Podcasts about Sugimoto

Can artificial intelligence restore humanity to my patient interactions? In this episode, Dr May Lin and Dr Brent Sugimoto explore how ambient scribing and smarter administrative tools free physicians to be truly present with their patients, allowing technology to become a bridge in patient care rather than a barrier. Our guests also tackle the ethical and policy dimensions of how AI affects family medicine in both the exam room and the classroom. They identify the current moment as an opportunity for residency programs to shape how AI is used in family medicine, emphasizing that if today's residents are not trained to use AI tools ethically and wisely, their future patients may miss out on the benefits of technology-assisted care.Hosted by Omari A. Hodge, MD, FAAFP and Jay-Sheree Allen Akambase, MDCopyright © Society of Teachers of Family Medicine, 2026Resources:Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion Against Big Tech by Brian MerchantArtificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Primary Care Curriculum (AiMPC) CourseEthical Use of AI in the Family Medicine Clinic - STFM WebinarAn Opportunity to Thrive - AI in Family Medicine - STFM PodcastAI Deep Dive Summer Series Episode 1: Integrating AI into Family Medicine Curriculum Design - STFM PodcastAI Deep Dive Summer Series Episode 2: The Promises and Pitfalls of AI in Residency Assessment - STFM PodcastGuest Bio:May Lin, DODr Lin is board certified in Family Medicine and Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine (OMM). She practices at Amazon/One Medical where she also serves as the Director of Academic Development. A graduate of Harvard Medical School's Executive Education Course on AI in Healthcare, Dr. Lin serves on the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine's (AACOM) Technology Task Force, Touro University's AI Task Force, and the American Osteopathic Information Association's (AOiA) national steering committee. As an Osteopathic Health Policy Fellow, Dr. Lin blends policy interest with leadership experience in healthcare technology and medical education. Dr. Lin is passionate about advancing medical innovation giving patients increased access, decrease cost and improved quality in high touch, technology forward medical care. Integrating primary care, medical innovation, healthcare technology, and healthcare policy are key attributes to supporting primary care and elevating our next generation for sustainable primary care practice and delivery.Brent Sugimoto, MD, MPHDr Sugumoto is program director of the LifeLong Medical Care Family Medicine Residency Program and a Family Physician who specializes in HIV medicine. He currently serves as co-chair of the AAFP/Rock Health “Advancing AI and Digital Health for Primary Care Initiative.” Brent ventured into artificial intelligence after the birth of his first child—when parenthood made him rethink the boundaries of his professional and personal lives—and co-founded a startup called Decoded Health, which leveraged technology from DARPA to build tools to make primary care sustainable. Since then, Brent has worked to increase family medicine's engagement in AI/ML as a potentially transformative and disruptive technology through physician education and policy work within the specialty. Brent is excited to be a member of this task force, as he believes health technology literacy will be a critical competency for future family physicians. He uses ambient scribing with moderate success in his own practice.Link:https://www.stfm.org/stfmpodcast082026 

  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

What does it mean for a society or individual to believe things in common, when contemporary society is marked increasingly by customized news sources, a collapse of consensus, loss of societal authority, and the normalization of doubt? Rashomon, the 1951 landmark film by Akira Kurosawa, shook the notion of a single narrative account of a crime by presenting multiple, conflicting viewpoints — marking the postwar collapse of binding narratives concerning Japanese society. This lecture explores the contradictions of today's Rashomon moment for the West, which on the one hand is experiencing fragmentation, a loss of narrative unity — owing to digital, consumer technology — while on the other hand exhibiting the opposite, i.e. new forms of conformity expressed across various fields.Click here to see the visual presentation for this lecture.Please note that the ideas expressed in this lecture do not necessarily represent the views of L'Abri Fellowship.For more resources, visit the L'Abri Ideas Library at labriideaslibrary.org. The library contains over two thousand lectures and discussions that explore questions about the reality and relevance of Christianity. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit englishlabri.substack.com

HIJRAH CAHAYA ISLAM DI NEGERI SAKURADr. Kyoichiro SugimotoKAJIAN MT AL-KHANSATerbuka untuk umum MUSLIMAHKamis, 02 Juli 2026 / 17 Muharram 1448HPukul 08:00 - 11:00 WIBdi Masjid As-Sofia, Bogorمَنْ سَلَكَ طَرِيْقًايَلْتَمِسُ فِيْهِ عِلْمًا,سَهَّلَ اللهُ لَهُ طَرِيْقًا إِلَى الجَنَّةِ . رَوَاهُ مُسْلِم Siapa saja yang menempuh satu jalan (cara) untuk mendapatkan ilmu, maka Allah pasti mudahkan baginya jalan menuju surga." (HR. Muslim) LIVE Streaming: - Youtube.com/@DiMediaTV - https://youtube.com/live/4g_xGor7Z8s?feature=share- Youtube.com/@assofiamasjid - https://youtube.com/live/3znTMStBylE?feature=share- IG @DiMediaTV- IG @MasjidAsSofia- Facebook DiMediaPage - https://www.facebook.com/events/3860213690953940/- Tiktok DiMediaTV-- Spotify: Dimedia Radio Masjid As-Sofia, Jl. RE. Martadinata 46-48, Kel. Ciwaringin, Kota Bogor, Phone: 0811 1226 242, IG @MasjidAsSofia Rekening Donasi:BSI 7265 516 078 a.n. Masjid As Sofia (Operasional Masjid) Mari beramal jariyah bagi tersebarnya ilmu, dakwah & perjuangan dijalan Allah melalui donasi biaya operasional dan wakaf peralatan LIVE Streaming, via QRIS atau transfer ke Rekening BSI 7149 665 026 an. DiMediaTV. "Di era informasi sekarang ini penting memanfaatkan media untuk dakwah dan menghadapi opini negatif. Kita manfaatkan semua sarana dan prasana untuk menyiarkan Islam dengan baik, dan lakukan klarifikasi atau membantah jika ada fitnah terhadap Islam." (KH Didin Hafidhuddin).#DiMediaTV #masjidassofia #dimediaradio #DiMedia #AlKhansa #sahabatalkhansa #live #livestream #livestreaming #kajianbogor #kajianislami #kajianmuslimah #nasehatislami #nasehat #infokajianbogor #infokajian #infokajiansunnah #obs #obsstudio #obsstudiolive #obslivestream #obslive Jadikan Dakwah Sebagai Poros dari Aktifitas kita sehari-hari sebagaimana Rasulallah SAW, oleh sebab itu jadikan video ini sebagai amal jariyah dakwah Anda juga dengan cara "Like, Comment, Save, Subscribe & Share" ----- takwa,ketakwaan,taat,kataatan, khutbah,khotbah,tausiah,tausiyah,ceramah,kajian,dimedia,dimediatv,dimedia tv,masjid assofia,masjid assofia bogor,Obs,Obs Live Stream,Obs Live,Obs Studio,Obs Studio Live,Sony A7R3,Sony A7RIII,alkhansa,mt alkhansa bogor,sahabat alkhansa,

La batería de Reona Sugimoto navega entre el jazz, el rock, el funk, la improvisación libre, entre muchos otros. Comenzó estudiando percusión clásica a los nueve años en su natal Morioka, Japón. En 2014 llega a México, donde actualmente está en un sinfín de proyectos musicales llenos de contrastes y encuentros sonoros percusivos. Escuchemos lo que tiene para contarnos.Sigan y escuchen a Reona en:YouTube:  ⁨@reonasugimoto708⁩  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reonasugimoto/Bandcamp: https://reonasugimoto.bandcamp.com/album/kokoroSu linktree: https://linktr.ee/reonasugimoto?utm_source=linktree_profile_share<sid=1a0f66cb-3a4b-4acf-a7a6-87ab54c5eac8Artículo "Mujeres instrumentistas del jazz en México" de Estefanía Romero: https://bopspots.com/2022/03/07/instrumentistas-del-jazz-en-mexico-que-te-urgia-conocer/Florencia Serendipia:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/floserendipia?igsh=Mzg5dTM1cWJjZDM5&utm_source=qrMira este episodio en YouTube: https://youtube.com/live/MolSMrqGfTcFoto de portada: Aarón Hernández. @ahdzukIlustración original de Florencia Serendipia: Michelle Pérez Lete https://www.behance.net/ms19

