Podcasts about mccreary county

Eldon shares his journey from high school in McCreary County, Kentucky, to his current role as an Additive Manufacturing Project Specialist at Somerset Community College. Eldon initially pursued a 3D printing certificate at Somerset Community College, which prepared him for a technician role at Fast Radius. Despite initial challenges, including moving to Louisville and dealing with a company bankruptcy, Eldon emphasized the importance of seizing opportunities and continuous improvement. He transitioned to a full-time role at Somerset Community College, focusing on grant writing and project management. Eldon advised aspiring technicians to be patient, take risks, and build connections for long-term success.The Talking Technicians podcast is produced by MNT-EC, the Micro Nano Technology Education Center, through financial support from the National Science Foundation's Advanced Technological Education grant program.Opinions expressed on this podcast do not necessarily represent those of the National Science Foundation.Join the conversation. If you are a working technician or know someone who is, reach out to us at info@talkingtechnicians.org.Links from the show:Episode Web Page:https://micronanoeducation.org/students-parents/talking-technicians-podcast/Somerset Community College 3D Printing Technician - Digital Printing Technology Program:https://somerset.kctcs.edu/education-training/program-finder/digital-printing-technology-3d-printing.aspx

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor showed a thoughtful approach toward religious liberty issues during her time on the bench, upholding both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Paying tribute to her soon after her passing on December 1, Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman remember Justice O'Connor's contributions and talk about her legacy, sharing personal reflections as well as wisdom from Justice O'Connor that holds true today. They also look at her controversial endorsement test and how the Supreme Court has shifted – both the law and in terms of public opinion – after her retirement. Amanda and Holly also take a moment to share what we learned about you, our listeners, from this year's Spotify Wrapped.    SHOW NOTES: Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The life of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Here are a few remembrances of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, lauded as “a human being, extraordinary,” lies in repose at the court by Mark Walsh for SCOTUSblog Click here for the entire “In Memoriam” section on SCOTUSblog Sandra Day O'Connor, First Woman on the Supreme Court, Is Dead at 93 – The New York Times' obituary by Linda Greenhouse Justice O'Connor's official Supreme Court bio Click here to see the online version of the Supreme Court exhibit on Justice O'Connor's life Justice O'Connor's funeral was a private event at the Washington National Cathedral, but it is available for the public to view on the Cathedral's YouTube page.    Segment 2 (starting at 15:41): Justice O'Connor on church-state cases Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor leaves legacy of civic-minded church-state jurisprudence by Don Byrd for BJC's website Amanda and Holly mentioned the following cases: Board of Education v. Mergens (1990) Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) McCreary County, Ky., v. ACLU (2005) was the Ten Commandments case with Justice O'Connor's famous concurrence. Click here to learn more about the two Ten Commandments cases and decisions from a column Holly wrote in 2005.    Segment 3 (starting at 26:49): The ongoing impact of Justice O'Connor Amanda and Holly mentioned that Justice O'Connor was one of the authors of the plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) Amanda and Holly discuss this article from Linda Greenhouse for The New York Times: “What Sandra Day O'Connor got wrong”   Segment 4 (starting at 35:31): Who are your fellow listeners? See our Spotify Wrapped on Instagram at this link. Our most popular podcast on Spotify in 2023 was Episode 22 of Season 4, discussing the ReAwaken America tour. Our most shared one was Episode 23 of Season 4 on the myth of American “chosenness.”  Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Use this special link to support these conversations, and thank you for listening! 

