With both a precise view of success from an individual’s perspective and with consideration of success in society at large, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson explains how favorable outcomes are possible in his new series on DailyWire+. In the second episode, “Success for Men and Women,” Peterson investigates the markings of success for both genders, distinguishing the differences between the two while also illuminating their cooperation together.  Existentialism, a philosophical theory centered on experience, the individual, and existence, is one to which Peterson has tied himself for years. Yet he differs from some existentialist thinkers in that he is not only able to see the need for an individual to find one’s place in a social hierarchy, but he is also able to articulate that need — and the reasons for it. In other words, reality does very much take place outside an individual, and becoming part of the universal hierarchy of harmony is a prerequisite for success.  WATCH ‘SUCCESS FOR MEN & WOMEN’ ON DAILYWIRE+ Spoken with the knowledge and experience of a teacher, Peterson sets forth an example after reiterating the need to be integrated into a hierarchy of social community, turning a potential philosophical convolution into an understandable realistic practicality. Where can we look to see an example of this universal hierarchy of harmony? “You see it most fundamentally — experience it most fundamentally — in the case of music,” he says. “Music is intrinsically meaningful, and that intrinsic meaning of music isn’t subject to rational criticism. It circumvents rational criticism. It’s more fundamentally real than anything rational criticism can undermine. And that’s really something remarkable.” Remarkable, indeed.  An appreciator of live music and a collector of artwork, Peterson’s personal passions are not limited to his academic subject areas. Music and art have held his attention for quite some time. To explain, he offers an analogy, comparing musical patterns to the structure of the world: “Music replicates the structure of the world in that the world is made out of hierarchies of patterns, and those patterns can interact harmoniously. That’s what happens in a musical piece. And then the musical piece will compel you to align yourself with that harmonious pattern of movement. And that emergent harmonious alignment? Well, people love that.” Quoting Walter Pater, Peterson recollects the notion that art aspires to the condition but magnifies it, saying, “All life aspires to the condition of music.”  Almost as though he is able to prophetically discern a potential counterargument from viewers, Peterson poses a counter on his viewers’ behalf, asking, “Why shouldn’t it be all about me?  Why shouldn’t I just be selfish?” This, of course, depends on your definition of “selfish,” which he defines, morals aside, inquiring, “Do you mean that the you that wants something right now should always get it? Because that’s actually going to be problematic for the extended you.” He contends that you should not be selfish — because it is not in your interest. Selfishness has a way of leading to betrayal, one that betrays others and your future self.  When playing a game of football or the game of life, you win by supporting your fellow teammates, trying hard to win, having enough emotional coherency, and showing some magnificence of character. These pointers are understood easily enough as Peterson outlines how to win; at the same time, his explanation of how emotions take hold of an individual is psychologically founded. Rather than think of a person as impulsive, it is possible to consider impulse itself as gripping the identity of someone so completely that the person identifies with the impulse. To notice the hold impulsivity has, you must be psychologically sound — and introspective. Otherwise, anger, for example, may convince you that you are no more than anger, when in actuality, this is just “the fragmentary motivational state of anger.”  Here, Peterson transitions to a discussion of success as it relates to both genders. (Emotions, after all, take center stage in a relationship.) “We’re checking each other out for this sort of higher-order regulation capacity all the time in ways we don’t understand at all.” Delving into the differences of success between men and women, he recognizes we “probably don’t understand that as well as we might” — though we do have a starting point. Peterson addresses the research-proven and easily observable fact that “more successful women are intimidating to men,” whereas success in regards to men is “the primary hallmark of attractiveness to women.”  Being socioeconomically successful is an indication of competence — not wealth. Women’s motivation for seeking a partner who is socioeconomically successful is indicative of their attraction to competence, which Peterson identifies as “an issue to be considering, for men who are trying to contemplate what might constitute success.” Though he acknowledges how the opposite gender views success when considering attractiveness (i.e., what men look for in women and, similarly, what women look for in men), he creates a framework of success for each gender as intertwined with and separate from the other.  He goes on, explaining, “It’s very useful for men to develop a high level of competence in at least one thing. It’s extraordinarily useful as a disciplinary process.” This is because “men with sense admire competence,” he notes. For the women viewers, he addresses a paradoxical and societal problem with which they must contend: “Women are enjoined to develop their career, and they’re impelled to believe that there’ll be nothing more important for them in their life than their career. Now, that’s a lie. That’s not even true for most people, let alone most women.”  