On the surface, Pierre Poilievre’s recent appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast had more good than bad. The Conservative leader came across as likable, down-to-earth, and clear. He stressed the need to unleash Canada’s energy potential. He called for cutting regulations that have suppressed innovation. He pushed for lower government spending. These are all sound ideas and Canada would surely benefit from them. But one key moment showed the real substance of Poilievre’s platform: empty individualism. This view defines human dignity as absolute self-expression. It not only cheapens human life, it weakens the institutions that support Canadian culture. The moment happened when Rogan critiqued the current state of Canada’s euthanasia program. Rogan expressed a reasonable concern. He noted that 1 in 20 Canadian deaths now come from so-called assisted suicide or Medical Aid in Dying (MAID). Poilievre replied that he believes people should “have the choice” to be euthanized. His main concern was the idea that it would be offered to kids or to people whose only condition is mental illness. In other words, his issue is not with Canada’s current euthanasia rules. His issue is only with suggestions that have not yet become law. Canada’s euthanasia regime is abhorrent, with or without amendments. Track 2 euthanasia lets individuals apply for MAID based on an incurable physical condition. This includes a disability. The Atlantic recently published a piece on the ethical and practical questions facing “providers.” A more accurate word would be deprivers. These providers must interpret euthanasia rules on their own. One story described a doctor who euthanized a man in his 30s. The man had a treatable form of cancer, but he had refused all other treatment. This made his condition “irremediable.” Human dignity should be the first commitment of any conservative. Poilievre often touts individual rights. Yet he ignores the most fundamental one: the right to life. To say someone has an intrinsic right means they possess it simply because of who they are. It does not depend on what they do. But Poilievre’s willingness to allow euthanasia for those who are suffering and dying sends a clear message. It says the value of human life depends on personal judgment. His criticism of euthanasia for the mentally ill is confusing. If people should have a “freedom” to die on their terms — in Canada that includes the terminally ill, disabled, and chronically sick — why must those symptoms be physical? In fact, we know they often are not. Stories abound of individuals struggling with depression who have applied for MAID. One example is 26-year-old Kiano Vafaeian. He was struggling with vision loss and depression. At the heart of Poilievre’s blunder on euthanasia is a false understanding of human dignity. Ironically, it is the same understanding that drives the woke excesses of the Liberal elite. They see dignity as absolute self-expression. This empty individualism separates life’s meaning from the broader context of nature, community, and tradition. When applied to culture, this leads to a cheapening of human life. It is no surprise that places that legalize assisted suicide see an increase in overall suicide rates. Chosen or not, Poilievre fails to understand one key point. Euthanasia is a symptom of a sick, depressed, and lonely culture. A culture that is killing itself is not going to be saved by lower housing costs. Economic prosperity can certainly help but it is not the sole solution. Poilievre’s wholesome vision for Canada is admirable. He wants a future where families enjoy the fruit of their labor without government interference. Ideally, they live in a white-picket-fenced home that they can afford. But this vision is unachievable without cultural renewal. The expressive individualism of the Liberal and Conservative elites will not deliver that renewal. Canadian culture is not only suicidal it is also sterile. Nearly one in four Canadian women in their 40s have no kids. Last year, Poilievre was absurdly reprimanded by Liberal MPs. They criticized him for recognizing that unaffordable housing causes couples to run out of time to start families before their “biological clocks” expire. The idea that government should be completely impartial to marriage and fertility rates is ludicrous. These rates can give a glimpse into the hope people place in their future. Economic strain can suppress this hope and so can a nihilistic culture that has cheapened human life. The family is not merely an economic unit. It is a legacy-making enterprise. A culture that sees no value in life beyond individual expression makes the self-sacrificial reality of marriage seem absurd. Unlike Poilievre, a true conservative recognizes that dignity is not rooted in our personal judgment. It is intrinsic to who we are. Our identity should be understood in reference to the people, institutions, and traditions that shape us. We should seek economic prosperity. But we should not seek it at the cost of the integrity of those institutions. Poilievre has an