprotected cruisers Varyag and an old gunboat called the Koreyetz, both at anchor in Chemulpo. Chemulpo was a designated landing spot for the IJA, three troopships carrying 2500 troops detached from the combined fleet escorted by the armored cruisers Asama, Takachiho, Nanussa, unarmored cruisers Suma and Akashi and two torpedo boats. Commanding the small detachment was Rear Admiral Uriu. The Japanese intelligence indicated, alongside the two Russian warships there was numerous warships from other nations. The HMS Talbot, USS Vicksburg, Italy's Elba, Frances Pascal and Japans protected cruiser Chiyoda were anchored there. Chiyoda slipped out of the port to meet up with the incoming Uriu who forwarded the information on the international presence. Uriu worried about the political consequences of attacking the Russians in the harbor next to international warships which was against international law. If they could lure the Russians out of the harbor it would be much better politically.   Meanwhile the Russians were in a bit of an awkward state. Many believed hostilities could break out at any moment, but did not have orders to attack first. The commander of the Koreyetz was quite nervous and wanted to receive an update from Port Arthur on the political situation so he departed from the harbor during the early afternoon. Unluckily for the Koreyetz she came across the incoming Japanese. Upon discovering the incoming ships were Japanese, the Koreyetz turned around, but some of her gunners were too trigger happy and fired two ineffectual shots.   The Koreyetz fled back to her anchorage beside the Varyag and Russian steamer Sungari. The 3 captains quickly met watching the Japanese warships also anchor within the harbor. Soon they could see the Japanese troopships unloaded troops and provisions around 6pm on February 8th. The Japanese troops went to work occupying the city and by 3am on the 9th, four IJA battalions of the 12th division had unloaded without incident. Rear admiral Uriu sent a letter to the senior Russian commander, Captain Stefanov advising him that hostilities existed between their two nations and that the Russian ships must leave the neutral port of Chemulpo. He also indicated he spoke to the other nationalities captains warning them to stay clear if a fire fight broke out in the harbor. The Russians had until noon to comply, if they stayed at 4pm, Uriu would attack.   Captain Stefanov ran over to the HMS Talbot to plead with her British captain to get the international ships to restrain the Japanese or help escort them out to sea. Captain Denis Bagly of the Talbot went out to meet Uriu with a letter signed by the other captains protesting the violation of a neutral port. Bagly had no illusions it was a useless gesture and he bid farewell to Stefanov, advising the man he should try to escape or surrender. Stefanov spoke with his fellow captains and they agreed surrender was not an option. At 11am, outgunned and outnumbered the two Russian warships departed the anchorage in front of numerous spectators. Varyags band played ‘god save the Tsar” as the sailors sang the anthem. They sailed directly at the awaiting Japanese fleet.    Upon seeing the Russians come out, the Asama trained her 8 inch guns on the Varyag and at a range of 4 miles opened fire. The new Shimose shells began to hit Varyag and soon Chiyoda added her guns to the duel. Eye witness, reporter Thomas Cowen had this to say of the scene “Her decks were being torn and riven, and men were dashed down in mangled heaps all round each gun, for the guns had no shields to protect their crews. Like the furious windsqualls in the height of a hurricane came the bursting of terrible explosives all the length of the ship, shattering and burning and sweeping away men and pieces of machinery indiscriminately”   The Varyag's crew literally ran out of men to carry away the wounded on deck. A shell smashed into the bridge to the left of the captain killing his runner. Another shell hit to the captains right killing his bugler and taking some of the side of his face. Most of Varyags guns were silenced, she took a hit below the waterline and was listing to port. Despite all of this, the able men kept to their duty, trying to maneuver the ship by the propellers after her steering gear had been shot off. With no way to fight the enemy the captain ordered them to return to port and the maneuver left Koreyetz exposed to fire for the first time. Koreyetz could not even fire upon the enemy because her range was too limited and soon the Chiyoda began to fire upon her. Koreyetz captain decided to simply follow the crippled and on fire Varyag. Suddenly the gunfire ceased, the Japanese went back to where they anchored before and the two Russian warships did the same. Varyags superstructures were flattened, two of her four funnels were blown off and her masts as well. The Russian survivors were quickly taken aboard the Talbot, Elba and Pascal. The Russian captains had decided to scuttle the three ships. As the explosives went off, the band aboard the Elba played the Russian anthem. The Japanese sailors all bowed in a salute. Later within Chemulpo some of the Russian sailors would be treated by Japanese medical staff and all were permitted to return to Russia on parole, so that they would not take up arms again during the war.    