One of the world’s greatest living artists. One of the most ambitious exhibitions Singapore has ever staged. Sugimoto’s “Form Is Emptiness” is a masterpiece — meditative, philosophical, and visually stunning. SAM Curators Amy Cheng and Angelica Ong walked us through the journey. If you care about art, perception, or time itself… go see this. On The Wide Angle, we explore one of the most significant art events of the year: Hiroshi Sugimoto: Form Is Emptiness, a major exhibition at the Singapore Art Museum running from 29 May to 4 October 2026 — and the first large‑scale solo exhibition of Sugimoto’s work in Southeast Asia. This ambitious project. Spanning five decades of Sugimoto’s practice, from photography and sculpture to architecture and conceptual art, the exhibition brings together over 60 works across 11 series, including Seascapes, Theatres, Sea of Buddha, Opticks, and Portraits. We discuss the curators’ experience working with Sugimoto’s team, the philosophical ideas behind the exhibition, and what audiences can expect from this immersive, meditative encounter with one of contemporary art’s most influential figures.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Last time we spoke about the Changsha fire. Chiang Kai-shek faced a brutal choice: defend Wuhan to the last man or flood the land to slow the invaders. He chose both, pushing rivers and rallying a fractured army as Japanese forces pressed along the Yangtze. Fortresses at Madang held long, but the cost was high—troops lost, civilians displaced, a city's heart burning in the night. Wuhan fell after months of brutal fighting, yet the battle did not break China's will. Mao Zedong urged strategy over martyrdom, preferring to drain the enemy and buy time for a broader struggle. The Japanese, though victorious tactically, found their strength ebbing, resource strains, supply gaps, and a war that felt endless. In the wake of Wuhan, Changsha stood next in the Japanese crosshairs, its evacuation and a devastating fire leaving ash and memory in its wake. Behind these prices, political currents swirled. Wang Jingwei defected again, seeking power beyond Chiang's grasp, while Chongqing rose as a western bastion of resistance. The war hardened into a protracted stalemate, turning Japan from an aggressive assailant into a wary occupier, and leaving China to endure, persist, and fight on.   #175  The Soviet-Japanese Border Conflicts 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. So based on the title of this one, you probably can see we are taking a bit of a detour. For quite some time we have focused on the Japanese campaigns into China proper 1937-1938. Now the way the second sino-japanese war is traditionally broken down is in phases. 1937-1938, 1939-1942 and 1942-1945. However there is actually even more going on in China aside from the war with Japan. In Xinjiang province a large full blown Islamic revolution breaks out in 1937. We will be covering that story at a later date, but another significant event is escalating border skirmishes in Manchukuo. Now these border skirmishes had been raging ever since the USSR consolidated its hold over the far east. We talked about some of those skirmishes prior to the Sino-Soviet war in 1929. However when Japan created the puppet government of Manchukuo, this was a significant escalation in tensions with the reds. Today we are going to talk about the escalating border conflicts between the Soviets and Japan. A tongue of poorly demarcated land extends southeast from Hunchun, hugging the east bank of the Tumen River between Lake Khasan to the east and Korea to the west. Within this tongue stands Changkufeng Hill, one of a long chain of highlands sweeping from upstream along the rivers and moors toward the sea. The twin-peaked hill sits at the confluence area several miles northwest of the point where Manchuria, Korea, and the Russian Far East meet. The hill's shape reminded Koreans of their changgo, which is a long snare drum constricted at the center and tapped with the hands at each end. When the Manchus came to the Tumen, they rendered the phonetic sounds into three ideographic characters meaning "taut drum peaks" or Chang-ku-feng. The Japanese admired the imagery and preserved the Chinese readings, which they pronounce Cho-ko-ho. From their eastern vantage, the Russians called it Zaozernaya, "hill behind the lake." Soviet troops referred to it as a sugar-loaf hill. For many years, natives and a handful of officials in the region cultivated a relaxed attitude toward borders and sovereignty. Even after the Japanese seized Manchuria in 1931, the issue did not immediately come to a head. With the expansion of Manchukuo and the Soviet Far East under Stalin's Five-Year plans, both sides began to attend more closely to frontier delimitation. Whenever either party acted aggressively, force majeure was invoked to justify the unexpected and disruptive events recognized in international law. Most often, these incidents erupted along the eastern Manchurian borders with the USSR or along the 350-mile frontier south of Lake Khanka, each skirmish carrying the seeds of all-out warfare. Now we need to talk a little bit about border history. The borders in question essentially dated to pacts concluded by the Qing dynasty and the Tsardom. Between the first Sino-Russian Treaty of Nerchinsk in 1689 and the Mukden Agreement of 1924, there were over a dozen accords governing the borders. Relevant to Changkufeng were the basic 15-article Convention of Peking, supplementing the Tientsin Treaties of November 1860, some maps made in 1861, and the eight-article Hunchun Border Protocol of 1886. By the 1860 treaty, the Qing ceded to Tsarist Russia the entire maritime province of Siberia, but the meaning of "lands south of Lake Khanka" remained rather vague. Consequently, a further border agreement was negotiated in June 1861 known as "the Lake Khanka Border Pact", by which demarcations were drawn on maps and eight wooden markers erected. The border was to run from Khanka along ridgelines between the Hunchun River and the sea, past Suifenho and Tungning, terminating about 6 miles from the mouth of the Tumen. Then a Russo-Chinese commission established in 1886 drew up the Hunchun Border Pact, proposing new or modified markers along the 1860–1861 lines and arranging a Russian resurvey. However, for the Japanese, in 1938, the Chinese or Manchu texts of the 1886 Hunchun agreement were considered controlling. The Soviets argued the border ran along every summit west of Khasan, thereby granting them jurisdiction over at least the eastern slopes of all elevations, including Changkufeng and Shachaofeng.  Since the Qing dynasty and the house of Romanov were already defunct, the new sovereignties publicly appealed to opposing texts, and the Soviet side would not concede that the Russian-language version had never been deemed binding by the Qing commissioners. Yet, even in 1938, the Japanese knew that only the Chinese text had survived or could be located.    Now both the Chinese and Russian military maps generally drew the frontier along the watershed east of Khasan; this aligned with the 1861 readings based on the Khanka agreement. The Chinese Republican Army conducted new surveys sometime between 1915 and 1920. The latest Chinese military map of the Changkufeng area drew the border considerably closer to the old "red line" of 1886, running west of Khasan but near the shore rather than traversing the highland crests. None of the military delimitations of the border was sanctified by an official agreement. Hence, the Hunchun Protocol, whether well known or not, invaluable or worthless, remained the only government-to-government pact dealing with the frontiers.  Before we jump into it, how about a little summary of what became known as the Soviet-Japanese border conflicts. The first major conflict would obviously be the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. Following years of conflict between the Russian Empire and Japan culminating in the costly Battle of Tsushima, Tsar Nicholas II's government sought peace, recognizing Japan's claims to Korea and agreeing to evacuate Manchuria.  From 1918 to 1920, the Imperial Japanese Army, under Emperor Taishō after the death of Meiji, assisted the White Army and Alexander Kerensky against the Bolshevik Red Army. They also aided the Czechoslovak Legion in Siberia to facilitate its return to Europe after an Austrian-Hungarian armoured train purportedly went astray. By 1920, with Austria-Hungary dissolved and Czechoslovakia established two years earlier, the Czechoslovak Legion reached Europe. Japan withdrew from the Russian Revolution and the Civil War in 1922. Following Japan's 1919-1920 occupations and the Soviet intervention in Mongolia in 1921, the Republic of China also withdrew from Outer Mongolia in 1921. In 1922, after capturing Vladivostok in 1918 to halt Bolshevik advances, Japanese forces retreated to Japan as Bolshevik power grew and the postwar fatigue among combatants increased. After Hirohito's invasion of Manchuria in 1931–1932, following Taishō's death in 1926, border disputes between Manchukuo, the Mongolian People's Republic, and the Soviet Union increased. Many clashes stemmed from poorly defined borders, though some involved espionage. Between 1932 and 1934, the Imperial Japanese Army reported 152 border disputes, largely tied to Soviet intelligence activity in Manchuria, while the Soviets accused Japan of 15 border violations, six air intrusions, and 20 cases of "spy smuggling" in 1933 alone. Numerous additional violations followed in the ensuing years. By the mid-1930s, Soviet-Japanese diplomacy and trust had deteriorated further, with the Japanese being openly labeled "fascist enemies" at the Seventh Comintern Congress in July 1935. Beginning in 1935, conflicts significantly escalated. On 8 January 1935, the first armed clash, known as the Halhamiao incident, took place on the border between Mongolia and Manchukuo. Several dozen cavalrymen of the Mongolian People's Army crossed into Manchuria near disputed fishing grounds and engaged an 11‑man Manchukuo Imperial Army patrol near the Buddhist temple at Halhamiao, led by a Japanese military advisor. The Manchukuo Army sustained 6 wounded and 2 dead, including the Japanese officer; the Mongols suffered no casualties and withdrew after the Japanese sent a punitive expedition to reclaim the area. Two motorized cavalry companies, a machine‑gun company, and a tankette platoon occupied the position for three weeks without resistance. In June 1935, the first direct exchange of fire between the Japanese and Soviets occurred when an 11‑man Japanese patrol west of Lake Khanka was attacked by six Soviet horsemen, reportedly inside Manchukuo territory. In the firefight, one Soviet soldier was killed and two horses were captured. The Japanese requested a joint investigation, but the Soviets rejected the proposal. In October 1935, nine Japanese and 32 Manchukuoan border guards were establishing a post about 20 kilometers north of Suifenho when they were attacked by 50 Soviet soldiers. The Soviets opened fire with rifles and five heavy machine guns. Two Japanese and four Manchukuoan soldiers were killed, and another five were wounded. The Manchukuoan foreign affairs representative lodged a verbal protest with the Soviet consul at Suifenho. The Kwantung Army of Japan also sent an intelligence officer to investigate the clash. On 19 December 1935, a Manchukuoan unit reconnoitering southwest of Buir Lake clashed with a Mongolian party, reportedly capturing 10 soldiers. Five days later, 60 truck‑borne Mongolian troops assaulted the Manchukuoans and were repulsed, at the cost of three Manchukuoan dead. On the same day, at Brunders, Mongolian forces attempted three times to drive out Manchukuoan outposts, and again at night, but all attempts failed. Further small attempts occurred in January, with Mongolians using airplanes for reconnaissance. The arrival of a small Japanese force in three trucks helped foil these attempts; casualties occurred on both sides, though Mongolian casualties are unknown aside from 10 prisoners taken. In February 1936, Lieutenant-Colonel Sugimoto Yasuo was ordered to form a detachment from the 14th Cavalry Regiment to "drive the Outer Mongol intruders from the Olankhuduk region," a directive attributed to Lieutenant-General Kasai Heijuro. Sugimoto's detachment included cavalry guns, heavy machine guns, and tankettes. They faced a force of about 140 Mongolians equipped with heavy machine guns and light artillery. On February 12, Sugimoto's men drove the Mongolians south, at the cost of eight Japanese killed, four wounded, and one tankette destroyed. The Japanese began to withdraw, but were attacked by 5–6 Mongolian armored cars and two bombers, which briefly disrupted the column. The situation was stabilized when the Japanese unit received artillery support, allowing them to destroy or repel the armored cars. In March 1936, the Tauran incident occurred. In this clash, both the Japanese Army and the Mongolian Army deployed a small number of armored fighting vehicles and aircraft. The incident began when 100 Mongolian and six Soviet troops attacked and occupied the disputed village of Tauran, Mongolia, driving off the small Manchurian garrison. They were supported by light bombers and armored cars, though the bombing sorties failed to inflict damage on the Japanese, and three bombers were shot down by Japanese heavy machine guns. Local Japanese forces counter-attacked, conducting dozens of bombing sorties and finally assaulting Tauran with 400 men and 10 tankettes. The result was a Mongolian rout, with 56 Mongolian soldiers killed, including three Soviet advisors, and an unknown number wounded. Japanese losses were 27 killed and 9 wounded. Later in March 1936, another border clash occurred between Japanese and Soviet forces. Reports of border violations prompted the Japanese Korean Army to send ten men by truck to investigate, but the patrol was ambushed by 20 Soviet NKVD soldiers deployed about 300 meters inside territory claimed by Japan. After suffering several casualties, the Japanese patrol withdrew and was reinforced with 100 men, who then drove off the Soviets. Fighting resumed later that day when the NKVD brought reinforcements. By nightfall, the fighting had ceased and both sides had pulled back. The Soviets agreed to return the bodies of two Japanese soldiers who had died in the fighting, a development viewed by the Japanese government as encouraging. In early April 1936, three Japanese soldiers were killed near Suifenho in another minor affray. This incident was notable because the Soviets again returned the bodies of the fallen servicemen. In June 1937, the Kanchazu Island incident occurred on the Amur River along the Soviet–Manchukuo border. Three Soviet gunboats crossed the river's center line, disembarked troops, and occupied Kanchazu Island. Japanese forces from the IJA 1st Division, equipped with two horse-drawn 37 mm artillery pieces, quickly established improvised firing positions and loaded their guns with both high-explosive and armor-piercing shells. They shelled the Soviet vessels, sinking the lead gunboat, crippling the second, and driving off the third. Japanese troops subsequently fired on the swimming crewmen from the sunken ships using machine guns. Thirty-seven Soviet soldiers were killed, while Japanese casualties were zero. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs protested and demanded the Soviet forces withdraw from the island. The Soviet leadership, apparently shocked by the incident and reluctant to escalate, agreed to evacuate their troops. By 1938 the border situation had deteriorated. The tangled terrain features, mountain, bog, stream, forest, and valley, would have complicated even careful observers' discernment of the old red line drawn in 1886. Fifty years later, the markers themselves had undergone a metamorphosis. Japanese investigators could find, at most, only 14 to 17 markers standing fairly intact between the Tumen estuary and Khanka—roughly one every 25 miles at best. The remainder were missing or ruined; five were found in new locations. Marker "K," for example, was 40 meters deeper inside Manchuria, away from Khanka. Japanese military experts noted that of the 20 markers originally set along the boundaries of Hunchun Prefecture alone, only four could be found by the summer of 1938. The rest had either been wrecked or arbitrarily moved and discarded by Russian or Chinese officials and inhabitants. It is even said that one missing marker could be seen on display in Khabarovsk. The Chinese had generally interpreted the boundary as the road line just west of Khasan, at least in practice. Free road movement, however, had become a problem even 20 years before the Japanese overran Manchuria in 1931–1932 during the so-called Manchurian Incident. The Japanese adopted, or inherited, the Chinese interpretation, which was based on the 1886 agreement on border roads; the key clause held that the frontier west of Khasan would be the road along the lake. Japanese sources emphasize that local residents' anger toward gradual Soviet oppression and penetrations westward into Manchurian territory fueled the conflict. Many natives believed the original boundaries lay east of the lake, but the Soviets adjusted the situation to suit their own convenience. In practice, the Russians were restricting road use just west of Khasan by Manchurian and Korean residents. There was speculation that this was a prelude to taking over the ridgelines, depending on the reaction of the Manchukuoan–Japanese side. Villagers who went to streams or the lake to launder clothing found themselves subjected to sniper fire. Along a 25-mile stretch of road near Shachaofeng, farmers reported coming under fire from new Soviet positions as early as November 1935. Nevertheless, Japanese and Koreans familiar with the Tumen area noted agrarian, seasonal Korean religious rites atop Changkufeng Hill, including fattened pigs sacrificed and changgo drums beaten. Village elders told Japanese visitors in 1938 that, until early the preceding year, no Russians had come as far as Changkufeng Hill. Looking only at the border sector around Changkufeng, the easy days were clearly behind us. In the summer of 1938, Gaimusho "Foreign Ministry" observers described the explosive situation along the Korea–Manchuria–USSR borders as a matter of de facto frontiers. Both sides pressed against each other, and their trigger-happy posture was summed up in the colloquial refrain: "Take another step and we'll let you have it." Near dawn on 13 June 1938, a Manchurian patrol detected a suspicious figure in the fog swirling over Changlingtzu Hill on the Siberian–Manchurian frontier. Challenged at 15 feet, the suspect hurled two pistols to the ground and raised his hands in surrender. At headquarters, the police soon realized this was no routine border-trespassing case. The man was a defector and he was a Russian general, in fact he was the director of all NKVD forces in the Soviet Far East. Beneath a mufti of spring coat and hunting cap, he wore a full uniform with medals. His identification card No. 83 designated him as G. S. Lyushkov, Commissar 3rd Class, countersigned by Nikolai Yezhov, NKVD head in Moscow. Lyushkov was promptly turned over to the Japanese military authorities, who transferred him to Seoul and then to Tokyo under close escort. On 1 July, the Japanese press was permitted to disclose that Lyushkov had sought refuge in Japan. Ten days later, to capitalize on the commissar's notoriety and to confound skeptics, the Japanese produced Lyushkov at a press conference in Tokyo. For the Japanese and foreign correspondents, who met separately with him, Lyushkov described Soviet Far East strength and the turmoil wracking the USSR, because for those of you unfamiliar this was during the Stalinist purges. Clearly, the Japanese had gained a unique reservoir of high-level intelligence and a wealth of materials, including notes scratched in blood by suspects incarcerated at Khabarovsk. A general tightening of Russian frontier security had recently been reported. Natives of Fangchuanting asserted that a Soviet cavalry patrol appeared in June, seemingly for the first time. Contact with Yangkuanping, northwest of Khasan, was severed. More importantly, Japanese Army Signal Corps intelligence detected a surge of Soviet message traffic from the Posyet Bay district. After Lyushkov's defection, a drastic reshuffle in the local Russian command apparently occurred, and responsibility for border surveillance seems to have been reallocated. Japanese records indicate that the Novokievsk security force commander was relieved and the sector garrison replaced by troops from Vladivostok. Gaimusho intelligence also received reports that a border garrison unit had been transferred from Khabarovsk or Chita to the Tumen sector. The Kwantung Army signal monitors also intercepted two significant frontline messages on 6 July from the new Russian local commander in the Posyet region, addressed to Lieutenant General Sokolov in Khabarovsk. Decoded, the messages suggested (1) that ammunition for infantry mortars amounted to less than half the required supply; and  (2) a recommendation that higher headquarters authorize Russian elements to secure certain unoccupied high ground west of Khasan.  