Texas is taking matters into its own hands, going full-on cowboy as it leads the nation in abandoning long-held religious liberty protections. Amanda and Holly review a troubling bill in Texas that would mandate the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, and they share how some are trying to use the Kennedy v. Bremerton decision – and removal of the Lemon test – to justify this effort. They also review some surprising moments during a Texas Senate hearing on the bill, including when Baptists discover they have different understandings of their own theology. In the final segment, Amanda and Holly review the religious freedom problem with legislation like this and share ideas for engaging in conversation that can help reframe the issue.   SHOW NOTES: Segment 1 (starting at 00:41): Dueling over the Ten Commandments Amanda and Holly discuss last year's Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton on episode 21 of season 3.  Amanda and Holly talk about the Lemon test, from the 1971 decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman. They also mention the 1980 Stone v. Graham decision. The proposal in Texas is Senate Bill 1515, and the text is available online. Amanda and Holly mentioned this piece by Britt Luby for Baptist News Global: ‘Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife' and other posters I do not want in a first grade classroom. Read Amanda's Tweet about this proposal in Texas.   Segment 2 (starting at 13:28): The Texas Senate hearing on this bill  You can listen to the Texas state Senate hearing on Senate Bill 1515 at this link. We played a clip of Tara Beulah, which appears at 27:13 in that video.  Former BJC Executive Director Brent Walker wrote this piece in 2005 debunking some of David Barton's claims.  You can find resources on Christian nationalism on the website of our Christians Against Christian Nationalism campaign.   Segment 3 (starting at 30:01): Engaging in conversation about the Ten Commandments In 2005, the two Supreme Court cases dealing with the posting of the Ten Commandments in government settings were McCreary County v. ACLU and Van Orden v. Perry. Read Holly's preview column, which included ways to engage in conversation about the issue, on page 6 of this magazine: Supreme Court's review of Ten Commandments cases an opportunity for education on religious liberty After the cases concluded in 2005, Holly wrote this column: Making sense of the Ten Commandments cases For more resources from BJC on religious displays, visit BJConline.org/religious-displays. The Respecting Religion podcast was honored with two DeRose-Hinkhouse Awards from the Religion Communicators Council: Best in category for an individual episode, recognizing our episode on the Kennedy v. Bremerton decision, and an award of merit for season 4 of the podcast. Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

Not once...but twice, Erik Stanley, a Crusader dad and religious liberty attorney with the Provident Law Group (and formerly the Alliance Defending Freedom), has argued significant cases before the highest court in the land:  the United States Supreme Court.  What does it take to prepare?  How did he feel on the day of oral arguments?  What were the outcomes and the impact on religious liberty in the United States?This week and next, we will hear Erik's take on the current risks to religious liberty, Covid-19, vaccine mandates, high profile cases working their way through the court system, and more.Would you like to read more about the McCreary County v. ACLU case discussed in this episode?  Click here.Would you want to learn more about the Trinity Lutheran case that was also discussed?  Click here. For more information on Frameworks, please visit:  https://frameworks.ncsaz.org/For more information on Northwest Christian School, please visit:  https://www.ncsaz.org/

Matt, Ryan, Drew, and Shannon talk all the latest sports news, moonbows, and profile McCreary County, KY.

Notes: USELESS’S OLD DOG was aired on Kentucky Educational Television in a program of a video tape interview with Ulysses (pronounced useless) Vanover of McCreary County, Kentucky and aired on January 5, 1977.

In this episode of Impolite Conversation, Jenna Weissman Joselit discusses her new book Set in Stone: America's Embrace of the Ten Commandments. And in One Last Thing, we all riff on Oprah 2020 after Courtney's date with the Golden Globes. Plus, Dan has things to say about Star Wars: The Last Jedi and Tim has been streaming some TV shows. Some of the things we talked about in this episode: Dr. Weissman Joselit prefers the 1929 version of Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments to the 1956 version. We debate the Supreme Court's wisdom in its rulings in Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU. And that reminded Dr. Weissman Joselit of this mall in Lewisville, TX. Courtney's OLT about Oprah's speech at the Golden Globes got us talking. Dan's OLT was about Star Wars: The Last Jedi, but also a little bit about CinemaSins on YouTube. Tim's OLT touched on both Netflix's A Series of Unfortunate Events and Hulu's Marvel's Runaways. 0:00-1:42: Introduction 1:42-25:28: Weissman Joselit interview 25:33-32:20: Courtney's OLT/Oprah talk 32:20-36:15: Dan's OLT 36:16-38:32: Tim's OLT 38:33-39:40: Credits 39:42-39:57: Outtakes

Well, it's finally here:  the last Opening Arguments of 2016.  We're looking forward to 2017 (and our amazing two-episode-per-week schedule). We begin with some announcements about Law'd Awful Movies, and then turn to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, where we find out how our intrepid co-host did in answering real-life bar exam prep questions. Then, we answer a listener question from Jim Sabatowski about the foreseeability of one's negligence by taking a trip back to law school and talking about the crazy, fireworks-on-a-train-exploding-scale madness that is Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928). In our main segment, we tackle the confusion world of religious-themed holiday displays.  When is it okay to put a little baby Jesus on the courthouse steps?  We'll tell you insofar as the Supreme Court has told us, which... isn't always perfectly clear. In our "C" segment, we tackle yet another listener question; this one from Skeptic Sarah regarding the controversy over trademark registration for the all Asian-American band "The Slants" and their unique crowdfunding of their Supreme Court legal costs. Finally, we conclude with TTTBE #4.  Remember that you can play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and quoting the tweet that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s). We'll see you in 2017... twice as often! Show Notes & Links Here's a link to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which will help you answer TTTBE #3. While we're at it, this is the full-text link to Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), the case every law student knows. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), set forth the "Lemon test" that we talk about in the main segment. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), was the 1984 case that said it was perfectly legitimate for a courthouse to display little baby Jesus in a manger. But weirdly, Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), was the case from just five years later where the Supreme Court said no, courts couldn't just display little baby Jesus in a manger, but they could display a menorah, a Christmas tree, and a liberty plaque all together. We defy you to explain the difference between Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), which upheld a Ten Commandments monument in Texas, and a decision handed down the exact same day, McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), which struck down Ten Commandments posted on the walls out two courthouses in Kentucky. Finally, this is a copy of the Slants' Supreme Court brief, which is reasonably entertaining for a legal brief. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

This week's episode covers whether or not Christmas displays are a violation of the Establishment clause, by going through cases like Lee v. Weisman, Lynch v. Donnelly, Allegheny County v. ACLU, & McCreary County v. ACLU.  In addition, Brett and Nazim discuss the current cases of Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapelton, Saint Peter's Health Care System v. Kaplan, and Dignity Health v. Rollins, which cover whether or not institutions that are religious, but not churches, qualify for ERISA exceptions .  The law starts at (03:59).

Shaking off the rust after a two-week break, we’re back to argue about the Supreme Court’s latest entry in the “Let Us Pray” genre. We are joined by law and religion scholar Nathan Chapman and focus on ancient Greece, where by Greece we mean Greece, New York, and by ancient we mean 1999. That’s when the town began to invite local clergy to its monthly Town Board meetings to deliver short prayers. For almost a decade, these prayers were uniformly Christian and almost always explicitly so. Government and prayer: what to do? We disagree. This show’s links: Nathan Chapman’s faculty profile and writing Nathan Chapman, Disentangling Conscience and Religion This Week in Law, Episode 258, featuring Christina Mulligan and recommending our show Oral Argument 18: Oral Argument, with Tom Goldstein Town of Greece v. Galloway, Supreme Court, pdf and html Town of Greece v. Galloway, Judge Calabresi’s opinion for the Second Circuit Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, a creche case that uses the “endorsement” test Marsh v. Chambers, the principle Supreme Court case on legislative prayer Lemon v. Kurtzman, origin of the so-called Lemon test for Establishment Clause challenges Lee v. Weisman, prohibiting prayers at public school graduation ceremonies McCreary County v. ACLU, finding a predominantly religious purpose in displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses and holding government must remain neutral between religious and non-religious viewpoints, with O’Connor’s concurrence decisive Nelson Tebbe and Micah Schwartzman, The Puzzle of Town of Greece v. Galloway Akhil Amar, The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction Marie Griffith, The Establishment Clause: An Interview with Judge Guido Calabresi Guido Calabresi, video of lecture, What about the Establishment Clause? (his remarks begin at 8:50) The entry gate to New Haven’s Grove Street Cemetery Special Guest: Nathan Chapman.