Admiral Togo took the rest of the fleet to another rendezvous point, this time at Elliot island, some 65 miles east of Port Arthur. Togo's fleet was divided into three divisions. The 1st division consisted of the 6 battleships, Asahi, Hatsuse, Shikishima, Yashima, Fuji and Togo's flagship Mikasa. They had an overall speed of 18 knots and a displacement of 12300-15000 tons with broadsides weighing some 4000 lbs. The 2nd division consisted of armored cruisers, the Yagumo, Izumo, Iwate, Azuma and Tokiwa with an average speed of 24 knots. The third division consisted of unarmored cruisers Chitose, Takasago, Yoshino and Kasagi. Additionally 15 destroyers armed with the brand new Whitehead torpedo capable of 30 knots and 20 torpedo boats would take up the role of picquet.  Over in Port Arthur's harbor the inner line consisted of 5 Russian battleships, Sevastopol, Petropavlovsk, Peresvyet, Pobieda and Poltava. In the middle line were the battleships Tsarevitch and Retvizan, alongside 3 cruisers. In the southernmost line were 3 other cruisers along with the duty ship Pallada. Patroling outside the harbor were destroyers Rastoropni and Bezstrashni around 20 miles out. The commander of the Russian Far Eastern Fleet was Vice Admiral Oscar Victorovitch Stark. It just so happened on February 8th he had planned a large birthday party for his wife. The guests would include Viceroy and Supreme Commander Admiral Alexeiev, his chief of staff Vice Admiral Witgeft, Starks deputy Rear admiral Uktomski and a plethora of other commanders and their wives. Stark actually suspected the Japanese would attack, most likely utilizing torpedoes in a surprise, but the Viceroy refused to allow him to prepare the fleet for war. None the less Stark ordered his captains to prepare to repel torpedo attacks. He ordered all ships to put out anti-torpedo nets and be prepared for action. However, several ships did not carry out these orders and did not take the situation seriously despite multiple night alarms. Many main battery guns were unloaded, many nets uncast, entire crews lay asleep in hammocks, and the two patrolling destroyers were told not to fire if they saw anything, but instead to report it to the CIC. This was because the Tsar had instructed his far Eastern forces, for political reasons, that if war should occur, Japan must be seen to have started it. Alongside this, the majority of the officer corps would be celebrating on the shore and at a party hosted by Admiral Starck for the birthday of his wife on the deck of his flagship, the Petropavlovsk. The celebrating crowd would in fact mistake explosions as cannon salutes for her birthday party. At 7pm Togo released his destroyers, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd flotillas had orders to proceed to Port Arthur while the 4th and 5th would try to ambush any Russian ships sailing around Dalny. 10 destroyers were enroute to Port Arthur, each warship held crews of around 50 men, armed with two 12 pounder guns, 4 6 pounders and two torpedoes.  The 1st Flotilla consisted of the destroyers : Shirakumo, Asashio, Kasumi, Akatsuki; 2nd Flotilla: Inazuma, Oboro, Ikazuchi; 3rd Flotilla: Usugumo, Shinonome, Sazanami. They used stearch lights, went towards Liau-ti-chan, allegedly using stolen plans from Sidney Reilly to navigate through the Russian minefield protecting the harbor. At 10:50pm, the 1st flotilla came across the two Russian destroyers on patrol, the Rastoropni and Bezstrashni. This prompted the 1st squadron to douse their lights, trying to avoid detection and slip past. During the process, the Japanese destroyer Oboro collided with the Ikazuchi, disabling her and blocking the path of the Inazuma. This in turn led the flotillas to become separated and were forced to act independently, with the Inazuma becoming lost and the Oboro limping slowly. 20 minutes after midnight, the 1st flotilla arrived, seeing Russian warship searchlights. Approaching closer they saw 3 ranks of ships and then the cruisers Pallada saw the Japanese destroyers, but presumed they were the returning Rastoropni and Bezstrashni. The Rastoropni and Bezstrashni had no radios and were rushing back to try and report the incoming Japanese. At 11:50pm Captain Asai Shojero aboard the Shiragumo gave the attack signal. The four destroyers turned to port and increased their speed to 30 knots before releasing two torpedoes each and turning southwards.  