The commander noted terrain advantages and the contemplated construction of emplacements that would command Najin and the Korean railway. As a start, at least one Russian platoon should be authorized to dig in on the highest ground (presumably Changkufeng) and deploy four tons of entanglements to stake out the Soviet claim. Korea Army Headquarters received a telegram from the Kwantung Army on 7 July conveying the deciphered messages. On the same day, the 19th Division in North Korea telephoned Seoul that, on 6 July, three or four Soviet horsemen had been observed reconnoitering Manchurian territory from atop a hill called Changkufeng. The alarming intelligence from the Kwantung Army and the front warranted immediate attention by the Korea Army. Some Kwantung Army officers doubted the significance of the developments, with one intelligence official even suggesting the Russian messages might be a deliberate ploy designed to entrap the Japanese at Changkufeng. On 7–8 July, all staff officers in Seoul convened at army headquarters. The name of Changkufeng Hill was not well known, but maps and other data suggested that neither the Japanese nor the Russians had previously stationed border units in the ridge complex west of Khasan. As early as March 1936, Army Commander Koiso Kuniaki had distributed maps to subordinate units, indicating which sectors were in dispute. No patrol was to enter zones lacking definitive demarcation. Until then, the only Japanese element east of the Tumen was a Manchurian policeman at Fangchuanting. Ownership of the high ground emerged as an early issue. A number of other points were raised by  the Kwantung Army: At present, Soviet elements in the area were negligible. The intrusion must not be overlooked. The Russians could be expected to exploit any weakness, and half-measures would not suffice, especially regarding the Japanese defense mission along a 125-mile frontier. In Japanese hands, Changkufeng Hill would be useful, but two excellent observation posts already existed in the neighboring sector of the Manchurian tongue. With dissidence and purges underway, the Russians may have judged it necessary to seal border gaps, particularly after Lyushkov's defection. They may also have sought to control Changkufeng to offset Japanese dominance of the high ground to the north. Soviet seizure of Changkufeng would upset the delicate status quo and could provoke a contest for equivalent observation posts. In broader terms, it mattered little whether the Russians sought a permanent observation post on Changkufeng Hill, which was of relatively minor strategic value. Japan's primary concern lay in the China theater; Changkufeng was peripheral. The Japanese should not expend limited resources or become distracted. The matter required consultation with the high command in Tokyo. In the absence of more comprehensive intelligence, the assembled staff officers concluded that the Korea Army should, at a minimum, ignore or disregard Soviet actions for the time being, while maintaining vigilant observation of the area. The consensus was communicated to Major General Kitano Kenzo, the Korea Army chief of staff, who concurred, and to Koiso. Upon learning that the recommendation advocated a low posture, Koiso inquired only whether the opinion reflected the unanimous view of the staff. Having been assured that it did, he approved the policy. Koiso, then 58, was at the threshold of the routine personnel changes occurring around 15 July. He had just been informed that he would retire and that General Nakamura Kotaro would succeed him. Those acquainted with Koiso perceived him as treating the border difficulties as a minor anticlimax in the course of his command tour. He appeared unemphatic or relaxed as he prepared to depart from a post he had held for twenty-one years. Although neither Koiso nor his staff welcomed the Soviet activities that appeared under way, his reaction likely reflected a reluctance to make decisions that could constrain his soon-to-arrive successor. On 8 July Koiso authorized the dispatch of warnings to the 19th Division at Nanam, to the Hunchun garrison, and to the intelligence branch at Hunchun. These units were instructed to exercise maximum precautions and to tighten frontier security north of Shuiliufeng. In response to the initial appearance of Soviet horsemen at Changkufeng, the Kucheng Border Garrison Unit of the 76th Infantry Regiment maintained close surveillance across the Tumen. By about noon on 9 July, patrols detected approximately a dozen Russian troops commencing construction atop Changkufeng. Between 11 and 13 July, the number of soldiers on the slopes increased to forty; there were also thirty horses and eleven camouflaged tents. Operating in shifts on the western side, thirty meters from the crest, the Russians erected barbed wire and firing trenches; fifty meters forward, they excavated observation trenches. In addition to existing telephone lines between Changkufeng, Lake Khasan, and Kozando, the Russians installed a portable telephone net. Logistical support was provided by three boats on the lake. Approximately twenty kilometers to the east, well within Soviet territory, large forces were being mobilized, and steamship traffic into Posyet Bay intensified. Upon learning of the "intrusion" at Changkufeng on 9 July, Lt. General Suetaka Kamezo, the commander of the 19th Division, dispatched staff officers to the front and prepared to send elements to reinforce border units.  The special significance of Suetaka and his division stemmed from a series of unusual circumstances. Chientao Province, the same zone into which Lyushkov had fled and the sector where Soviet horsemen had appeared, fell within Manchukuo geographically and administratively. Yet, in terms of defense, the configuration of the frontier, the terrain, and the transportation network more closely connected the region with North Korea than with southeastern Manchuria. Approximately 80% of the population was of Korean origin, which implied Japanese rather than Manchukuoan allegiance. Consequently, the Korea Army had been made operationally responsible for the defense of Chientao and controlled not only the three-battalion garrison at Hunchun but also the intelligence detachment located there. In the event of war, the Korea Army's mission was defined as mobilization and execution of subsidiary operational tasks against the USSR, under the control and in support of the Kwantung Army.  The Korea Army ordinarily possessed two infantry divisions, the 19th in North Korea and the 20th stationed at Seoul, but the 20th Division had already departed for China, leaving only the 20th Depot Division in the capital. Beyond sparse ground units, devoid of armor and with weak heavy artillery, there were only two air regiments in Korea, the nearest being the unit at Hoeryong. The Korea Army was designed to maintain public security within Korea as well as fulfill minimal defensive responsibilities. Such an army did not require a full-time operations officer, and none was maintained. When needed, as in mid-1938, the task fell to the senior staff officer, in this case Colonel Iwasaki Tamio. In peacetime, training constituted the primary focus.  Thus, the 19th Division was entrusted with defending northeastern Korea. Its commander, Suetaka, a seasoned infantryman, resented the fact that his elite force had never engaged in combat in China. He intensified training with zeal, emphasizing strict discipline, bravery, aggressiveness, and thorough preparation. Japanese veterans characterized him as severe, bullish, short-tempered, hot-blooded, highly strung, unbending, and stubborn. Nonetheless, there was widespread respect for his realistic training program, maintained under firm, even violent, personal supervision. His men regarded Suetaka as a professional, a modern samurai who forged the division into superb condition. Privately, he was reputed for sensitivity and warmth; a Japanese phrase "yakamashii oyaji" captures the dual sense of stern father and martinet in his character. At the outset, however, Suetaka displayed little aggression. Although not widely known, he did not welcome the orders from army headquarters to deploy to the Tumen. Until late July, he remained somewhat opposed to the notion of dislodging the Soviets from the crest, a proposition arising from neither the division staff nor, initially, Suetaka himself. Colonel Sato noted that, for a week after reports of Soviet excavation at Changkufeng, the division's response was limited to preparations for a possible emergency, as they perceived the matter as a local issue best settled through diplomacy. Korea Army officers acknowledged that, around the time the Soviets consolidated their outpost strength at Changkufeng, an informal and personal telegram arrived in Seoul from a Kwantung Army Intelligence field-grade officer who specialized in Soviet affairs. If the Korea Army hesitated, the Kwantung Army would be obliged to eject the Russians; the matter could not be ignored. While the telegram did not demand a reply and struck several officers as presumptuous and implausible, the message was promptly shown to Koiso. Koiso was driven to immediate action, he wired Tokyo asserting that only the Korea Army could and would handle the incident. One staff officer recalled "We felt we had to act, out of a sense of responsibility. But we resented the Kwantung Army's interference." The Korea Army staff convened shortly after receipt of the unofficial telegram from Hsinking. Based on the latest intelligence from the division dated 13 July, the officers prepared an assessment for submission to the army commander. The hypotheses were distilled into three scenarios: The USSR, or the Far East authorities, desires hostilities. Conclusion: Slightly possible. The USSR seeks to restrain Japan on the eve of the pivotal operations in China: the major Japanese offensive to seize Hankow. Conclusion: Highly probable. The Posyet district commander is new in his post; by occupying the Changkufeng ridges, he would demonstrate loyalty, impress superiors, and seek glory. Conclusion: Possible. Late on 13 July or early on 14 July, Koiso approved the dispatch of a message to the vice minister of war, and the Kwantung Army chief of staff:  "Lake Khasan area lies in troublesome sector USSR has been claiming . . . in accordance with treaties [said Secret Message No. 913], but we interpret it to be Manchukuoan territory, evident even from maps published by Soviet side. Russian actions are patently illegal, but, considering that area does not exert major or immediate influence on operations [Japan] is intending and that China Incident is in full swing, we are not going to conduct counterattack measures immediately. This army is thinking of reasoning with Soviets and requesting pullback, directly on spot. . . . In case Russians do not accede in long run, we have intention to drive Soviet soldiers out of area east of Khasan firmly by use of force."  The message concluded with a request that the Tokyo authorities lodge a formal protest with the USSR, on behalf of Manchukuo and Japan, and guide matters so that the Russians would withdraw quickly. Dominant in Japanese high command thinking in 1938 was the China theater; the Changkufeng episode constituted a mere digression. A sequence of Japanese tactical victories had preceded the summer: Tsingtao fell in January; the Yellow River was reached in March; a "reformed government of the Republic of China" was installed at Nanking several weeks later; Amoy fell in early May; Suchow fell on the 20th. With these gains, northern and central fronts could be linked by the Japanese. Yet Chinese resistance persisted, and while public statements anticipated imminent Chinese dissension, private admissions acknowledged that the partial effects of Suchow's fall were ominous: control might pass from Chiang Kai-shek to the Communists, Chinese defiance might intensify, and Soviet involvement could ensue. A Hankow drive appeared desirable to symbolize the conclusion of the military phase of hostilities. The Japanese and their adversaries were in accord regarding the importance of the summer and autumn campaigns. Even after Suchow's fall, the government discouraged public insinuations that enemy resistance was collapsing; when Chiang addressed the nation on the first anniversary of hostilities, Premier Konoe prophetically proclaimed, "The war has just begun." Colonel Inada Masazum served as the Army General Staff's principal figure for the Changkufeng affair, occupying the position of chief of the 2nd Operations Section within the Operations Bureau in March 1938. A distinguished graduate of the Military Academy, Inada completed the War College program and held a combination of line, instructional, and staff assignments at the War College, the Army General Staff, and the War Ministry. He was recognized as a sharp, highly capable, and driveful personality, though some regarded him as enigmatic. Following the capture of Suchow, Imperial General Headquarters on 18 June ordered field forces to undertake operational preparations for a drive to seize the Wuhan complex. Inada favored a decisive move aimed at achieving a rapid political settlement. He acknowledged that Soviet intervention in 1938, during Japan's involvement in China, would have been critical. Although Japanese forces could still defeat the Chinese, an overextended Japanese Army might be fatally compromised against the Russians. Soviet assistance to China was already pronouncedly unwelcome. The Soviets were reported to possess roughly 20 rifle divisions, four to five cavalry divisions, 1,500 tanks, and 1,560 aircraft, including 300 bombers with a range of approximately 3,000 kilometers, enabling reach from Vladivostok to Tokyo. Soviet manpower in Siberia was likely near 370,000. In response, Japanese central authorities stressed a no-trouble policy toward the USSR while seeking to "wall off" the border and bolster the Kwantung Army as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, the envisaged correction of the strategic imbalance could not occur before 1943, given shortages in ammunition, manpower, and materiel across existing theaters in China. By the end of 1937 Japan had committed 16 of its 24 divisions to China, bringing the standing force to roughly 700,000. Army General Staff planners reallocated three ground divisions, intended for a northern contingency, from north to central China, even as the Kwantung Army operated from a less favorable posture. Attitudes toward the northern problem varied within senior military circles. While concern persisted, it was not universal. As campaigns in China widened, planning at the high command level deteriorated, propagating confusion and anxiety to field armies in China. The Japanese Navy suspected that the Army general staff was invoking the USSR as a pretext for broader strategic aims—namely, to provoke a more consequential confrontation with the USSR while the Navy contended with its own strategic rivalries with the Army, centered on the United States and Britain. Army leaders, however, denied aggressive intent against the USSR at that time. The Hankow plan encountered substantial internal opposition at high levels. Private assessments among army planners suggested that a two-front war would be premature given operational readiness and troop strength. Not only were new War Ministry officials cautious, but many high-ranking Army general staff officers and court circles shared doubts.  Aggressive tendencies, influenced by subordinates and the Kwantung Army, were evident in Inada, who repeatedly pressed Tada Shun, the deputy army chief of staff, to endorse the Wuhan drive as both necessary and feasible, arguing that the USSR would gain from Japan's weakening without incurring substantial losses. Inada contended that Stalin was rational and that time favored the USSR in the Far East, where industrial buildup and military modernization were ongoing. He argued that the Soviet purges impeded opportunistic ventures with Japan. He posited that Nazi Germany posed a growing threat on the western front, and thus the USSR should be avoided by both Japan, due to China and Russia, due to Germany. While most of the army remained engaged in China, Tada did not initially share Inada's views; only after inspecting the Manchurian borders in April 1938 did he finally align with Inada's broader vision, which encompassed both northern and Chinese considerations. During this period, Inada studied daily intelligence from the Kwantung Army, and after Lyushkov's defection in June, reports suggested the Soviets were following their sector commander's recommendations. Russian troops appeared at Changkufeng, seemingly prepared to dig in. Inada recollects his reaction: "That's nice, my chance has come." 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. The simmering Soviet–Japanese border clashes centered on Changkufeng Hill near Lake Khanka, set within a broader history of contested frontiers dating to Qing and Tsarist treaties. Japan, prioritizing China, considered Changkufeng peripheral but ready to confront Soviet encroachment; Moscow aimed to consolidate border gains, with high-level war planning overlaying regional skirmishes. Conflict loomed over Manchuria.

