Podcasts about rashke

Karen Silkwood, an employee of the Kerr-McGee plutonium processing plant, was killed in a car crash on her way to deliver important documents to a newspaper reporter in 1974. Silkwood was a union activist concerned about health and safety issues at the plant, and her death at age twenty-eight was considered by many to be highly suspicious. Was it Kerr-McGee's revenge on a troublesome whistle-blower? Or was it part of a much larger conspiracy reaching from the Atomic Energy Commission to the FBI and the CIA? Richard Rashke leads us through the myriad of charges and countercharges, theories and facts, and reaches conclusions based solely on the evidence in hand. Originally published in 1981, his book offers a vivid, edgy picture of the tensions that racked this country in the 1970s. However, the volume is not only an important historical document. Complex, fascinating characters populate this compelling insider's view of the nuclear industry. The issues it explores―whistle-blowers, worker safety, the environment, and nuclear vulnerability―have not lost relevance today, twenty-six years after Silkwood's white Honda Civic was found trapped in a concrete culvert near Oklahoma City. For this second edition, Rashke has added a Preface and three short chapters that explore what has been learned about Silkwood since the book's original publication, explain what happened to the various actors in the drama, and discuss the long-term effects of the events around Silkwood's death.

Karen Silkwood, an employee of the Kerr-McGee plutonium processing plant, was killed in a car crash on her way to deliver important documents to a newspaper reporter in 1974. Silkwood was a union activist concerned about health and safety issues at the plant, and her death at age twenty-eight was considered by many to be highly suspicious. Was it Kerr-McGee's revenge on a troublesome whistle-blower? Or was it part of a much larger conspiracy reaching from the Atomic Energy Commission to the FBI and the CIA?Richard Rashke leads us through the myriad of charges and countercharges, theories and facts, and reaches conclusions based solely on the evidence in hand. Originally published in 1981, his book offers a vivid, edgy picture of the tensions that racked this country in the 1970s. However, the volume is not only an important historical document. Complex, fascinating characters populate this compelling insider's view of the nuclear industry. The issues it explores―whistle-blowers, worker safety, the environment, and nuclear vulnerability―have not lost relevance today, twenty-six years after Silkwood's white Honda Civic was found trapped in a concrete culvert near Oklahoma City.For this second edition, Rashke has added a Preface and three short chapters that explore what has been learned about Silkwood since the book's original publication, explain what happened to the various actors in the drama, and discuss the long-term effects of the events around Silkwood's death.

Karen Silkwood, an employee of the Kerr-McGee plutonium processing plant, was killed in a car crash on her way to deliver important documents to a newspaper reporter in 1974. Silkwood was a union activist concerned about health and safety issues at the plant, and her death at age twenty-eight was considered by many to be highly suspicious. Was it Kerr-McGee's revenge on a troublesome whistle-blower? Or was it part of a much larger conspiracy reaching from the Atomic Energy Commission to the FBI and the CIA? Richard Rashke leads us through the myriad of charges and countercharges, theories and facts, and reaches conclusions based solely on the evidence in hand. Originally published in 1981, his book offers a vivid, edgy picture of the tensions that racked this country in the 1970s. However, the volume is not only an important historical document. Complex, fascinating characters populate this compelling insider's view of the nuclear industry. The issues it explores―whistle-blowers, worker safety, the environment, and nuclear vulnerability―have not lost relevance today, twenty-six years after Silkwood's white Honda Civic was found trapped in a concrete culvert near Oklahoma City. For this second edition, Rashke has added a Preface and three short chapters that explore what has been learned about Silkwood since the book's original publication, explain what happened to the various actors in the drama, and discuss the long-term effects of the events around Silkwood's death.