The Shiragumo fired the first two torpedoes, followed by two from the Asashio. Because the Pallada was more active, she received more attention than the rest. Pallada was hit amidship, caught fire and began to keel over. Retvizan was hit next at her bow creating a hole large enough for a car to pass through. Tsesarevitch's steering gear was hit. When the explosion of the hit against Pallada was heard many of the Russian ships began firing wildly. The Kasumi fired her two torpedoes, followed by the Akatsuki. Ikazuhi acting alone, came to the scene and fired a single torpedo before fleeing south as well. The 3rd flotilla attracted by the explosions rushed to the scene, finding some lights approaching them, they doused their lights and stopped their engines. It turned out to be the Inazuma who had got lost and requested to join them. They continued finding the Russians ships in a wild disarray. Usugumo was the first to fire, followed by Shinonime and Inazuma before they made their escape south. Meanwhile the Sazanami had been separated from all the others since 11 pm, but had managed to slip past the two russian destroyers around 1:25am and came in to fire a single torpedo before also departing south. The last ship was the damaged Oboro who attempted to repair herself before limping towards the enemy. At 1:45am she fired a torpedo and made her escape. The Russians had been caught completely by surprise. Their skeleton crews aboard the battleships had no idea what was occurring. Many men tumbled out of their bunks awaiting orders, orders that never came. To further explain, when a ship is in action each individual has his own designated tasks, but when an attack comes unexpectedly and a large number of the crew are absent, orders have to be given on the spur of the moment. The explosions were heard by many in the city of Port Arthur, but countless assumed it to be fireworks for celebration. The Russians wild attempts at firing back upon the enemy were useless. The Norvik was the only ship to give chase to the enemy. The torpedo attack killed two officers, 29 sailors and wounded 8 others. Pallada was grounded under the western battery in the harbor; Retvizan was grounded on a ledge near the entrance passage and Tsesarevitch was grounded close to Retvizan. Out of a total of 16 torpedoes launched, only 3 found targets. A major reason for this was luckily due to the few crews who had deployed anti torpedo nets as suggested by Starck. By the way if you would like to see a visual representation of the attack, there is a fantastic Japanese series on the Russo Japanese war called “Saka no Ue no Kumo” narrated by the legendary Ken Watanabe. On my personal channel the pacific war channel one of my most popular episodes is on the Russo-Japanese war, and I used a lot of footage from the series. I will admit I embarrasingly messed up the episode by speeding up the narration somewhat because it was simply too long, but its still ok. By the time this podcast comes out I hope its alright to say, I have been writing a 10 part Russo Japanese War series for Kings and Generals and the animation will look awesome. But back to the story. Starcks staff briefed him on what had occurred and he immediately reported it to the Viceroy in a manner of “i told you so”. Starck most likely hoped the Viceroy would shoulder the blame alongside him, but instead rumors were spread to exaggerate the fact he was having a party for his wife during the event. None the less the two admirals quickly began to plan their next steps as they both assumed the IJN combined fleet was about to come in an attack them. The viceroy sent a message appealing for everyone to stay calm in the city while Starck ordered the fleet to be made ready for sea immeidately. Countless officers and sailors scrambled to get to their ships. Following the attack, at 8am, Togo dispatched Vice Admiral Dewa Shigeto with the four cruisers of the 3rd flottila to investigate Port Arthur and, if possible, lure them out south of Encounter Rock. At 9am, Dewa observed 9 Russian warships getting ready for sea, with 3 aground. The smaller vessels, such as gunboats, torpedo boats and mine planters were outside the harbor looking to be in disarray. Dewa approached within 7500 yards of the harbor, but no one fired upon him. This prompted Dewa to believe the Russians were completely paralyzed. Dewa wireless-messaged Togo that the Russians seemed to be paralyzed, the time was ripe to attack. Togo had wanted to lure the Russians away from Port Arthur's shore batteries, but the report prompted him to order an immediate attack. The Russian formation was quite all over the place. Askold was to the east, Bayan in the center, Novik was far to the west having attempted to chase the enemy, many of the other ships were still at anchor. Togo devised his 3 divisions to form a column coming in one after the other, each ship was to fire starboard. The Japanese approached the harbor at 11:55am. Port Arthur was tossed into pure chaos. Warships moved quickly to jettison inflammable material while coolies in sampans paddled through the jetsam. Captains lept about demanding status reports of their ships while all they could see was dakr smudges on the horizon. At a range of 8500 meters, the Mikasa was the first to fire her guns.  After firing her 12inch forward gun, she turned and opened fire with her starboard broadside, the other ships followed in same fashion. The Russian shore batteries erupted firing back on the Japanese causing a duel between the warships 12 inch guns aimed at the shore batteries while their 8 and 6 inch guns targetted the Russia nwarships. The Mikasa took a full 20 minutes to form her pass and was followed by Asahi, Fuji, Yashima, Shikishima and Hatsuse.  