Send us a textCurriculum doesn't start in the classroom—it starts in the knowledge system: the people, institutions, and practices that produce and disseminate research. Dr. Cassidy Sugimoto, a Tom and Marie Patton Professor and School Chair from the School of Public Policy at Georgia Tech, explains how publishing and citation practices flow into standards and textbooks.Dr. Sugimoto highlights the systemic barriers faced by women and underrepresented minorities in academia and how these barriers affect what is taught in classrooms. The discussion also covers the need to redefine success in academia and the importance of inclusive curricula that reflect diverse perspectives. Finally, Dr. Sugimoto encourages educators to foster inquiry-based learning by shifting the focus from what students learn to the questions they ask.TakeawaysA knowledge system is the ecosystem in which knowledge is made.The lack of women and minorities in academia affects knowledge production.Representation in science influences girls' interest in STEM fields.Words used by educators can significantly impact students' self-perception.Success metrics in academia often exclude diverse perspectives.Diversity in research leads to more comprehensive knowledge.AI-generated materials can perpetuate stereotypes.Educators should recognize biases in the materials they use.Encouraging questions fosters a sense of inquiry in students.Education is influenced by broader societal knowledge systems.

The staff for the anime of Satoru Noda's Golden Kamuy manga announced on Wednesday that its final arc will debut in January 2026 on Tokyo MX and other channels, and also announced the final arc's two prologue anime films titled Golden Kamuy: Sapporo Beer Kōjō-hen (Golden Kamuy: Sapporo Beer Factory Arc) in a teaser trailer. The films will open in Japanese theaters on October 10 and 31. The teaser announces the films' theme song "Kogane no Kanata" (Beyond the Gold) by Awich × ALI, and previews its instrumental version.The prologue films has Sugimoto, Asirpa, and Shiraishi heading to Sapporo to resume finding the gold. In Sapporo, they try to track one of the escaped prisoners named Keiji Ueji. Meanwhile, the 7th Division's Tokishige Usami and Warrant Officer Mokutarō Kikuta (and the group led by Toshizō Hijikata) are also in Sapporo tracking down another escaped prisoner who had committed a series of murders of prostitutes. Sugimoto and Hijikata reluctantly agreed to cooperate to find the prisoner, and they get information that the next murder will occur at a Sapporo beer factory. They plan an ambush to capture the prisoner, but everything turns into chaos with the 7th Division and even Ueji showing up.Support The Podcast!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show/roose366/subscribe⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow For More Content &Streams!Twitch: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.twitch.tv/roosejp⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Kick: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://kick.com/roosejp⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Youtube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@Roose366 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Youtube Gaming: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@RooseJp/videos⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Tiktok: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@podcastonanime⁠