To be hyper-successful at a career, you must be smart, conscientious, and willing to work 80 hours a week. Peterson recalls working alongside some of the first female professors to be granted tenure at Harvard, the price of which was reflected in their decisions to not have children. Having worked with large law firms as a consultant for about 10 years, he remembers seeing female partners leave those firms around the age of 30, having witnessed their priorities to have shifted once they had children: “The relative importance of their career compared to their children shifts dramatically.” He even cites one client to have thought of having a child as almost decorative — until she had her own. “There isn’t anyone you like better than your children,” he asserts.  To continue being hypercompetitive and career-driven while also being a dedicated mother puts women in a “terrible bind,” feeling guilty when they are at work and not with their children and when with their children and not at work. The question, according to Peterson, is not “why aren’t there any successful women?” The question to ask is, “Why is there a small percentage of hyper-successful men who are willing to sacrifice everything in pursuit of that success?” Thoughtfully considering success, Peterson returns to its eight dimensions, concluding that being hyper-successful at a couple of those dimensions has some payoffs, excelling in one far above another can have advantages, but being consistent in all can definitely lead to success. Peterson ends with a look to the future and a reminder to consider what is ahead, stating, “Your viewpoint does shift across time, and your definitions of success have to take that into account.” Framing your proper perspective now will inherently create a proper perspective of the future, which he intends to help viewers do.

An official from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been arrested and charged for allegedly leaking classified material about Israel’s attack plans on Iran last month. The New York Times first reported Wednesday morning that Asif W. Rahman, who works overseas for the CIA, was indicted last week on federal charges and arrested on Tuesday in Cambodia. He was brought to a federal courthouse in Guam where he was arraigned on two counts of willful retention and transmission of national defense information. Rahman had a top-secret security clearance and access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), the Times reported. The information that was leaked was compiled by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which analyzes satellite imagery. MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+ The classified documents that were leaked were intended to only be viewed by members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, which includes the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Officials were alerted to a leak after a pro-Iran Telegram account published the U.S. intelligence documents last month about Israel’s preparations for their attack against Iran, which had been in planning for weeks. The report said that the leak could be an attempt to disrupt the forthcoming strike. The documents showed a summary of what U.S. spy satellites observed the Israeli military doing in preparation for the operation, including moving planes and munitions and conducting “a large exercise”. Israel’s strike against Iran came after the Islamic regime fired more than 180 ballistic missiles into Israel at the start of October, which sent nearly the entire country running for bomb shelters. This is a developing news story; refresh the page for updates.

Dave Coulier, who played everyone’s favorite Uncle Joey on Full House, has cancer. Dave, 65, shared his stage 3 non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis with People. He explained that he learned of the cancer after becoming extremely ill with an upper respiratory infection in October. His lymph nodes became very swollen, and his doctor ordered PET and CT scans and a biopsy. “I went from, I got a little bit of a head cold to I have cancer, and it was pretty overwhelming,” he told People. “This has been a really fast roller coaster ride of a journey.”  View this post on Instagram A post shared by TODAY (@todayshow) Dave Coulier Has A Rare Form Of Cancer According to People, Dave Coulier has B cell lymphoma, which is “rare.” When Dave and his wife, Melissa Bring, learned of his diagnosis, they knew they wanted to fight. “We all kind of put our heads together and said, ‘Okay, where are we going?’ And they had a very specific plan for how they were going to treat this,” he said. “At that point, my chances of curable went from something low to 90% range. And so that was a great day.”  Dave Coulier began cancer treatment soon after his diagnosis and shaved his head in a “preemptive strike.” He explained more on his Full House Rewind podcast with Marla Sokoloff and said he wanted to be transparent about his health. “I started the podcast wearing a hat, and I said, I’ve always been a man of many hats, but this hat has special significance because a couple of weeks ago, I was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,” Dave said. “That was really a conscious decision of, I’m going to meet this head-on, and I want people to know it’s my life. I’m not going to try and hide anything. I would rather talk about it and open the discussion and inspire people.”  Dave’s Diagnosis Came As A Shock But, he is focusing on the positive. “I have my good days. I have my bad days,” he told People. “Some days are nauseous and dizzy, and then there’s other days where the steroids kick in, and I feel like I have a ton of energy. I actually skated yesterday with some friends here in Detroit. We just went and skated around and shot pucks, and it was wonderful just to be out there doing something that I love and just trying to stay focused on all the great stuff that I have in my life.”  This story’s featured image is by Kelly Lee Barrett/Getty Images. The post Dave Coulier Bravely Shares Cancer Battle With Fans, “I’m Going To Be Strong” appeared first on InspireMore.