Asahi targeted a Peresviet type, Fuji & Yashima fired upon cruiser Bayan, Shikishima fired on a ship in the center and Hatsuse dueled the enemy nearest to her. With the exception of Novik, the Russian moved like ants around a nest beneath their fort guns, trying not to make themselves stationary targets. The Novik charged out of the harbor to meet the enemy and received a hell of a mauling for it. The Russian flagship Petropavlosvk flying Starcks flag was battered; Poltava took a hit and cruisers Diana and Askold were severely damaged. The damage was not a one way street however, Mikasa, Shikishima, Fuji, Hatsuse and Iwate took hits. The shore batteries were becoming increasingly effective. When the 2nd and 3rd divisions were making their turn, everything had become like a barrom brawl. Within just 5 minutes of the dueling, Mikasa had taken a 10 inch shell to her starboard side which ricocheted and exploded under her mainmast. Her chief engineer, a staff officer, a paymaster, one midshipman and 3 crew members were wounded, and part of her aft bridge was carried away. The Fuji received a shell through her forward casing, smashing a stack and exploding, killing a turret officer and wounding many. Shikishima then received a hit to her forward stack causing it to explode.   By 12:20, Admiral Togo realized that Dewa was incorrect in his assessment - the enemy was not paralyzed - thus he motioned the fleet to withdraw. After just a single run of it, Togo had decided to back out and rendezvous with Uriu at Chemulpo. The departing maneuver exposed Togo's entire fleet to the full brunt of the Russian shore batteries. The Hatsuse, Fuji, Shikishima and Mikasa would take the lionshare of the damage, around 7 hits distributed amongst them. As the fleet made its turning point, the IJN cruisers took several hits. Within the 2nd Division: Azuma fired upon Novik, Iwate fired upon Askold, Iwaki fired upon Askold and then Bayan. As the cruisers turned to port to follow the 1st division Azuma was hit by three shells, one to her battle flag, the other off the water of her starboard quarter exploding, the third to her after turret. Yakumo was hit twice one to her forward main top and midshipman. Novik received many hits and fired torpedoes at Iwate missing.  Within the 3rd Division: Chitose (flag of admiral Dewa) fired on center, Takasago fired on Bayan, Kasagi fired upon a Sevastopol type, Takumo fired on nearest enemy ship. Takasago and Chitose then fired on Askold which alone came closer to them, a shell his Askolds second stack, another her forward stack. Chitose then attack Novik and Takasgo attacked Bayan. As they turned to withdraw they received no major hits. The IJN cruisers also launched salvos of torpedoes. The Novik trying to engage them closer evaded the torpedoes, but took several shells below her waterline. The Japanese finally got out of range of the dreaded batteries of Port Arthur, lucky to not have any ships sunk. The casualties were quite balanced for the engagement. The Russians had 150, the Japanese betwene 90 and 130. Neither had any warships sunk, but many were severely damaged. For the Japanese this was not a major issue, their damaged ships returned to Sasebo for immediate repairs, however for the Russians this was a major issue. Port Arthur held limited capabilities, they had only one small dry dock and another incomplete. This meant some of the larger Russian warships could not receive proper repairs, and now they were blockaded. Many 12 inch shells had fallen into the city. The Russo-Chinese bank was hit causing the employees to frantically burn the currency and prepare coins to be transported away. Lumps of coal littered the city grounds like confetti. Many Chinese grabbed their belongings and fled the city aboard steamers. Many buildings were damaged, civilian casualties were light. When the news of the surprise attack reached Tsar Nicholas II he was stunned. He could not believe the Japanese would initiate a warlike actions without formally declaring war first. His advisers had assured him the Japanese had been bluffing and would not dare attack. The first secretary of the British embassy, Cecil Spring Rice went on the record to state the Tsar was left “almost incredulous”.  Japan issued their declaration of war 3 hours after the surprise attack. Russia went on a war footing on the 10th and a few days later submitted their official declaration of war after stating to the international community Japans actions were dishonorable. In response Japan referenced the Russian attack on Sweden in 1808, which they did without declaring war first as a justification somewhat for their own actions.  The international community were mixed in their favor, but many did sympathize with the Japanese. Notably President Theodore Roosevelt held sympathetic views for the Japanese and the Japanese would take a strong notice to this. Admiral Togo was dissapointed in his lack of success with the surprise torpedo attack. But for now Japan had won command of the sea, the Russian navy was trapped. From Chemulpo, Togo sailed his damaged ships back to Sasebo for repairs, but would go on the record to state “He felt he failed to take the opportunity as Nelson would have done, to deal a blow to the Russian fleet from which they would not recover”. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. Admiral Togo had delivered the very first blow of the Russo-Japanese war. His surprise attack upon Port Arthur was a bold and terrific strategy, but had he done enough to give Japan the upper hand in the battles to come?