Ben, Woods, and Paul are here for you on a Thursday morning! We start the show with a little foreplay and learn about Ben's "mental health assessment" he was asked to take yesterday. Then we are joined by our former NIL sponsored golfer Steve Sugimoto who checks in with us from Japan after qualifying yesterday for the Japan Pro Tour! And at the bottom of the hour the guys discuss the big trade in Major League Baseball yesterday as the White Sox traded ace pitcher Garrett Crochet to Boston for a package of prospects, and now the Padres go back to the drawing board. Listen here!

Ed is back in studio to talk about the upcoming Black Friday craziness that will affect his clothing brand. We also talk about a new business he's starting. Find vh07v on Instagram: @vh07v Find Kyle's designs here: https://www.hilifeclothing.com/ Find Devon Nekoba here: @localboy56 Love watching HI*Sessions? Well, now you can join our Patreon community and directly impact our ability to continue making great videos like this one. For as little as $1/mo. you'll get early access to our content as well as cool exclusive stuff for the Patreon community. Visit http://www.patreon.com/hisessions and sign up today! Make sure you subscribe to get notified when we release new videos! Follow HI*Sessions: http://hisessions.com http://www.facebook.com/hisessions http://twitter.com/hisessions

Jon Ryan Sugimoto is a Director and Editor. I found Jon doing video for Loop and love all of his skits and commercials perfect for reels and shorts alike. Jon wrote and directed 'Gut Punch' and 'Full Time' which are both available on YouTube exclusively on the Omeleto Channel.  NYC Comedy Director + Great Guy. Please welcome Jon Ryan Sugimoto to Wear Many Hats. ⁠⁠⁠instagram.com/jonryanisdead ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠instagram.com/wearmanyhatswmh⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠instagram.com/rashadrastam⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠rashadrastam.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠wearmanyhats.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Welcome to JAT Chat, presented by the Journal of Athletic Training, the official journal of the National Athletic Trainers' Association. In this episode, Dr. Shelby Baez is joined by Dr. Yuki Sugimoto, a postdoctoral research fellow at Northwestern University. Dr. Sugimoto discusses her recent publication on sensory reweighting system differences in individuals with and without chronic ankle instability. Full article: https://tinyurl.com/yj27h68z Guest Biography: Yūki Sugimoto is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Physical Therapy and Human Movement Sciences at Northwestern University. She is currently exploring postural control and the sensory reweighting system in individuals with chronic ankle instability (CAI).      

Sensei Sugimoto sharing manisnya perjalanan cinta bersama sang istri, Purwati. Siapa sangka, kisah asmara mereka berjalan seperti di drama korea

Sensei Sugimoto, pria Jepang yang rela tinggalkan Buddha demi memeluk Islam. Yuk, dengerin ceritanya di sini!

Ben & Woods start off the 8am hour by welcoming our beloved former NIL athlete Steve Sugimoto to the studio, and we hear about his recovery from a hand injury as he works to get back on the professional golf tour in Japan! Then we hear some postgame comments from Jurickson Profar before we're joined by Audacy insider Bret Boone on a Big League Wednesday and get all of his thoughts on last night's drama at Petco Park between the Padres and Nationals! Listen here!

While he may technically practice as a photographer, artist, and architect, Hiroshi Sugimoto could also be considered, from a wider-lens perspective, a chronicler of time. With a body of work now spanning nearly five decades, Sugimoto began making pictures in earnest in 1976 with his ongoing “Diorama” series. In 1980, he started what may be his most widely recognized series, “Seascapes,” composed of Rothko-esque abstractions of the ocean that he has taken at roughly 250 locations around the world. In more recent years, Sugimoto has also built a flourishing architectural practice, designing everything from a café in Tokyo to the currently-under-construction Hirshhorn Sculpture Garden in Washington, D.C. As with his subtly profound work, Sugimoto bears tremendous wisdom and is regarded by many as one of the most deeply perceptive minds and practitioners at the intersection of time and art-making.On the episode, he discusses his pictures as fossilizations of time; seascapes as the least spoiled places on Earth; and why, for him, the “target of completion” for a building is 5,000 years from now.Special thanks to our Season 9 presenting sponsor, L'École, School of Jewelry Arts.Show notes:Hiroshi Sugimoto[5:10] Pre-Photography Time-Recording Devices[39:05] “Theaters”[15:06] “Seascapes”[32:31] “Diorama”[17:16] Caspar David Friedrich[25:14] Odawara[28:52] “Aujourd'hui le monde est mort [Lost Human Genetic Archive]”[44:19] “Abandoned Theaters”[44:19] “Opera Houses”[44:19] “Drive-In Theaters”[49:52] “Architecture”[51:12] Le Corbusier[51:12] Mies van der Rohe[55:30] New Material Research Laboratory[55:30] Tomoyuki Sakakida[59:23] Enoura Observatory[59:23] Hirshhorn Sculpture Garden[1:00:48] Katsura Imperial Villa[1:01:05] Bruno Taut[1:02:14] Donald Judd[1:02:14] “Hiroshi Sugimoto: Five Elements in Optical Glass”[1:06:47] Mingei[1:06:47] Isamu Noguchi[1:06:47] Dan Flavin[1:09:15] Sugimoto Bunraku Sonezaki Shinju: The Love Suicides at Sonezaki[1:09:15] At the Hawk's Well[1:09:15] W.B. Yeats

Sugimoto is involved in a crazy murder mansion where the only true way to survive is love. Then, a gritty western town is torn apart by vicious gangsters, until two old man slice and dice their way to salvation. And finally, after being pursued for not cheating at a horse race, the gang works for the most American man in the world to kill not one, not two, but three bears. As promised, A BEAR DIES ON EVERY PAGE. This week, Matt, Sam, Jae, and Jacob read and discuss Golden Kamuy by Satoru Noda.Read along, meme along, or just yell at our bad opinions by following @OverMangaCast on Twitter.YouTube / Instagram / FacebookLeave a review: Podchaser

In today's episode, we're looking at the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-21, and how Jesus calls attention to the arbitrary lines we draw, especially between the haves and have-nots, and how we can do better with however much we're given.    Did this message speak to you today? You can support Calling Water via Venmo (@arumdaunchurch).   Linda Moon, Ed.D.   Music provided by Reuel Pompey and Rebekah Kim

Sugimoto and Asirpa go on a cool arctic whale quest to discover more cooking manga shenanigans, as well as uncovering a terrifying secret about the origin of the skin map's to Ainu gold. This week, Matt, Sam, Jae, and Jacob read and discuss Golden Kamuy by Satoru Noda.Read along, meme along, or just yell at our bad opinions by following @OverMangaCast on Twitter.YouTube / Instagram / FacebookLeave a review: Podchaser

https://linktr.ee/_red_river_podcast We got a chance to talk to director Jon Ryan Sugimoto this week. We focused on his last 2 brilliant short films, Full Time and Gut Punch. Thanks to our friends at https://bigpicturemediaonline.com/ for setting this up. Great conversation that we hop YOU enjoy! For all things Jon , including all his mentioned work. go here https://www.jonryan.tv/

In this episode of Rising Tide I speak with Coast Guard Rear Admiral Andy Sugimoto.  He commands the 11th District that stretches from the California Oregon border to the waters off Peru, also Arizona, Nevada, Utah and a bit of Wyoming.   A 39-year veteran of the service I wrote about in my book, ‘Rescue Warriors', he's done 12 years at sea, worked as a judge advocate general and coordinated U.S. intelligence with the CIA and others.  We'll talk about the many missions that take place in his area of responsibility including, of course, Search And Rescue.  Also, the answer is yes, he did keep that promise he made to his Mom when he was 5. Rising Tide, the Ocean Podcast, is a compelling platform that delves into the vast realms of ocean and climate science, conservation, and exploration featuring experts, scientists, mariners and explorers. Each half hour episode navigates through insightful discussions on marine life, and the critical issues affecting our seas. Informative, educational and humorous it is a valuable resource for anyone passionate about understanding and preserving our ocean world.