impressive ability to explain those institutions. One of the best moments from the podcast was his explanation of the Westminster tradition, which is deeply connected to Canada’s British heritage. What Poilievre takes for granted is this: hopelessness grows when people feel isolated. Yet the political elite — both Conservative and Liberal — expect the average Canadian to accept this isolation without complaint. Canada has some of the highest immigration rates per capita in the world. Conservatives claim to support assimilation into Canadian culture but they lack the ability to identify and preserve what is exemplary of that culture. At Confederation, Canadian culture wasn’t divorced from a broader religious and moral consensus. It was founded against the backdrop of a predominantly Christian society. The 1871 census showed over 98% of the population as Christian. All 36 Fathers of Confederation were raised in a Christian tradition. This included Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Presbyterianism. Yet Poilievre’s policies, especially on immigration, fail to take this into account. His view is that anyone can “become” Canadian. He defines it loosely as a belief in “freedom.” This view will not produce the assimilation needed for cultural unity. It will lead Canada further down the path of cultural decay. Does this mean that people of non-Christian faiths should not come to Canada? Not at all. But it does mean that policymakers should protect the shared morality, customs, and traditions passed down from the time of Confederation. They should make judgments on immigration policy with prudence. They should keep the interests of Canadians in mind. Those interests should not be measured only in economic output. They should include cultural unity. Poilievre’s discussion was typical of the decades-long drift of the Conservative establishment. It has moved toward a “balancing the budget” style of liberalism. This style redefines human dignity. It has cheapened human life. It has undermined the family. It has squandered Canada’s cultural inheritance. It has failed. Moving forward, the Conservatives should let their party’s name guide their ideology. Canadians do not just want lower costs, they want flourishing families. They want a unified nation and a culture of hope. That is the true mission of conservatism. The Conservative establishment would do well to remember it. * * * Liana Graham is a research assistant in domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation. She is originally from Oakville, Ontario, Canada.

Generally known for its quality and affordable prices, Trader Joe’s may be starting to build a reputation for something else: recalls. On Tuesday, Trader Joe’s pizza products came under scrutiny after reports of possible metal contamination. The FDA issued a Class II recall — which indicates a low risk of serious health consequences — for products like prepared pizza kits and packaged focaccia bread. On March 3, Trader Joe’s recalled more than 10 million pounds of fried rice products due to concerns over possible glass contamination. Trader Joes has pictures on every register in its stores to help spread the information to customers.  “We value information and clear communication. Should a recall become necessary, we waste no time in providing our customers detail,” says the retailer. “Our recall-related communications go well beyond regulatory requirements: we share news through in-store signs, on our website, and through email alerts.” If you purchased any of the following items, check the “Best By” dates: Chicken Fried Rice — 03/04/2026 through 02/10/2027 Vegetable Fried Rice — 02/28/2026 through 11/19/2026 Japanese Style Fried Rice — 02/28/2026 through 11/14/2026 Chicken Shu Mai — 03/13/2026 through 10/23/2026 This is not an isolated issue. In 2025, the retailer also recalled products including Moonlight Fresh Yellow Peaches (possible listeria contamination), Cajun-Style Fettuccine Alfredo, the Turkey Gobbler Wrap, Pepperoni Pizza, Sesame Miso Salad, and more. All of the store’s previous recalls are archived on the Trader Joe’s website.  While some recalls were issued out of an “abundance of caution,” others involved more serious risks — including potential exposure to listeria and botulism. In one of the most severe cases, six deaths and 25 hospitalizations were linked to contaminated Cajun chicken products. According to Mashed, some FDA workers have even nicknamed the chain “Recall Joe’s.” Part of that reputation comes from the company’s tendency to pull products quickly—even when not strictly required by regulators. For example, the Sesame Miso Salad recall was triggered after about 500 units were mistakenly packaged with parmesan cheese instead of crispy onions — an error that could pose a risk to people with dairy allergies. At the same time, many of Trader Joe’s recalls stem from its heavy reliance on third-party manufacturers, which increases the chances of supply chain issues affecting its shelves. The store issues a full refund for any recalled products brought back into the store.