Fear, doubt and worry, What should I DO? We are made of body, soul, and Spirit. Each of them has their own voice. The voice of the body are your feelings. You react based on how you feel, which can be in forms of emotions. The voice of the soul is logic and reasoning. You ask yourself questions like: Does this make sense? Or if I do this and that, this will be the result. Both the voice of the body and soul feeds on information and reprocess it. Without any information, those voices are silent and have nothing to say. The voice of the Spirit is our conscience. It is a sensing, a knowing, without a need of any information. It is called the inner witness, where the Spirit of God is bearing witness with your Spirit in a situation. God's Spirit is a knowing Spirit. Paul put it this way in 1 Cor 2:12 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God We know because we have received the Spirit of God. The deep things of God became available to us the moment we received the Spirit which is at the point of salvation. Hence, we can boldly say we have access to the knowledge of God because we have His Spirit. Because of that, God's ways have become our ways, God's thoughts have become our thoughts. We know His ways and thoughts because we have His Spirit The Spirit of God always leads us. One of the easier ways to obtained direction from God Spirit is through perception. Just as Paul perceive in the Spirit that the man setting at Lystra had faith to be healed. Or when he perceives that the voyage will be damage. To perceive is to know, to stand and watch, to step out of yourself and watch. It sometimes comes in a form of a vision. Through the perception of the Spirit, we have been giving direct inside to the happenings of the world. Perception of the Spirit is not found in fear, doubt or worry. In the midst of all these things it is hard to hear God clearly. In 2 Tim 1:7 it is writing: For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. The perception of the Spirit does not make you to be afraid. The Spirit of fear does not recognize with the way God works. In 1 John 4:16-18 we see that God is Love and there is no fear in Love. God doesn't lead by doubt, for doubt is an absent of Faith. God doesn't lead by worries. It is written that we should be careful for nothing which means not to worry about anything. In Math 6:31 it is said, we should take no thoughts. His Spirit is not going to guide you in the midst of worry, fear or doubt. For at that point of time there is too much noise for you to hear the Spirit of God clearly. Now, the question is: what do we do when we find ourselves in the midst of fear, doubt and worry? First thing first, mediate on the word of God. Jos 1:8 says 8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. Mediation as a way to quite the noise of fear Mediation as a way to quite the noise of worry Mediation as a way to quite the noise of doubt God's SpokenWords Until then, stay BLESSED and feel free to contact me via e-mail: assumpta_eta@outlook.com, via Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/funkylips.eta/ or on IG https://www.instagram.com/godsspokenwords_/?hl=en Background music: waterbed by Norvik , Artlist License --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/assumpta-widak/message

Bienvenue dans l'émission "Boarding Pass" : tous les 15 jours, nous vous emmenons à la découverte de deux artistes ambient à travers deux titres qui les représentent le mieux. ⭐️ L'inspiration de la semaine Nous avons reçu un commentaire 5 étoiles sur...