During the pandemic, saxophonist Mai Sugimoto, bassist Joshua Abrams and drummer Isaiah Spencer came together to perform and honor the life and legacy of Chicago saxophonist Fred Anderson. From that moment on, Sugimoto recognized the magic and chemistry of the trio leading to the creation of her latest album “Sunlight Filtering Through Leaves". Reset sits down with the Japanese-born, Chicago-based improvised jazz artist to learn about her journey in music.

There's so much you don't know about your idea until you start writing it. Filmmaker Jon Ryan Sugimoto discusses how his passion for skateboarding led to becoming a video editor and director. We also dive into submitting to festivals and what it takes to develop a short film such as his latest project, Full Time. Follow Jon Ryan Sugimoto: YouTube TikTok Instagram  Follow Creatives Prevail: Instagram TikTok We would love to hear from you! Please give us a review, this really helps get others to listen in. Any suggestions on how we can improve? DM us on Instagram or TikTok. Intro music: ‘Somebody' (Instrumental) by The Runner Up Outro music: ‘Let's Ride' (Instrumental) by Gabe Kubanda Host: Mike Zimmerlich Produced by: Omelette Prevail Post-Production: EarthtoMoira Tags: Creator Economy Filmmaker Comedy Film Festival Short Film

Listen to this interview of Cassidy Sugimoto and Vincent Larivière, co-authors of Equity for Women in Science: Dismantling Systemic Barriers to Advancement (Harvard UP, 2023). Cassidy is Professor and Tom and Marie Patton School Chair in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is also President of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Vincent is Professor of Information Science at Université de Montréal, where he also serves as Associate Vice-President of Planning and Communications. He is Scientific Director of the Érudit journal platform and Associate Scientific Director of the Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies. We talk about how the science of science is advancing the work done by each and every scientist, by helping them to do work that is fairer, truer, and realer. Vincent Larivière : "Scientists are group leaders, reviewers, editors, administrators — I mean, we are mostly an autonomous community, so there's mostly no one else to blame for inequity in our science practice. The system that we're in is the one that we've created collectively. So, there is a responsibility in all of the actions we do and in all of the different roles that we have to actually make science better and to fight inequality. Because the inequality, as so much work now demonstrates, is bad. It's bad from the point of view of the individual scientist, but it's bad too for the science itself — we could do better science by being more inclusive in our science practice." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Listen to this interview of Cassidy Sugimoto and Vincent Larivière, co-authors of Equity for Women in Science: Dismantling Systemic Barriers to Advancement (Harvard UP, 2023). Cassidy is Professor and Tom and Marie Patton School Chair in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is also President of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Vincent is Professor of Information Science at Université de Montréal, where he also serves as Associate Vice-President of Planning and Communications. He is Scientific Director of the Érudit journal platform and Associate Scientific Director of the Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies. We talk about how the science of science is advancing the work done by each and every scientist, by helping them to do work that is fairer, truer, and realer. Vincent Larivière : "Scientists are group leaders, reviewers, editors, administrators — I mean, we are mostly an autonomous community, so there's mostly no one else to blame for inequity in our science practice. The system that we're in is the one that we've created collectively. So, there is a responsibility in all of the actions we do and in all of the different roles that we have to actually make science better and to fight inequality. Because the inequality, as so much work now demonstrates, is bad. It's bad from the point of view of the individual scientist, but it's bad too for the science itself — we could do better science by being more inclusive in our science practice." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

Listen to this interview of Cassidy Sugimoto and Vincent Larivière, co-authors of Equity for Women in Science: Dismantling Systemic Barriers to Advancement (Harvard UP, 2023). Cassidy is Professor and Tom and Marie Patton School Chair in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is also President of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Vincent is Professor of Information Science at Université de Montréal, where he also serves as Associate Vice-President of Planning and Communications. He is Scientific Director of the Érudit journal platform and Associate Scientific Director of the Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies. We talk about how the science of science is advancing the work done by each and every scientist, by helping them to do work that is fairer, truer, and realer. Vincent Larivière : "Scientists are group leaders, reviewers, editors, administrators — I mean, we are mostly an autonomous community, so there's mostly no one else to blame for inequity in our science practice. The system that we're in is the one that we've created collectively. So, there is a responsibility in all of the actions we do and in all of the different roles that we have to actually make science better and to fight inequality. Because the inequality, as so much work now demonstrates, is bad. It's bad from the point of view of the individual scientist, but it's bad too for the science itself — we could do better science by being more inclusive in our science practice." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Listen to this interview of Cassidy Sugimoto and Vincent Larivière, co-authors of Equity for Women in Science: Dismantling Systemic Barriers to Advancement (Harvard UP, 2023). Cassidy is Professor and Tom and Marie Patton School Chair in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is also President of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Vincent is Professor of Information Science at Université de Montréal, where he also serves as Associate Vice-President of Planning and Communications. He is Scientific Director of the Érudit journal platform and Associate Scientific Director of the Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies. We talk about how the science of science is advancing the work done by each and every scientist, by helping them to do work that is fairer, truer, and realer. Vincent Larivière : "Scientists are group leaders, reviewers, editors, administrators — I mean, we are mostly an autonomous community, so there's mostly no one else to blame for inequity in our science practice. The system that we're in is the one that we've created collectively. So, there is a responsibility in all of the actions we do and in all of the different roles that we have to actually make science better and to fight inequality. Because the inequality, as so much work now demonstrates, is bad. It's bad from the point of view of the individual scientist, but it's bad too for the science itself — we could do better science by being more inclusive in our science practice." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

Listen to this interview of Cassidy Sugimoto and Vincent Larivière, co-authors of Equity for Women in Science: Dismantling Systemic Barriers to Advancement (Harvard UP, 2023). Cassidy is Professor and Tom and Marie Patton School Chair in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is also President of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Vincent is Professor of Information Science at Université de Montréal, where he also serves as Associate Vice-President of Planning and Communications. He is Scientific Director of the Érudit journal platform and Associate Scientific Director of the Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies. We talk about how the science of science is advancing the work done by each and every scientist, by helping them to do work that is fairer, truer, and realer. Vincent Larivière : "Scientists are group leaders, reviewers, editors, administrators — I mean, we are mostly an autonomous community, so there's mostly no one else to blame for inequity in our science practice. The system that we're in is the one that we've created collectively. So, there is a responsibility in all of the actions we do and in all of the different roles that we have to actually make science better and to fight inequality. Because the inequality, as so much work now demonstrates, is bad. It's bad from the point of view of the individual scientist, but it's bad too for the science itself — we could do better science by being more inclusive in our science practice." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/education

Listen to this interview of Cassidy Sugimoto and Vincent Larivière, co-authors of Equity for Women in Science: Dismantling Systemic Barriers to Advancement (Harvard UP, 2023). Cassidy is Professor and Tom and Marie Patton School Chair in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is also President of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Vincent is Professor of Information Science at Université de Montréal, where he also serves as Associate Vice-President of Planning and Communications. He is Scientific Director of the Érudit journal platform and Associate Scientific Director of the Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies. We talk about how the science of science is advancing the work done by each and every scientist, by helping them to do work that is fairer, truer, and realer. Vincent Larivière : "Scientists are group leaders, reviewers, editors, administrators — I mean, we are mostly an autonomous community, so there's mostly no one else to blame for inequity in our science practice. The system that we're in is the one that we've created collectively. So, there is a responsibility in all of the actions we do and in all of the different roles that we have to actually make science better and to fight inequality. Because the inequality, as so much work now demonstrates, is bad. It's bad from the point of view of the individual scientist, but it's bad too for the science itself — we could do better science by being more inclusive in our science practice." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Listen to this interview of Cassidy Sugimoto and Vincent Larivière, co-authors of Equity for Women in Science: Dismantling Systemic Barriers to Advancement (Harvard UP, 2023). Cassidy is Professor and Tom and Marie Patton School Chair in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is also President of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Vincent is Professor of Information Science at Université de Montréal, where he also serves as Associate Vice-President of Planning and Communications. He is Scientific Director of the Érudit journal platform and Associate Scientific Director of the Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies. We talk about how the science of science is advancing the work done by each and every scientist, by helping them to do work that is fairer, truer, and realer. Vincent Larivière : "Scientists are group leaders, reviewers, editors, administrators — I mean, we are mostly an autonomous community, so there's mostly no one else to blame for inequity in our science practice. The system that we're in is the one that we've created collectively. So, there is a responsibility in all of the actions we do and in all of the different roles that we have to actually make science better and to fight inequality. Because the inequality, as so much work now demonstrates, is bad. It's bad from the point of view of the individual scientist, but it's bad too for the science itself — we could do better science by being more inclusive in our science practice." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Cassidy Sugimoto and Vincent Larivière, co-authors of Equity for Women in Science: Dismantling Systemic Barriers to Advancement (Harvard UP, 2023). Cassidy is Professor and Tom and Marie Patton School Chair in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is also President of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Vincent is Professor of Information Science at Université de Montréal, where he also serves as Associate Vice-President of Planning and Communications. He is Scientific Director of the Érudit journal platform and Associate Scientific Director of the Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies. We talk about how the science of science is advancing the work done by each and every scientist, by helping them to do work that is fairer, truer, and realer. Vincent Larivière : "Scientists are group leaders, reviewers, editors, administrators — I mean, we are mostly an autonomous community, so there's mostly no one else to blame for inequity in our science practice. The system that we're in is the one that we've created collectively. So, there is a responsibility in all of the actions we do and in all of the different roles that we have to actually make science better and to fight inequality. Because the inequality, as so much work now demonstrates, is bad. It's bad from the point of view of the individual scientist, but it's bad too for the science itself — we could do better science by being more inclusive in our science practice." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sugimoto-san is a driver for Saita-san's yonige company. But he's also a former client. Who built a huge golf course … and got in way over his head. Subscribe to The Binge to get all episodes of The Evaporated: Gone with the Gods, ad-free right now. Click ‘try free' at the top of the Evaporated: Gone with the Godsshow page on Apple Podcasts to start your free trial or visit GetTheBinge.com to get access wherever you get your podcasts. A Campside Media & Sony Music Entertainment production. Find more great podcasts from SonyMusic Entertainment at sonymusic.com/podcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ben, Woods, and Paul are here for you on a Friday-Friday! We start the show with a little foreplay as Woodsy shares some more info about the new Tier 1 baseball team. Then we get a special call-in from our former Ben & Woods NIL athlete Steve Sugimoto who has a VERY special announcement! And at the bottom of the hour we give more of our thoughts on the Juan Soto trade as the baseball world continues to evaluate it. Listen here!