This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** The Levin family Seder was a throw-the-gates-wide-open sort of affair. There was something different about crossing the threshold of the house in Ann Arbor on days like that — kicking your shoes into the pile of Sambas and hanging your jacket among the others steeping in lived-in smells of the day: brisket, soft wood, chicken baked in parchment paper, and the faint, sweet perspiration of college kids in spring. Tables stretched diagonally through the living and dining rooms, pushed together to accommodate 20, 30 people, sometimes more, and empty plates were set out for latecomers, stragglers, strangers, and Elijah, the long-awaited prophet. Dan, the family patriarch and kibbutz cook-turned-scientist, would be standing over a pot of broth or pulling a Pyrex, brown with age, from the oven. “Stir,” he’d say when I’d peer in (he liked to communicate in declarative sentences and smiles), handing me an olive wood spoon. I’d watch him mix the matzo balls from a packet and roll them between his hands. People giggled and drank wine and played music until it was time to sit. Matriarch Aviva handed out worn copies of the Haggadah, and led us in her favorite prayers. We passed the food and ate our fill. Aviva and Dan ate, too, looking at each other softly across the table. They served and talked but never worried, that I can remember. And then came Aviva’s favorite part: the poetry. “There is a beautiful hum,” she once said, describing that time of night, when papers were passed and we were given time to write our pieces for the group. I would pause to listen to the whir of thinking people, the soft graphite wearing down, the candles snuffing themselves out. We’d go to sleep full that night, thinking of next morning’s bagels and lox and coffee with real cream.  Even years later, after I’d moved to New York, I wanted my home to feel like that. I wanted to invite people in and to have them show up. I summoned the courage to invite 11 friends to a Friday night dinner party for which I cooked all day, making brussels sprouts, crispy potatoes, and Ina Garten’s roast chicken from scratch. I spent more money than I’d made all week. Turns out, I wasn’t the only one trying my hand. The art of “gathering” is surging, perhaps as a response to the disconnection of what’s been called the “loneliest generation.” According to Pinterest’s 2024 Summer Trends report, searches for “dinner party” rose 6,000% year over year. Riding that resurgence, Martha Stewart re-released her 1982 classic, Entertaining, extending her “reign of relevancy.” In it, she looks backward to the banquet scenes of Sir Walter Scott, the Roman punch dinners of Edith Wharton, and the country weekends of Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. These are not casual meals; they are worlds unto themselves — ordered, aesthetic, and exacting. And if Stewart walked, it was so Instagram accounts and Substacks such as Isabel Heikens and Bright Moment Co. could run, adding paper menus, homemade garlands, and handwritten letters to elaborate, multi-course meals. Just watching these reels makes me nostalgic for a simple Shabbat at the Levins’ house. With content like this filling our feeds, the expectation our work-worn mothers pushed against is seeping in again, more polished, more visible, and harder to ignore. If the dinner party is back, so too is the tacit requirement that we know how to host one. We are left with big shoes to fill, leaving us to feel as though we have failed an unspoken class in the domestic arts. My first attempt was an abject disaster. Only two people came. A tense few hours later, after everyone had left and the heaping piles of leftover food were packed into plastic bags, I lay in bed staring at the ceiling. I was exhausted, overextended, and embarrassed. Mostly, I was hurt. What had I done wrong? Where was the warmth I remembered, that glimpse of heaven Dan and Aviva had created in their living room?  Looking back, the problem was what it almost always is: a skewed motive of the heart. If I’d read Entertaining more closely, I might have seen it. The word entertain comes from the Old French entretenir, from the Latin tenere: to hold. To hold together. To maintain. To keep appearances intact — as if I could keep the evening from coming undone. What I called hosting had become a performance, and I was a one-woman show. Our Lord of hosts offers a different vision of hospitality. The word host comes from the Latin hostis, which means the stranger, even the enemy, the one outside the circle. And yet from that same root comes hospes: a word that means both guest and host. They are not opposites. The stranger is brought near, received, and honored. Our job then is to share who we are and what we have with whomever God sends. In her 1986 book Hospitality with Confidence, Grace Pittman writes about “opening your home and heart.” She writes, “From a biblical perspective, hospitality recognizes that God is more interested in caring relationships than the mold behind the shower curtain. It need not matter whether we live in a single-room apartment or a split-level ranch. The only real requirement is allowing God to use our lives and our possessions. Our homes and our lives are, together, the most powerful ministry we have to offer the world.” When we approach hospitality this way, it helps us to serve and talk, but never worry. The questions we ask change profoundly. “Will I have enough?” becomes, “Lord, how can I use what you’ve given me?” “What will they think of me?” becomes, “Lord, what might they see of you?” “How will I stay relevant?” becomes, “Lord, how might I be of use to you today?”  Like all kingdom work, hosting is an opportunity to be a collaborator, a co-conspirator, and a co-creator with God in bringing about heaven on earth. “Hospitality is not to change people,” wrote theologian Henri Nouwen, “but to offer them space where change can take place.” In other words, set the table and open a bottle of wine. God will do the rest.  We are called to hospitality not just to bless others, but for the posture it cultivates in the host herself. It shapes her heart, loosening the inward knots of self-preservation, self-reliance, and the familiar resistance to being known. It loosens the death grip on her possessions, guards against stinginess and grumbling, and teaches her by experience the truth about herself and her role in the world: She was made to do what God has done without reservation — to give herself away. Though it took me several years after my home-cooked fiasco to host again, once I began, I couldn’t stop. I’ve spoken a liturgy from Every Moment Holy, Vol. III over birthday book exchanges, going-away parties, wine nights, bagel breakfasts, and baby showers. Now I offer its final lines to you with the hope that, by God’s grace, you too might bring a glimpse of heaven into your living room: “Let the simple gift of a seat in this house, and the experience of hospitable fellowship, long remain with our guests as a small reflection of your welcome, and as a reminder that with you there is no leaving.” *** Grace Salvatore is the senior editor of media, arts, and culture at Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Restoring the West and a contributor to Independent Women’s Voice.