Bienvenue dans l'émission "Boarding Pass" : tous les 15 jours, nous vous emmenons à la découverte de deux artistes ambient à travers deux titres qui les représentent le mieux. ⭐️ L'inspiration de la semaine Nous avons reçu un commentaire 5 étoiles sur Apple Podcast, ce qui nous a fait extrêmement plaisir. Continuez à nous noter, on adore ça

Waqaa! And welcome to an On The Land Mini Series featuring Indigenous Youth Voices! Lemau Bantatua is from Norvik, and created a podcast about Iñupiaq fur sewing based upon an interview with her Ana (Grandma).In spring of 2021, we teamed up with the Alaska Humanities Forum, See Stories, and Bitanga Productions to host a month-long podcasting workshop with a small group of middle and high school students across western Alaskan villages. Students had the opportunity to create their own 5-15 minute episode featuring interviews with their family, friends, and their teachers.Mentioned in this Episode: Alaska Humanities Forum https://www.akhf.org/Bitanga Productions https://www.bitangaproductions.com/See Stories https://www.seestoriesalaska.org/On The Land Media ontheland.orgCoffee & Quaq https://www.coffeeandquaq.com/Native Time: Village City https://www.nativetimeak.com/The music for this episode was provided by Epidemic Sound featuring the song Glimmer by AGST

Well! the promos have certainly increased over this month, & as promised No 193 our first early June edition, is another feast of eclectic electronic music, with more new names added to the thousands we've aired over the last 9 years. On the Ambient Zone, Afterlife curating some lush sunset ambient sounds, piano synthesizers strings field recordings noise, & stories blend to form a cinematic amalgam in Norvik's music. Tony Obr is a musician sound designer composer visual artist and educator, whose work attempts to redefine the boundaries of musicality and the place of sound in music, Sarah Belle Reid unique musical voice explores the intersections between contemporary classical experimental and interactive electronics noise music and improvisation, experimental musician and sound artist Einath Project unusual use of the baritone guitar contact mics & acoustic guitar the result of electronic pieces that oscillate between the drone & dark ambient. Created in the era of isolation, “here there over beyond there in space” Bana Halfer invites the listener to go even deeper, isolating in headphones to experience an expanded sonic dimensionality.  Vintage track from 30 years ago comes the music of Waveform, which was an intricate woven tapestry of unique sound textures rich in melody & full of life, enjoy. Playlist No 193 02.29 Steve Moore + Bluetech ‘Gutter Talk' (album Liminal Migration) www.bluetechonline.com 07.27 Fusion of Elements a.k.a.Syndromeda & Sensory++ ‘Cyclotron' (Sessions In The Quantum Field) www.syngate.bandcamp.net 18.52 MS2020 'Stereoland' (Futur N) www.syngate.bandcamp.net 26.43 Johan Tronestam ‘Alien Shores' (album Cosmic Steps) www.groove.de 37.18 Pat Pik ‘Dans la lumi+¿re de la nature' (album Brume) www.patpik.bandcamp.com 42.15 Norvik ‘Absum' www.theambientzone.co.uk 45.20 49.44 Giadar ‘Close Your Eyes' www.theambientzone.co.uk 49.45 Afterlife ‘The Lost Birds' www.theambientzone.co.uk 54.38 theAdelaidean ‘Inner Real Life (Styx)' (album Inner Real Life) www.projekt.bandcamp.com 01.01.58 Romerium ‘The Spacious Sea-Green Field' (album Contemplations) www.romerium.bandcamp.com 01.07.40 Ansgar Stock ‘Running Electrons' https://ansgar1.bandcamp.com 01.17.06 Matths ‘Delusion' (album Tone Science Module No5 Integers & Quotients) https://dinrecords.bandcamp.com/yum 01.23.10 Tsone/Tony Obr ‘Live at SoundQuest Fest 2021' (album Escape Velocity) *** www.tsone.bandcamp.com 01.35.08 Pat Pik ‘Warlock' (album Le ciel après une ondée de printemps) www.patpik.bandcamp.com 01.43.42 Otarion '40 Days to Destruction' (album No Time Was Lost) www.mellowjet.de 01.50.09 Otarion ‘The Shore of Japho' 01.56.00 Sarah Belle Reid ‘Passage' (album MASS) www.sarahbellereid.bandcamp.com 02.02.59 Elnath Project ‘E2MX Part 1' (album Anticlinal) *** https://www.plustimbre.com 02.09.30 Bana Halfar ‘Totally Alive And Totally Invisible' (EP here, there, over, beyond there, in space) www.banahaffar.bandcamp.com 02.17.08 Hey Exit ‘Call At Dusk' (album Eulogy For Land) www.fullspectrumrecords.bandcamp.com 02.29.57 Sensitive Chaos ‘Cosmic Orchestra' (album Closer To Home) www.sensitivechaos.bandcamp.com 02.35.48 Sensitive Chaos ‘Watching Embers Glow' 02.42.49 Waveform ‘Stormbringer' (album Making Waves) Edit***

Ny vecka, nytt fartygssnack. I dag måndag var det en speciell dag för både Stena Line och Stockholms Hamnar. Stena Flavia blev nämligen första färjan i trafik att anlöpa den sprillans nya roro-hamnen i Norvik. Dessutom snackar vi om Viking Star som blir första fartyg med ett eget labb ombord för coronatestning, om Moby SPL som överväger att starta rysk inrikeskryssningar via Stockholm samt om fartygen som kan bli de första att kryssa från USA. /Christopher & Patrik Foto: Kim Viktor 

Samantha presides over a meeting of IFM2 Subspace Radio interns, but is interrupted by the news that Janet and Loaf are missing. Meanwhile, Janet and Loaf work their way through different dimensions, meeting up with an alternate Janet and an unexpected alternate Melody. For more information and full episode transcripts, visit us at www.stppodcast.com Featuring Nathan Comstock as Loaf, Austin Hendricks as Janets, Phoenix Bunke as Samantha, Dallas Wheatley as Norvik, Emily Duggan as Makathena, Chloé Cunha as Melody, and Ron Prudent as Mr. Xorfus.