In this episode, we talk to writer/producer/director John Ryan Sugimoto about the importance of environment on creativity, NYC versus LA, deriving motivations from movies when a youngster, being an inspiration to others, and defining success with happiness. Plus, forming ideas, a love for dumb people, making people feel good, and the struggle to spell his name. You can check out Jon's work at the following locations: https://www.jonryan.tv/shortfilms https://www.youtube.com/@jonryanisdead https://www.instagram.com/jonryanisdead/?hl=en https://www.tiktok.com/@jonryanisdead Paul works a day job and puts out vinyl and puts on shows via ⁠⁠⁠Katzulhu Productions⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/paul.neil.12⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/katzulhu⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/Dont-Quit-Your-Day-Job-podcast-107924851339602

Hiroshi Sugimoto is famed for mixing wit and commentary with exquisitely tuned craftsmanship and bold conceptual thinking. The Japanese artist is the subject of a new exhibition at London's Hayward Gallery. We speak to Sugimoto, plus the show's curator, Ralph Rugoff, and the director of photography gallery Black Box Projects, Kathlene Fox-Davies. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Konnichiwassup cousins, We're back from Mental Health Hiatus and your Sir Auntie, Sharmane Fury has a captivating conversation with fellow Mixed-Japanese American, Akane Sugimoto Storey, who has spent the last two decades living in Mexico, raising kids here and fully embracing her adopted culture. This episode, "Mixed in Mexico," we dive deep into the fascinating journey of Akane as a multiracial immigrant and expat. From Intro: Watch Marie from Cool Aunties Pod share their feelings about one of the September Militantly Mixed Daily Questions Watch Here Cool Auntie Pod @Itsmariesoledad @vivalapalma *** 2023 BE YOUR MIXED ASS SELF FUNDRAISER T-SHIRT *** You can buy your 2023 Be Your Mixed Ass Self Fundraiser T-Shirt on October 9th here. ***CATCH SHARMANE ON IG LIVE WITH RHIA MAÎR KAUR *** Sharmane Fury aka DaBlasianBlerd is going LIVE with Rhia Maîr Kaur aka MixedRaceMama on IG on October 5th at 10 AM Merida Time/ 5 PM British Summer Time *** NEW SHOW ANNOUNCEMENT *** Matcha and Masala: Blended Besties Spill the Tea, a new show hosted by Sharmane Fury and Rhia Maïr Kaur, a couple of Mixed mates musing over matcha, masala, and murder. Introducing Matcha and Masala: Blended Besties Spill the Tea, a new show hosted by Sharmane Fury and Rhia Maïr Kaur, two vibrant Mixed Besties who bring their unique perspectives as Black-Japanese-British-American and Punjabi-Welsh individuals. Join them as they examine a myriad of topics, from their shared love for tea, to exploring the complexities of Mixedness, and discussing life's multifaceted experiences. With a blend of curiosity, humor, and an eagerness to explore, they tackle subjects ranging from hobbies and politics to social issues and maybe they'll even solve the occasional murder mystery. So put the kettle on, grab a cuppa, and join Matcha and Masala on their exciting journey of discovery and connection. Instagram & Tik Tok: @MatchaMasala Subscribe, rate, and review us on ⁠Spotify⁠ to show your support! * * * You can continue the conversation on our private Facebook group after you listen to this episode at ⁠⁠⁠⁠http://facebook.com/groups/militantlymixed⁠⁠⁠⁠ * * * Produced and Edited by Sharmane Fury Music by: David Bogan, the One - ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.dbtheone.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠ * * * Connect with us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook or send me an email at Sharmane@militantlymixed.com. * * * Militantly Mixed is a fan-sponsored podcast, if you are enjoying the show please consider sponsoring us on Patreon and Paypal today! Thank you. This is a ManeHustle Media Podcast. Turn your side hustle into your ManeHustle. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/militantlymixed/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/militantlymixed/support

We had a double guest podcast this week as Edsugimoto stopped by to give us an update on the fundraising work he's doing for Maui. We also Zoom in with Malikda Dudley who gives us an "on the ground" update about how it's going over there and what we can do to continue to help the situation. Find Ed on Here: https://vh07v.com/ Find Malika on Instagram: @malikadudley Find Kyle's designs here: https://www.hilifeclothing.com/ Find Devon Nekoba here: https://kumu.com/ Love watching HI*Sessions? Well, now you can join our Patreon community and directly impact our ability to continue making great videos like this one. For as little as $1/mo. you'll get early access to our content as well as cool exclusive stuff for the Patreon community. Visit http://www.patreon.com/hisessions and sign up today! Make sure you subscribe to get notified when we release new videos! Follow HI*Sessions: http://hisessions.com http://www.facebook.com/hisessions http://twitter.com/hisessions

Do you want to control your creative content? Are you sick of uploading your films to a website and then seeing it forgotten days later? Have you always wanted to start your own dedicated video content channel? If so, then you've chosen the perfect podcast to listen to because we have the answers you're looking for! Video Vagabond had an excellent conversation with writer/director JON RYAN SUGIMOTO - from skater, to stand-up comic, to video content creator, to Tik Tok personality, to a filmmaker on the verge of a breakout! Jon and I discuss all things film - from script to screen, from concept to creation, from struggles to success, from casting to pre-viz, as we dive deep into the entrepreneurial/independent spirit it takes to become seen in this business. We don't pull any punches. This is the best episode yet! Thank you, Jon, for bringing it!So sit back, relax, and enjoy the show...Jon's IG - https://www.instagram.com/jonryanisdead/Jon's YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@jonryanisdeadAnthony's IG - https://www.instagram.com/stormgiantproductions/Vagabond IG - https://www.instagram.com/video.vagabond/Music by TONKS -https://jambox.io/artist/tonks/602ab3ab1b11fd67e5545aa7

durée : 00:04:26 - La chronique de Juliette Arnaud - par : Juliette ARNAUD - Aujourd'hui, Juliette nous fait davantage découvrir l'oeuvre d'Etsu Sugimoto, Fille de Samouraï.

Jack and Shobita discuss the decline in humanities majors as the number of computer and data science majors rise, and why this is will have very bad consequences. Then they chat about emerging efforts to regulate both in vitro gametogenesis (creation of eggs and sperm using pluripotent stem cells) and generative AI. Finally, they talk to Cassidy Sugimoto, Professor and Tom and Marie Patton School Chair in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology, about her new book, Equity for Women in Science: Dismantling Systemic Barriers to Advancement.- Nick Anderson (2023). "College is remade as tech majors surge and humanities dwindle." The Washington Post. May 20.- Center for Genetics and Society (2023). "Whether or How to Use Artificial Gametes." April 12.- Cassidy Sugimoto (2023). Equity for Women in Science: Dismantling Systemic Barriers to Advancement. Harvard University Press.- Cassidy Sugimoto (2022). "Narrow hiring practices at US universities revealed." Nature. September 29.- Cassidy Sugimoto (2021). "Scientific success by numbers." Nature. May 3.- Cassidy Sugimoto (2019). "Rethinking impact factors: Better ways to judge a journal." Nature. May 28.- Hoppe, Travis A. et al. (2019). “Topic choice contributes to the lower rate of NIH awards to African-American/black scientists.” Science Advances. 5: eaaw7238.Transcript and discussion questions available at thereceivedwisdom.org.

durée : 00:04:41 - La chronique de Juliette Arnaud - par : Juliette ARNAUD - Aujourd'hui, Juliette nous parle du roman d'Etsu Sugimoto, Fille de Samouraï.