In this episode of the Gnostic Warrior Podcast, I have the honor of interviewing American philosopher and theologian Carl A. Raschke. Raschke is a Past Chair and Professor of Religious Studies Department at the University of Denver, specializing in continental philosophy, the philosophy of religion, and the theory of religion. He is an internationally known writer and academic, who has authored twenty books and hundreds of articles on topics ranging from neoliberalism, postmodernism to popular religion and culture to technology and society. Please watch the video podcast below on Youtube or listen/download the audio podcast above. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXozM5sg0uE Carl's most recent books include Neoliberalism and Political Theology: From Kant to Identity Politics (Edinburgh University Press, 2019), Postmodern Theology: A Biopic (Cascade Books, 2017), Critical Theology: An Agenda for an Age of Global Crisis (IVP Academic, 2016), and Force of God: Political Theology and the Crisis of Liberal Democracy (Columbia University Press, 2015). He is also Senior Editor for the Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory and Senior Consulting Editor for The New Polis. From 2016-2018 he served as managing editor for Political Theology Today (currently Political Theology Network). Join Carl for discussions on philosophy at TheNewPolis.com To find out more about Carl Rashke and his great work, please visit his website. Or by email - carl.raschke@du.edu Carl on Satanism; There was a whole PR campaign to try to sanitize what was happening, and I was the target of a lot of these groups because I had the kind of intellectual authority. Satanism was not my thing. I knew a lot about it. I'd heard a lot about it on the ground, the narrative that let's call the PR campaign, which is pushed by, I would say, less than reputable academics who were just kind of in it to protect themselves and protect their research clients. I'm not saying there was necessarily a thing corrupt about it, though. There have been rumors that occasionally there were, you know, it's, it's, it's kind of like the tobacco industry, you know, tried to tell you, you know, in the early days, you know, tobacco is not as harmful as they're saying. So what they did was they got the road authorities together, and they created this narrative. That Satanism was a panic, you know, based on the idea of a moral panic, that term was posed by a guy. I can't remember his name, but it was called satanic panic. It came out in the nineties. It was a sociological term that basically tried to look at the whole phenomenon as if it were just a bunch of spooked out people who didn't really understand what was going on, who were panicking. I mean, that's totally false because the thing emerged kind of organically and slowly the go back to Satanism mean. There is no such thing as Satanism per se. Just like there is no such thing as Christianity per se, but that's, that was always the argument. You're talking about Peter Gilmore, by the way, when you mentioned the church of Satan, did you? I had a kind of debate with him on the TV back in the early nineties. There have been all sorts of schisms and arguments, and everybody was calling themselves Satanists. Etiology there that there must be this pure thing, purity you call Satanism, which you know, is being slandered and abused and blah, blah, blah. And you know, so the whole thing was just, you know, literally a shit show. Uh, and, uh, I got caught up in the middle of that and the book I didn't expect that I was just trying to honestly write from, uh, the notes and the interviews and the stuff I read, you know? And you had everything from Anton. The Church of Satan, I was told by Anton Lavey's daughter, Carla, who I met at a time, that he actually had a copy of the book and liked it. I don't know if that's true, but then there was Michael Aquino, who I guess is dead now.

Grandes y Mejores Discursos de La Historia - Jorge Rashke. Jorge Rashke nació en 1930 en Bayamón, Puerto Rico, actualmente vive en Nueva York, Estados Unidos, fundó y creó el ministerio internacional Clamor a Dios, sus programas de radio y TV llevan los mismos nombres. Siendo uno de los mejores comunicadores de habla hispana, en este mensaje muestra una gran un habilidad para hablar en público, es quizá el mejor mensaje de Jorge, y uno de los más grandes de la historia de la humanidad. El lugar en el que se grabó se desconoce, el año fue 1967. Grandes y Mejores Discursos de La Historia - Jorge Rashke. Evangelio Público, Todo relacionado con El Evangelio. Sigue, suscríbete y comparte a Evangelio Público en redes sociales, además puedes escribir a evangeliopublico@gmail.com. Evangelio Público, Todo relacionado con El Evangelio.

KIMMEY RASHKE Mujer Real SABADO 2 DE NOVIEMBRE 2019 by Una Iglesia Creativa

Today we are talking about inspiring people and impacting lives through philanthropy and joining us as Dan Rashke, CEO and owner of TASC, Total Administrative Services Corporation, which is the nation's largest privately held, third party administrator of employee benefits. Dan has made huge impacts through the his philanthropic work. It is something that is dear to him and is built in to the moral fabric of his organization. So Dan, welcome to the show.

Payroll-deduction, defined contribution plans have changed the way we save for retirement and may yet change the way we pay for health care and pay down college debt. Now the CEO of a large third-party administrator (TPA) has a plan to use it to create a nation of “everyday philanthropists.” The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is likely to reduce the percentage of Americans who itemize – and thereby have access to the charitable giving tax deduction – to less than ten percent, eliminating much of the tax incentive to contribute. Enter Dan Rashke, CEO of TASC, the man behind The Greater Give, a campaign in favor of legislation that would allow employers to set up Flexible Giving Accounts (FGAs). With an FGA, an employee could dedicate a portion of their pre-tax compensation to philanthropy, thereby expanding the federal tax incentive while reducing employers’ payroll tax obligations. In this episode, host Jason Hammersla speaks with Rashke about TPAs, building a corporate culture of philanthropy and the march toward FGA legislation.