'I somewhat panicked'

'Thune defeated Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn'

There is no evidence the Harris campaign said this.

Books Reading the Weird Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Ideas: Stephen King’s Pet Sematary (Part 13) We now have all the dominoes set up to support an extremely bad decision… By Ruthanna Emrys, Anne M. Pillsworth | Published on November 13, 2024 Comment 0 Share New Share Welcome back to Reading the Weird, in which we get girl cooties all over weird fiction, cosmic horror, and Lovecraftiana—from its historical roots through its most recent branches. This week, we continue Stephen King’s Pet Sematary with Chapters 38-39. The novel was first published in 1983. Spoilers ahead! Content warning for child death. Louis and Jud sit at the Creeds’ kitchen table to drink and talk. It’s stretching their friendship, Louis says, for Jud to arrive after midnight on the day Gage will be buried, but Jud’s unfazed. Louis knows why he’s here. Louis is thinking things better left unthought, a bad situation for which Jud feels responsible. In fact, having introduced Louis to the Micmac burial ground, Jud may have been responsible for Gage’s death. How far the place’s influence spreads, Jud doesn’t know. What he does know is what happened to Timmy Baterman and his dad. Timmy died during WWII, in Italy. Bill Baterman about went crazy when he got the news. But Bill also knew about the burial ground, and he decided to use it. Louis asks why, after Church, Jud insisted no one had ever buried a person up there. Jud’s reply: Louis didn’t need to know then. Now he does. Jud’s learned from the funeral director that Louis ordered a grave liner for Gage’s coffin instead of a sealing vault. Louis must know from his undertaker uncle that a sealing vault’s just that, sealed, impossible to open expeditiously, while a grave liner’s topped by concrete slabs which one man could lower—or raise— unaided. But— Shhh, Louis thinks. “We will not speak of such things. These are secret things.” But he surrenders to hearing his story. *  *. * Bill Baterman’s wife died in child-birth along with their second child, leaving Bill alone to meet the train carrying the war dead. The Army official in charge of delivering the coffins said that down south, they called such a transport a “mystery train.” Bill buried Timmy in Pleasantview Cemetery. Two days later, the Ludlow postwoman saw Timmy walking up the road. She told her boss she’d gotten the fright of her life and went home sick. She wouldn’t describe what she’d seen until she lay dying: how Timmy had been pale, lurching, with “eyes… like raisins stuck in bread dough.” Lots of people saw him in the following days, shambling up and down the road like a zombie but with something monstrous behind his eyes, as if “a radio signal… was comin from somewhere else into him.” The War Department, tipped off to Timmy’s “liveliness,” threatened to investigate. Some town officials met on the Crandalls’ porch. One suggested that Bill “has been up to dickens in that woods north of Route 15.” The ad hoc committee finally decided to go to the Baterman place to deal with what Norma called an “abomination.” She also whispered to Jud to “hump right out of there if anything happens.” They confronted the Batermans behind their house. Timmy stared up into the setting sun with a face that looked flayed. Bill was drinking beer on the stoop, his eyes sunken like “little animals in a pair of caves” and his mouth tic-twitching, a “damned” man. Asked how a dead Timmy could be standing there grinning, Bill declared that Timmy was shell-shocked, not killed. He was “a little strange now,” but he’d “come around.” As for whether Bill had been “foolin around up in the woods,” he didn’t have to explain himself to anyone. The Army had had no right to take his boy. He’d gotten Timmy back. Nothing more to say. Before the townsmen could retreat, Timmy shuffled over, crablike, hands dangling. His face bore scars from the German machine gun blast, and he stank of the grave. He was dead. But he was alive, too, and he knew things. He told one man his wife was committing adultery, another that his “loving” grandson was just waiting to grab his inheritance, and wouldn’t that grandson “shit” when he learned his dupe was broke. Bill screamed for Timmy to shut up, but Timmy screeched and laughed. He called Jud a whoremaster who cheated on Norma with prostitutes when he got the itch to “sink it into strange flesh.” Yes, that was true. All his accusations were true, but he told only the bad about people who’d also done good things. Timmy had been a nice kid; this thing was a monster. The Micmac would have known him as something touched by the Wendigo. It ended when Bill shot Timmy, soaked his house with range oil, dropped a match, then shot himself. As for the burial ground, it goes way back before the Micmacs. It’s “an evil, curdled place” Jud wasn’t strong enough to resist, and it turned his wish to repay Louis for saving Norma to its own purpose. Its power apparently goes through phases, and Jud’s scared it’s coming to full potency again, scared it used him to get at Louis through his son. Not that it knew Gage was going to die but that it made him die. Jud may have murdered Gage through good intentions. Louis promises that when Gage is buried tomorrow, he’ll stay buried. Louis will never go back to the Pet Sematary, or beyond it. But in the back of Louis’s mind, there remains “a dancing flicker of promise that would not quite go away.”  The Degenerate Dutch: Jud admits that the Micmac are in fact the rightful owners of the burial ground land. He also says they never left a mark on the land, which was a vaguely reasonable thing to say in the 80s but laughable now that we know where the northeastern woods came from. Weirdbuilding: Digging up the dead is not as easy as it looks for Dr. Frankenstein. At least not these days. Plan your gravesite amenities accordingly. Madness Takes Its Toll: “Shell shock” can explain almost anything—at least to a guy who really wants to believe the explanation. Ruthanna’s Commentary I’m beginning to think that finding a father figure is not perhaps the best thing that ever happened to Louis. Then again, “the man who should have been his father” is an interesting turn of phrase, isn’t it? It’s not, actually, the same thing. Or at least, it’s not the same thing as a good father figure, let alone a good father. Louis wants guidance, but he also wants explanations—and excuses. Jud’s a ready source of all three. In addition to this week’s public miseries I am recovering from the flu, so my temptation is to un-generously write an entire commentary consisting of GENDER ROLES ARE BAD AND MAKE EVERYONE FEEL BAD. But most of you come here for something a little more nuanced, so I’m trying to lean away from grouching and toward reparative reading. Stereotypically and “traditionally” (insert rant about the ahistoricity of the nuclear family), a parent’s special role with children of matched gender is to model that gender’s expected contributions, and provide guidance into the mysteries and physical specificities of that gender. This is for many people a real need, and indeed if your children don’t match any of the available parental genders, they will happily demonstrate its importance with any appropriate role models you can find. Unfortunately, in many cases both gender expectations and actual available parents are as much sources of messy toxicity as initiation into the mysteries. King knows this well, and it shows up across his stories. In my childhood fave Carrie, the titular teen ends up destroying town and self because her mother is a purity-obsessed abuser who doesn’t tell her about menstruation. Louis gets what might be charitably called an average mix of initiation and toxicity—but given the particular flavor of initiation available in Ludlow, the Bad Idea needle still swings way over to the right. Elsewhere, “most men lie to their wives and go to prostitutes to handle their Obviously Too Scary For Wife kinks” would not be the top grade of wisdom, but would probably involve fewer undead wendigo puppets. So the book seems to pretty coherently support the theme of Toxic Masculinity Will Break Your Family. I’m willing to posit that at least some part of King is in on this theme. The book isn’t exactly examining its gender assumptions, but I suspect his id knows whereof it speaks. Louis starts with a fair dose of toxic masculinity, from being patronizing to Rachel to holding back on expressing love to his kids, but Jud reinforces it. He tells Louis not only that he’s right to do these things, but that his heart is inherently full of “stonier soil”. That he must be cautious of emotion and expressive with his actions. And that there are some hard-but-meaningful actions available right over this hill. At that point “…actions which you should not take” is unpersuasive. What else could Louis do? Hug his wife? “The man who should have been his father,” perhaps, means “the man who, as his father, would have produced him as he is now only more so.” And the problem is, of course, generational. Jud received both guidance on manhood and initiation into the burial ground from previous generations—and from that point the burial ground itself has a fair amount of influence. Jud fears that it may have killed Gage through its connection to Louis, passed through Jud himself. Presumably he has reason to think the ground’s spirit capable of this kind of odds-tweaking. Traditions passed down through generations with inextricable horror and trauma, never heard that one before. And but so anyway. We now have all the dominoes set up to support an extremely bad decision—how is it going to play out? Louis is trying to resist, but he’s going to spend the coming days exhausted and frequently drunk, and the burying ground has its hooks in him. The other possibility, though—Louis and Jud had their manly heart-to-heart all alone in the kitchen. I’m sure they were checking very carefully for eavesdroppers, and that the rest of the household was sleeping soundly the night before Gage’s burial. Anne’s Commentary Early in King’s The Shining, Danny meets Dick Hallorran, the Overlook Hotel’s chef. Hallorran tells Danny that “he shines the hardest” of anyone Hallorran’s ever met. “Shining” is his name for ESP ranging from enhanced empathy to clairvoyance and telepathy to, maybe even, precognition. Many folks have a little shine without knowing it. Very few actually know they shine. Elly may be among the shiners largely unconscious of their ability. She dreamed about Church’s death the night it happened. Following Gage’s death, she tells Louis she’s going to pray for God to bring him back to life, and she knows God can do it. In Sunday school, they heard the story of Lazarus. What’s more, the teacher said Jesus could have raised everybody in the graveyard if he’d wanted to. Quod erat demonstrandum, Daddy. Why shouldn’t Elly latch onto a story, especially one from the purportedly all-true Bible, because it says what she wants to believe? Many adults do the same. I think there’s more going on with her conviction that God could resurrect Gage whole and ready to use that chair she’s keeping warm for him. Elly may sense the waxing glamor of the burial ground, either through her own perceptivity or through empathy with Louis, its chief target. There is a god who can raise the dead. Louis knows this for a fact, one that brings him reminders of how ugly death can be and that observes him with eyes more than feline. It’s just that this god is not He of the Bible. Elly may sense that, too. Sibyl-like, she cries out in her sleep as Louis and Jud head to the kitchen; hearing her, they freeze in their tracks. There’s power behind the cry. A warning, perhaps, that Louis had better listen to what Jud’s come to say. The warning may be DANGER, LISTEN AND AVOID THE UNHOLY PLACE. Or it may be: LISTEN BUT REALIZE—JUD’S TALE PROVES THAT HUMAN DEAD CAN ALSO RETURN. Exactly what Louis takes from the revelation depends on which god or God is projecting that “dancing flicker of promise” to the back of his mind. Jud knows which deity is tempting Louis. The Micmac called it Wendigo, the One whose touch makes the dead its vessels. Whatever uncanny presence Louis sensed pre-Church, as on the stairs with Gage one sunny day, it’s Jud who led him to the local heart of the Wendigo’s power. First Jud took him to the Pet Sematary. Then he took him beyond it. I had good intentions, Jud again claims in today’s chapters, but, a naturally honest man, he can’t deny his culpability in Louis’s current dilemma. Louis is thinking of secret things that should be unthinkable, but which Jud’s now honor-bound to address. He has what should be a tactical nuclear bomb in his arsenal. If the tragedy of Bill and Timmy Baterman doesn’t deter Louis from reviving Gage, Louis is a hopeless case. No. Louis is a good man; moreover, as a physician, he must have the diagnostic chops to recognize his own symptoms and realize he’s slipping toward madness. The Baterman tale should also remind him he isn’t like Bill, already bereft of a wife and surviving children when Timmy dies. Louis has Rachel and Elly: treasures, and responsibilities. What’s due to the living must outweigh any delusion of duty to the dead. Only, revival of the dead isn’t a delusion. Timmy Baterman came back, and maybe Bill was right, his son was just shell-shocked. Death will do that, but the Wendigo-touched can get better. Physically, Timmy was a walking horror. Psychically, he was a secret-spilling terror to all around him. Still, time and care might have lessened or cured these unfortunate manifestations. What if Bill had waited a few days longer before despairing? What if he’d had the guts to do that? Jud does his best to convince Louis to resist temptation. He repeatedly admits he could have been an unintentional accomplice to Gage’s death. He knew better than to take Louis to the burial ground. He didn’t have the strength to fight the place’s allure. Louis must be stronger. Louis tells Jud he doesn’t believe he had a hand in Gage’s death. He “didn’t; wouldn’t. Couldn’t” believe it. The string of auxiliary verbs is significant. “Didn’t” states simple disbelief in Jud’s culpability. “Wouldn’t” adds a willful component, a turning away from the possibility that Jud (or anyone) could be influenced to evil by the burial ground. “Couldn’t” puts belief in Jud beyond Louis’s control. It couldn’t be right to resist the “glamor,” making resistance a matter of strength in which Jud failed and Louis must succeed. To believe that would be to kill the “flicker of promise” Louis clings to. His creed used to be “Dead is dead.” Now he knows this isn’t true for people who know about an unGodlike god who grants revival to offerings on its altar. Louis can have his son again. What remains to contemplate is what price he’s willing to pay. According to Jud, a horrific price was exacted for Timmy Baterman. Louis already knows what price he’s paying for Church, the murderer-of-small-things. Could there be a price too high for Gage? If only the Wendigo gave estimates on the final cost of its services. Next week, fighting abominations can challenge relationships in Aimee Picchi’s “The Only Writing Advice You’ll Ever Need to Survive Eldritch Horrors”.[end-mark] The post Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Ideas: Stephen King’s Pet Sematary (Part 13) appeared first on Reactor.