In his State of the Union address, President Trump highlighted the need to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks. He pointed to stopping members like Nancy Pelosi, whose stock portfolio has performed extremely well — imagine that. To the American citizen working hard, paying the bills, and trying to do the right thing, this is not only suspicious but also extremely frustrating. Trust is already at an all-time low. A recent Pew Research study found that just 17% of Americans say they trust the government. That is partly because members of Congress, like Nancy Pelosi, are trading stocks. To show you how big a deal this is, Nancy Pelosi earned an estimated $130 million while in Congress, often purchasing or selling stocks just before legislative announcements affecting the industries in which she had investments. In 2024 alone, her portfolio grew by 70%. Unfortunately, this isn’t just Nancy Pelosi — it’s a problem across Congress. What happens when Americans believe the system is rigged? They disengage. They stop believing their votes make a difference and that their government is working on their behalf. We need to restore confidence in elected leaders. That will not happen until the line is clearly drawn. Rebuilding trust requires accountability — and that starts with ending practices that put private profit ahead of the public interest. It also requires transparency and rules that apply equally, without exception or delay. So, to join President Trump’s call to end this loophole that is eroding the trust of the American people, I introduced the Stop Insider Trading Act. It says that if you are a member of Congress, or you’re married to one, or you’re the child of one, you cannot purchase individual, publicly traded stocks. To do so is wrong. This legislation is clear, enforceable, and leaves no room for loopholes. The bill also requires a seven-day public notice before sales of stocks that members and those closest to them already own can take place. There have been previous attempts to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks, but no final ban has passed. Every day, lawmakers are attending committee hearings and briefings, meeting with stakeholders, and writing and voting on legislation that could change the course of an industry. Clearly, there is a conflict of interest. How can the American people be sure their elected officials are making decisions for the public good, and not for private gain? The answer is, they can’t. That is why there is such strong public support for the Stop Insider Trading Act. In fact, one poll by the Program for Public Consultation shows that 86% of people support banning stock-trading in individual companies by members of Congress. That includes 87% of Republicans, 88% of Democrats, and 81% of Independents. Clearly, most Americans are on the same page when it comes to this issue. Yet, Congress has done nothing, further fueling public skepticism. The American people deserve more out of their elected officials, and rightfully so. Considering the overwhelming support for banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks, every single member of Congress should support my Stop Insider Trading Act. If they don’t, it says exactly where their priorities lie. Elected leadership is about public office, not private profit. We don’t let referees bet on games. Congress should not be any different. My bill makes sure that public service is actually about serving the public, not getting ahead of it. If you are a lawmaker, you should not be a day trader. That’s a good principle that most people agree on. Now, let’s make it a law. * * * Sen. Bill Cassidy, M.D., has represented Louisiana in the U.S. Senate since 2015.

NASA successfully launched the Artemis II mission Wednesday evening, sending four astronauts on a historic journey toward the Moon, marking the first crewed lunar mission in more than 50 years and a major milestone in America’s return to deep space exploration. “Let me begin by congratulating the team at NASA and our brave astronauts on the successful launch of Artemis 2 — it was quite something,” President Donald Trump said at the start of an address following Wednesday’s liftoff. “It will be traveling further than any manned rocket has ever flown … They are on the way and God bless them. These are brave people. God bless those four unbelievable astronauts.” The Space Launch System rocket lifted off from Kennedy Space Center at 6:35 p.m. EDT, carrying NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen aboard the Orion spacecraft. The launch followed days of final preparations and capped a buildup the White House framed as part of “America’s destiny” in space. About an hour after liftoff, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman underscored the significance of the moment in a brief post on X, writing, “America’s next leap is underway. Godspeed Artemis II.” America’s next leap is underway.. Godspeed Artemis II