I 27. episode av podcasten Feilskjær møter vi Frank Norvik. En kremmersønn fra Frosta som tidlig ble begeistret for Levis og Poco Loco. Frank har bakgrunn fra toppidretten, noe som har gitt han et indre driv for å stå på , sette høye mål og ikke minst lykkes med det man holder på med. Frank har stort sett lyktes med alt, men noen feilskjær klarte vi å grave fram. Avskjedsgave til lytterne:      Frank har vært på intimkonsert i Anne B. Ragde sitt gamle hus . Lornts har baket sjokoladekake med sinn sønn.  Tor Martin anbefaler den nyeste sesongen av Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee på Netflix  Har du et feilskjær eller to fra arbeidslivet som du ønsker å dele med oss? Send oss en mail på Feilskjaer@uredd.no - så skal vi få feilskjæret opp og frem i lyset! Dine verter:    Lornts Tønne - rådgiver hos Uredd    Tor Martin Norvik - kreativ leder hos Uredd     Produsert i samarbeid med Snorre Busch fra Lydsporet Media   Du finner oss på Facebook: www.facebook.com/feilskjaer/ Følg oss gjerne på Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/feilskjaer/    God lytting!

Joe and Otto are back in Rīga to celebrate the annual city festival and discuss the ECB's sudden closure of PNB Bank (formerly Norvik) as well as major updates to long-running stories such as the road to a new Mayor of Rīga, a compromise in regional reform, increased heat in the showdown between the University of Latvia and Minister of Education Ilga Šuplinska, and much more! Opening and closing music by Anna Veisa Weather theme: Smooth Jazz (am) by Backing Track Ninja Source: backingtrackninja.bandcamp.com/track/smo…h-jazz-am

Ny sesong. Ny innpakning. SarpsPod 08 er tilbake i ny innpakning. Denne sesongen har vi fått med oss Østfold Musikk og Showfabrikken Media. De har bidratt med utstyr og lydpakke. -Vi er ydmyke og takknemlige for samarbeidet, sier Tom Arild Olsen og Kristian Norvik. I sesongens første episode gjester daglig leder Espen Engebretsen, som forteller om det som skjer rundt klubben før seriestart. -Nå 14 dager før seriestart er det mye armer og ben, men det er en bra jobb som legges ned her hver dag, sier han. Det jobbes også med å få på plass det nye kontorbygget. -Hvis vi skal ha folk til å komme på stadion og bli en del av laget kan vi ikke sitte på brakker, sier Engebretsen. Jørgen Horn fikk kun én treningskamp før uhellet skjedde. -Det første jeg spurte legen om var om jeg ville få tilbake synet mitt, forteller Horn. På spørsmål om han har sett hendelsen svarer han slik; -Det er også en morsom historie, ler han. Jeg er i en WhatsApp gruppe med kompiser som sender over en link. "Sjekk denne!" står det, forteller han. Til slutt i podcasten får Olsen og Norvik besøk av Steffen Lie Skålevik, som er ny i klubben. Han har spilt treningskamper og scoret to mål i den siste kampen. -Det var godt å score mål, men de betyr jo ingenting. Men på en skala fra 1 til 10 - hvor godt var det å få kommet på scoringslisten? - Ni og en halv, svarer Skålevik og ler. Neste podcast kommer torsdag 28. mars.