After a longer than anticipated break, Marco invited back his friend and PPN co-founder Scott Bourn to the 6. PPN birthday anniversary show. They did some catching up on what they had been up to since the last episode aired and then covered Scott's new photo genre “toy photography” which later transitioned into covering the good, the bad and the implications that Ai photography may have on the industry and society.   This show is sponsored by MPB.com: www.MPB.com Inspirational Photographer of the Month:   Scott picked Japanese photographer Hiroshi Sugimoto (born 1948 in Tokyo). Scott is particularly impressed that Hiroshi Sugimoto has reinvented himself and his photography many times and always became a true master at the genres that he worked at. Sugimoto has won many international photo awards and exhibited his work in museums and galleries around the world. You can find out more about Hiroshi Sugimoto by visiting his website: https://www.sugimotohiroshi.com   Here is a video interview where Hiroshi Sugimoto talks about his diorama work: https://youtu.be/q9GiyPbLYPg Toy Photography and some pros and Cons of the Development of AI in Photography.   In the main segment, Scott explained how he got into toy photography and shared some insights on his pre- and post-production approach for his impressive photos. In his process, Scott also saw lots of advantages to partially using AI in his post-processing workflow and has since embraced it and pushed his work to new frontiers. This led to an interesting discussion between Marco and Scott on the recent developments of AI in photography and how this may influence the photo industry and society in the future. Inspirational Photo Book Pick of the Month: “Conceptual Forms and Mathematical Models” by Hiroshi Sugimoto.   Scott was so inspired by the work of Hirosho Sugimoto, that he also picked his book: “Conceptual Forms and Mathematical Models”. The photos in this book show the degree of perfection that Hiroshi Sugimoto strives for in his images. Capturing still life forms in technical perfection while creating interesting museum art is what can be learned from the images in this book. The book is published by: Hatje Cantz; Illustrated Edition (24. March 2015) 96 Pages   Amazon Germany: https://amzn.to/41DHb9y   Amazon US: https://amzn.to/3olvHZB Links to Scott Bourne: Web: http://toyphotographs.com Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bourne.scott/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/scottbourne  Vero: vero.co/scottbourne   Links to Marco Larousse: Web: www.MarcoLarousse.com  Twitter: @HamburgCam Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/marco.larousse/  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MarcoLarousse1  Workshops: https://www.marcolarousse.com/street-photography-workshops/  Eigen Energie Wende: https://www.eigenenergiewende.de   Links to PPN: Web: www.PhotoPodcasts.com or PPN.fm Twitter: @Photopodcasts Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/photopodcasts/ YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/c/PPNPhotoPodcastNetwork  Apple Podcasts: http://bit.ly/ppn-apple-podcasts  Google Podcasts: http://bit.ly/PPN-GooglePodcast Spotify: http://bit.ly/PPN-fm Please support our show by using our B&H affiliate link (click here) or Amazon Germany link (click here) which will not cost you a penny more than when you are buying at B&H or Amazon without our link.   Check out the Skylum LUMINAR software: Link: LUMINAR NEO (use the discount code “PHOTOPODCASTS” at checkout for extra savings)   And please share this podcast with your friends and subscribe via Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or search for “PPN” in your favorite podcast app. We would also love to get your feedback. Is there anything that you want us to cover on the show in the future? And we would appreciate it if you could take a short moment to rate or post a quick review of our shows on iTunes.   About this show: On the monthly “Camera and Inspiration” podcast show of the PPN - Photo Podcast Network, Marco and usually a guest discuss the essence of photography and how to photograph with more intent. Determining the “why” before the “how” in photography is essential to understanding your subject better and creating stronger images. In each episode, they introduce you to an inspirational photographer of the month and also share an inspirational photo book of the month.

Ed Sugimoto is a 2nd-generation Japanese-American from the island of O'ahu. He is the owner and founder of VH07V, also known as Aloha Revolution which is a rotating collection of shirts, caps and sweaters for men and women. The VH07V logo which spells Aloha upside down, when worn is a subtle reminder to keep aloha in our hearts.  Before starting his entrepreneurial journey, he worked at Spectrum as assistant online editor, online editor and wireless manager for 23 years. In 2011 at the Rice Fest, he set the Guinness World for the largest Spam Musubi at 286 pounds and broke his own record the following year at 628 pounds. He hold the world record for largest Loco Moco. In this episode we talk about starting Aloha Revolution, setting two Guinness World Records, being Asian in Hawai'i, supporting local, and so much more. Enjoy! Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/kamakadias Watch on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/Hawaiiverse Follow us on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hawaiiversepodcast/ Shop local on https://hawaiiverse.com/

Sugimoto-san is a driver for Saita-san's yonige company. But he's also a former client. Who built a huge golf course … and got in way over his head. Subscribe to The Binge to get all episodes of The Evaporated: Gone with the Gods, ad-free right now. Click ‘try free' at the top of the Evaporated: Gone with the Godsshow page on Apple Podcasts to start your free trial or visit GetTheBinge.com to get access wherever you get your podcasts. A Campside Media & Sony Music Entertainment production. Find more great podcasts from SonyMusic Entertainment at sonymusic.com/podcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Got feedback about this episode? Send Carolyn a text Winter is upon us again and as we talked about last week on the show, so is the season for base training.  For many runners in Canada and the northern United States, this can mean a lot of long, slow miles in very cold temperatures which ... more »

Ed Sugimoto is the founder and creator of the Aloha Revolution clothing line. We bring him on the podcast to discuss the recent New Kids On The Block concert, starting a clothing line, the meaning of VH07V, and staffing shortages. Find Ed here: https://vh07v.com/ @vh07v on instagram Find Kyle's designs here: https://www.hilifeclothing.com/ Find Devon Nekoba here: https://kumu.com/ Buy tickets for Devon's play here: https://www.manoavalleytheatre.com/ Find Jon here: https://www.locationshawaii.com/agent/jon-yamasato Visit Kupukupu Landscaping: https://www.kupukupulandscaping.com/ Love watching HI*Sessions? Well, now you can join our Patreon community and directly impact our ability to continue making great videos like this one. For as little as $1/mo. you'll get early access to our content as well as cool exclusive stuff for the Patreon community. Visit http://www.patreon.com/hisessions and sign up today! Make sure you subscribe to get notified when we release new videos! Follow HI*Sessions: http://hisessions.com http://www.facebook.com/hisessions http://twitter.com/hisessions

In this episode of the Busine$$ of the V, we travel to Japan, the epicenter of the femtech revolution. Dr. Dweck and Rachel are chatting with Dr. Amina Sugimoto who offers fascinating insight into the tectonic shifts taking place in the Asian market as women's health and empowerment become increasingly important. Dr. Sugimoto is the CEO and co-founder of fermata, a platform that brings global femtech products directly to Asia. In other words, Dr. Sugimoto is part of a small group of female entrepreneurs who are shaking up the way we perceive sexual and reproductive wellness. Apart from being a highly successful entrepreneur, Amina also holds a master's degree in Global Health Policy and a doctorate in Public Health. That being said, her summary of the differences between Japanese and American healthcare systems is extremely useful and insightful. While listening to the conversation, you will learn a lot about women's wellness products, as well as how femtech empowers women and highlights their wants and needs. If you want to be part of this exciting femcare world, feel free to join the Femtech Fes! in Japan, taking place in October 2022. Now, press play and enjoy the ride! You can subscribe or listen to previous episodes of the Busine$$ of the V podcast by clicking here. TOPICS COVERED: Admiration at First Sight: how Rachel and Dr. Sugimoto met at a conference in Tel Aviv. How Amina got tired of working in the policy sector and decided to spice things up with some femtech. Fermata offers everything: period underwear, menstrual cups, Kegel bells – you name it! Dweck genuinely wonders whether hot flashes are a thing in Japan. If you want to sell women's products in Japan, it's a long way to the market! Each medical product requires a lengthy approval process. Myth or Fact: Asian women have less disturbing menopausal symptoms. Rachel asks the right question: How do they evaluate a product? Femtech is exploding in Japan! It will likely become Japan's leading industry within the next five years. Is there a market for incontinence products in Japan? Absolutely, says Dr. Sugimoto. Obesity, which is rather uncommon in Japan, is not the only cause of incontinence. Sugimoto demonstrates how laws and regulations can impede femtech product development. Maternity and paternity leave in Japan: sounds like heaven! Still not convinced that Japan is light years ahead of us? Well, guess what: they have period leave! Women in Japan must deal with the pressure to stay at home with their children. And yet, all some of them want is to just go back to work. Sugimoto's invaluable advice to aspiring entrepreneurs looking to enter the Asian market: check laws and regulations first. Another point to consider is Japan's healthcare system. If you're visiting Japan in October, do not miss Femtech Fes! It's a festival brimming with femtech products and businesses from all around the globe. Need more information? You can contact Dr. Sugimoto for details! HOT FLASH: Japan appears to have one of the most generous paid leave policies in the world for both men and women. By law, Japanese men can take up to a year off from work to look after the child while still receiving a substantial portion of their pay. QUOTES:   “Fermata started as a space where people can get to know more about different women's health and wellbeing products.” (Dr. Sugimoto) “I really perused your site, it's so interesting.” (Dr. Dweck) “Japanese (women) have different menopausal symptoms, rather mental than physical.” (Dr. Sugimoto)  “The SWAN study has shown that the African American and Hispanic population tend to have the highest rates of disturbing symptoms, while the Asian population was lower on that list.” (Dr. Dweck)  “I'm sure there are enormous differences in what explodes in popularity in the Asian market than here.” (Rachel) “The term ‘femtech' has become quite popular here in Japan, it's been on every single magazine every year.” (Dr. Sugimoto)  “There are multiple factors (in incontinence), and obesity is one of them. There is also genetics, childbirth, big babies, instrumented deliveries, etc.” (Dr. Dweck)  “There has been a lot of discussion in the past several months about parental leave and however an organization defines reproductive care.” (Rachel) “Japan has introduced period leave, but no one is using it. Nobody has thought about how these rules would be sustained.” (Dr. Sugimoto) “Quite a lot of women apply to my company saying that they want to go back to work as soon as they can after delivering a baby. I guess women start to realize that it's okay to work.” (Dr. Sugimoto)   FURTHER RESOURCES:   Website: https://hellofermata.com/en Amina @LinkedIn   LINKS FOR BUSINE$$ OF THE V:   Website: www.businessofthev.com Dr. Alyssa Dweck: https://drdweck.com Rachel Braun Scherl: www.sparksolutionsforgrowth.com/about-rachel-braun-scherl/

Ben & Woods start the 8am hour with Woodsy telling us about ALL of 4 year old Beau's questions about the new Star Wars that is out before we announce an exciting update on our former NIL sponsored athlete Steve Sugimoto as he looks to turn pro. Then at the bottom of the hour, Padres Chairman Peter Seidler joins the guys for "The Management Report"! Listen here!

Ben & Woods start the 8am hour with our NIL sponsored athlete Steve Sugimoto in-studio to reflect back on his time with the SDSU men's golf team, and let us all know what's next as he looks to turn pro! Then the guys get back to some Padres baseball and talk about the fact that it's been one week since the last time the Padres hit a home run, and they discuss some potential strategies for Blake Snell's usage now that he is back in the rotation. Listen here!