Adam is joined by returning guest and comic book artist, Phillip Sevy to talk about Wizard’s Best of the Best awards for 1999, the 10 Overused Comics Book Plot Lines and a Last Man Standing CONTINUE READING... The post WIZARDS The Podcast Guide To Comics | Episode 100.5 appeared first on The Retro Network.

This is a lightly edited transcript of the accompanying video from professor Peter St. Onge. The Wall Street Journal is speculating that President-elect Donald Trump may fire Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. Powell says he won’t go. Can the president fire a Fed chief? And if not, who is actually running the Fed? Trump appointed Powell in 2017, and has pretty much been at war with him ever since. Powell was appointed on the recommendation of his friend Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, a former hedge funder. Powell himself is not actually an economist—he worked in private equity, which normally buys up companies and sells them for parts. But Powell worked for a conspiracy theorist’s fever dream, the Carlyle Group, featured in “Fahrenheit 9/11” as the crony poster child of the military industrial complex. It’s a big club. And Trump was new to the game. At any rate, just nine months in, Trump already wanted Powell gone, because Powell was raising interest rates when inflation was two-and-a-half points. Higher rates slow growth, and Trump had promised growth. Once COVID-19 hit, of course, rates went to zero, so it was moot. Fast-forward to today, with Trump musing during the campaign that rates are too high, which is strangling the economy and squeezing families. Of course, Powell is doing this because the alternative is to control inflation by cutting government spending. So, can Trump fire Powell and get the Fed chairman of his dreams? Presidents can’t outright fire Fed chairs unless it’s for cause—meaning, they’re corrupt or go to Diddy parties. But they can demote them to regular Fed governors, who have less power. But that requires an open seat, which doesn’t happen until early 2026—a few months before Powell’s term as chair ends anyway. Of course, Congress could always create an open seat by packing the Fed. In which case Trump could demote Powell today and appoint a new chair. So, he sort of can. But … should he? There’s the surface question: Should rates go lower? That depends how far away we are from recession and whether “Trumponomics” will head off that recession. But the more important question is, why do we have a system where Fed chairs can’t be fired? After all, we live in a republic where politicians are the voice of the voters. If a Fed chair is independent of presidents, it means he is independent of voters. In which case, who exactly does the Fed answer to? JP Morgan? Citigroup? Indeed, former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has pointed out the Fed has less oversight than the CIA. Fed chairs can and do refuse to answer oversight questions from Congress, which would obviously get a CIA director fired—something presidents very much can do. This is, incidentally, true of all modern central banks. They are intentionally set up to be independent of voters—allegedly because voters like inflation, but possibly because the purpose of a central bank is to print money and hand it to bankers, governments, big corporations, and rich people. None of which would be very popular with voters. In fact, voters might shut it down—the money printing and the central bank. So, what’s next? Whether or not Powell sticks around, the fight raises an important question why, precisely, our economy is manipulated by a private corporation—the Fed—that’s not only unconstitutional, but explicitly does not answer to voters. Government shouldn’t be manipulating the economy in the first place. But doing it independent of voters amounts to an economic occupation. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Can Trump Fire Jerome Powell? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

For the first time in 18 years, Republicans in the Senate have a new leader. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., will replace outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., as the conference’s front man.The new leader will have the hard task of passing President-elect Donald Trump‘s agenda through the upper chamber of Congress. Though Republicans have the majority, they are not close to the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster to move a lot of legislation through the chamber. Nevertheless, procedural mechanisms like budget reconciliation and the confirmation of Trump‘s appointments are exempt from the 60-vote threshold.Meanwhile, Thune will attempt to differentiate his leadership style from that of McConnell’s, as McConnell regularly has been rebuffed by a majority of the conference in the last two years. Just how much Thune reforms how the Senate goes about its business will become clear in January. This is a breaking news story and will be updated. The post Senate Republicans Choose New Leader for First Time in 18 Years appeared first on The Daily Signal.