För 4500 år sedan levde säljägare ute på de vindpinade skären vid Nynäshamn. Tobias Svanelid undersöker vilka dessa märkliga människor var och vilka spår de lämnat efter sig. Följ med Tobias Svanelid till Norvik på Södertörn där arkeologerna nu undersöker en 4 500 år gammal stenåldersboplats. Här levde en gång medlemmar ur den gropkeramiska kulturen, en grupp jägare och samlare som rörde sig längs Sveriges östkust i jakt på sin favoritföda sälkött. Men hur kom det sig att det i Skandinavien vid den här tiden kunde finnas två så vitt skilda kulturer den jordbrukande och den säljagande? Dessutom uppmärksammas vad som egentligen hände under invasionen av Tjeckoslovakien för 50 år sedan. Det var på morgonen den 21 augusti 1968 som världen vaknade upp till nyheterna om Sovjetunionens invasion i Prag, och historieprofessorn Kristian Gerner berättar om sina egna minnen från händelsen. Och så är Dick Harrison tillbaka för att reda ut vad som egentligen hände med de supermäktiga Habsburgarna stämmer det att deras många kusingiftermål till slut fördärvade familjens DNA?

I sin andre sesong av SarpsPod 08, spiller Tom Arild Olsen og Kristian Norvik fortsatt i Eliteserien. Det gjør de med god hjelp av Sarpsborg 08's spillere og trenerteam. På Svenske Flaggans Dag har Tom Arild og Kristian satt seg på hovedtribunen og får besøk av blant andre målvakt Aslak Falch. Sist podcasten var på besøk på stadion, kom Kristian til å si at Falch må fortsette å holde nullen. Det ville Norvik gjerne få be om unnskyldning for. - Det var ikke bare din feil at vi slapp inn to mål mot Stabæk, sier Falch. En som kanskje var mer uheldig mot Stabæk var unggutten Tobias Heintz. Han hadde to åpenbare sjanser på mål, men bommet totalt på begge. Både Tom Arild og Kristian synes det var vondt å se Heintz så åpenbart bomme på målet. -Trenerne mine og medspillerne er klare på at det skjer én av 100 ganger, sier Heintz. En av de faste gjestene i podden er assistenttrener Tom Freddy Aune. Han er klar på at Ranheim blir et vanskelig lag, med tanke på at de ligger der de gjør på tabellen. -Det blir et bikkjeslagsmål av en kamp, me vi reiser dit for å ta med oss poeng. Snart skal Sarpsborg spille cup i Europa og Tom Arild og Kristian lurer på hva magefølelsen til Tom Freddy er når det kommer til motstand. -Jeg har ingen magefølelse på hvem vi møter, men vi vil gjerne møte lag vi kan vinne mot, sier Aune. Sarpsborg 08's Fantasy ekspert, Amin Askar, har noen tips om hvem man bør fjerne fra sitt Fantasy-lag. -Det er sikkert noen som har Bendtner ennå. Han bør vekk, sier Askar. Han har også meninger om hvem man bør legge til på laget sitt. -Det går an å putte på en krølltopp, sier Askar, med et lurt smil.

Freyr Hákonarson hjá Klepp Kleppur býður upp á sérhæfðar meðferðir í öllu sem viðkemur markaðssetningu. Freyr hefur verið í auglýsingageiranum í meira en 15 ár. Hann hefur komið að framleiðslu, markaðsráðgjöf, viðburðarstjórnun og snert á allskyns verkefnum í auglýsinga og markaðsmálum á Íslandi. Sjónvarp, útvarp, prent og skiltagerð ásamt fjölda uppákoma og gjörninga er meðal annars það sem Freyr hefur komið að. Freyr starfaði lengst af hjá Expo sem var þá í eigu Norvik og unnu fyrir Byko, Elko, Krónunni, Vífilfell, Bílnaust og fleiri. Eftir Expo fór Freyr að starfa hjá Árnasonum í um eitt og hálft ár. Í kjölfarið af því var til fyrirtækið Kleppur sem er meðferðarheimili fyrir fyrirtæki. Kleppur er samsett af sérfræðingum í mannauðstjórnun, markaðsmálum, textagerð, hugmyndafólki. Starfsmenn Klepps fara inní fyrirtæki og leysa verkefni með fyrirtækjum, greina vandamál, finna lausn og koma henni í farveg.

Tidligere Statoil-sjef snakker om tidlige barneår i et nedbrent Finnmark, om olje, innovasjon og Norges fremtid, om kvinner i toppen av norsk næringsliv, om ledelse og trygghet, og om å være ensom i lederrollen. Med VGs politiske redaktør Hanne Skartveit. Produsert av Magne D. Antonsen See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.