DJ Govind aka Govind Soni based in Thane, Maharashtra has made his name purely through years and years of making music, exploring different genres of music and playing in some of the best clubs in India. As a DJ he always try to find new music, explore new sounds to get his audience crazy.

DJ Govind aka Govind Soni based in Thane, Maharashtra has made his name purely through years and years of making music, exploring different genres of music and playing in some of the best clubs in India. As a DJ he always try to find new music, explore new sounds to get his audience crazy.

DJ Govind aka Govind Soni based in Thane, Maharashtra has made his name purely through years and years of making music, exploring different genres of music and playing in some of the best clubs in India. As a DJ he always try to find new music, explore new sounds to get his audience crazy.

We are not just a production company, but are a group of professionals who strive to go above and beyond, and fulfill your needs and requirement. We don't treat our clients as customers, but as members of our family. This helps us understand their vision and make any event a memorable one ! Please Call us for your Event needs and requirements... We Specialize in DJ / MC / Event Lighting / Professional Sound / Event Planning / Special Theme and Effects ..... Services

You may have heard of a fellow named Ivan or John Demjanuik. He made the news–repeatedly over a 30 year period– because he was, as many people probably remember, a Nazi war criminal nick-named “Ivan the Terrible” for his brutal treatment of Jews (and others) in the Sobibor death camp. The trouble is, as Richard Rashke points out in his new book Useful Enemies: John Demjanjuk and America’s Open-Door Policy for Nazi War Criminals (Delphinium, 2013), Demjanuik was not a Nazi, was not “Ivan the Terrible,” and, though he was certainly a guard at Sobibor, it’s not entirely clear what he did (though it was likely very bad). Again and again he was brought to trial for his alleged crimes. Again and again the courts failed to agree on what he had done. Demjaniuk was and remains something of a mystery, a vital mystery that we badly want to solve but cannot. After all, we need to know who is a war criminal and who is not. What’s most interesting about Demjaniuk–at least to this reader–is the moral complexity of his story. As Rashke shows, he was repeatedly compelled to make life and death choices as he tried to stay survive in Stalinist Russia, in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe, and even after the war. He had options, but they were almost always bad ones, and often deadly ones. He was a “collaborator” to be sure. But, Rashke asks, what exactly is a “collaborator”? Could he have chosen differently and hoped to survive? Could he have acted “morally” in the context within which he found himself? Rashke says “yes.” Listen in and find out why. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You may have heard of a fellow named Ivan or John Demjanuik. He made the news–repeatedly over a 30 year period– because he was, as many people probably remember, a Nazi war criminal nick-named “Ivan the Terrible” for his brutal treatment of Jews (and others) in the Sobibor death camp. The trouble is, as Richard Rashke points out in his new book Useful Enemies: John Demjanjuk and America’s Open-Door Policy for Nazi War Criminals (Delphinium, 2013), Demjanuik was not a Nazi, was not “Ivan the Terrible,” and, though he was certainly a guard at Sobibor, it’s not entirely clear what he did (though it was likely very bad). Again and again he was brought to trial for his alleged crimes. Again and again the courts failed to agree on what he had done. Demjaniuk was and remains something of a mystery, a vital mystery that we badly want to solve but cannot. After all, we need to know who is a war criminal and who is not. What’s most interesting about Demjaniuk–at least to this reader–is the moral complexity of his story. As Rashke shows, he was repeatedly compelled to make life and death choices as he tried to stay survive in Stalinist Russia, in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe, and even after the war. He had options, but they were almost always bad ones, and often deadly ones. He was a “collaborator” to be sure. But, Rashke asks, what exactly is a “collaborator”? Could he have chosen differently and hoped to survive? Could he have acted “morally” in the context within which he found himself? Rashke says “yes.” Listen in and find out why. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You may have heard of a fellow named Ivan or John Demjanuik. He made the news–repeatedly over a 30 year period– because he was, as many people probably remember, a Nazi war criminal nick-named “Ivan the Terrible” for his brutal treatment of Jews (and others) in the Sobibor death camp. The trouble is, as Richard Rashke points out in his new book Useful Enemies: John Demjanjuk and America’s Open-Door Policy for Nazi War Criminals (Delphinium, 2013), Demjanuik was not a Nazi, was not “Ivan the Terrible,” and, though he was certainly a guard at Sobibor, it’s not entirely clear what he did (though it was likely very bad). Again and again he was brought to trial for his alleged crimes. Again and again the courts failed to agree on what he had done. Demjaniuk was and remains something of a mystery, a vital mystery that we badly want to solve but cannot. After all, we need to know who is a war criminal and who is not. What’s most interesting about Demjaniuk–at least to this reader–is the moral complexity of his story. As Rashke shows, he was repeatedly compelled to make life and death choices as he tried to stay survive in Stalinist Russia, in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe, and even after the war. He had options, but they were almost always bad ones, and often deadly ones. He was a “collaborator” to be sure. But, Rashke asks, what exactly is a “collaborator”? Could he have chosen differently and hoped to survive? Could he have acted “morally” in the context within which he found himself? Rashke says “yes.” Listen in and find out why. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You may have heard of a fellow named Ivan or John Demjanuik. He made the news–repeatedly over a 30 year period– because he was, as many people probably remember, a Nazi war criminal nick-named “Ivan the Terrible” for his brutal treatment of Jews (and others) in the Sobibor death camp. The trouble is, as Richard Rashke points out in his new book Useful Enemies: John Demjanjuk and America’s Open-Door Policy for Nazi War Criminals (Delphinium, 2013), Demjanuik was not a Nazi, was not “Ivan the Terrible,” and, though he was certainly a guard at Sobibor, it’s not entirely clear what he did (though it was likely very bad). Again and again he was brought to trial for his alleged crimes. Again and again the courts failed to agree on what he had done. Demjaniuk was and remains something of a mystery, a vital mystery that we badly want to solve but cannot. After all, we need to know who is a war criminal and who is not. What’s most interesting about Demjaniuk–at least to this reader–is the moral complexity of his story. As Rashke shows, he was repeatedly compelled to make life and death choices as he tried to stay survive in Stalinist Russia, in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe, and even after the war. He had options, but they were almost always bad ones, and often deadly ones. He was a “collaborator” to be sure. But, Rashke asks, what exactly is a “collaborator”? Could he have chosen differently and hoped to survive? Could he have acted “morally” in the context within which he found himself? Rashke says “yes.” Listen in and find out why. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You may have heard of a fellow named Ivan or John Demjanuik. He made the news–repeatedly over a 30 year period– because he was, as many people probably remember, a Nazi war criminal nick-named “Ivan the Terrible” for his brutal treatment of Jews (and others) in the Sobibor death camp. The trouble is, as Richard Rashke points out in his new book Useful Enemies: John Demjanjuk and America’s Open-Door Policy for Nazi War Criminals (Delphinium, 2013), Demjanuik was not a Nazi, was not “Ivan the Terrible,” and, though he was certainly a guard at Sobibor, it’s not entirely clear what he did (though it was likely very bad). Again and again he was brought to trial for his alleged crimes. Again and again the courts failed to agree on what he had done. Demjaniuk was and remains something of a mystery, a vital mystery that we badly want to solve but cannot. After all, we need to know who is a war criminal and who is not. What’s most interesting about Demjaniuk–at least to this reader–is the moral complexity of his story. As Rashke shows, he was repeatedly compelled to make life and death choices as he tried to stay survive in Stalinist Russia, in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe, and even after the war. He had options, but they were almost always bad ones, and often deadly ones. He was a “collaborator” to be sure. But, Rashke asks, what exactly is a “collaborator”? Could he have chosen differently and hoped to survive? Could he have acted “morally” in the context within which he found himself? Rashke says “yes.” Listen in and find out why. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You may have heard of a fellow named Ivan or John Demjanuik. He made the news–repeatedly over a 30 year period– because he was, as many people probably remember, a Nazi war criminal nick-named “Ivan the Terrible” for his brutal treatment of Jews (and others) in the Sobibor death camp. The trouble is, as Richard Rashke points out in his new book Useful Enemies: John Demjanjuk and America’s Open-Door Policy for Nazi War Criminals (Delphinium, 2013), Demjanuik was not a Nazi, was not “Ivan the Terrible,” and, though he was certainly a guard at Sobibor, it’s not entirely clear what he did (though it was likely very bad). Again and again he was brought to trial for his alleged crimes. Again and again the courts failed to agree on what he had done. Demjaniuk was and remains something of a mystery, a vital mystery that we badly want to solve but cannot. After all, we need to know who is a war criminal and who is not. What’s most interesting about Demjaniuk–at least to this reader–is the moral complexity of his story. As Rashke shows, he was repeatedly compelled to make life and death choices as he tried to stay survive in Stalinist Russia, in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe, and even after the war. He had options, but they were almost always bad ones, and often deadly ones. He was a “collaborator” to be sure. But, Rashke asks, what exactly is a “collaborator”? Could he have chosen differently and hoped to survive? Could he have acted “morally” in the context within which he found himself? Rashke says “yes.” Listen in and find out why. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices