The following is an edited transcript excerpt from The Michael Knowles Show. * * * Everyone’s hot on the fat shots. Everyone’s taking them. They say it’s for health reasons. Maybe in some cases it is, but for a lot of people, they just want to look better. Well, as it turns out, there is a real downside to the practice, namely, people are now getting divorced because of them. This is from The Telegraph in the UK:  Fat jabs to unleash divorce boom. Couples undergoing rapid weight loss are twice as likely to end “unhealthy relationships,” the study finds. Now, what’s an “unhealthy relationship”? Generally, that just means a relationship I no longer enjoy being in. Does that mean one of the spouses is beating you? Or does it just mean you’re sick of your husband or wife? It can mean any of those things. The article continues: The growing popularity of fat jabs is expected to increase Britain’s divorce rates as slimmed-down partners look for new love, health experts have said. According to research from academics in Sweden, people who undergo rapid weight-loss are twice as likely to divorce. The study focused on people who had been fitted with gastric bands, known as bariatric surgery, the risk of weight-loss drugs will trigger an even larger divorce trend in the future, researchers said. This brings me back to a conversation I had with that “looksmaxx” guy, Clavicular, before everything went south, before he was arrested, before all that. I asked him: What are you after? What do you want? He said: I just want to look as good as I possibly can. I want to “looksmaxx.” I said: Okay, that’s interesting. I found him very thoughtful for a 19-year-old. He was going down a bad path, but he thought about things. And I asked him a question he couldn’t really answer — but also kind of did. I asked: What is looking good for? What’s the goal? And he didn’t have an answer. The answer he gave was: “I just want to mog.” And what is “mog”? Entire dictionaries could be written on that word. Basically, it means to dominate, to be better than others, to outshine them. But I always thought, if you’re a guy, you want to look good to get a girl. Or, if you’re an actor, you want to look good in order to get a part in a movie. Or to get a job, or win votes, or something. But mostly, men want to look good to get a girl. Same for women, to attract a guy. But he said no, it’s looksmaxxing for its own sake. Even if it has negative effects. He was taking so many hormones that he was impotent. Couldn’t have kids. Well, that defeats the purpose, right? If the point is to look good to get married and have a family, you just undermined that. But he said that’s not even the point. And that’s how I feel about the fat jabs. Why are people getting them? What’s it for? They’ll say it’s for health — but there are downsides too. So, I don’t know — talk to your doctor. If you’re single, I kind of get it. It’s tough out there. But if you’re already married, isn’t there something kind of fitting about getting a little plump? You’re not on the market anymore. You want to look good for your spouse, but you’re no longer competing at the clubs every night. And if you make an idol out of your looks, that might actually undermine your marriage. Our Lord says, “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?” What does it profit someone to lose all that weight but lose their marriage? What does it profit a man to looksmaxx but lose his family, his legacy? What’s it for? You’ve got to ask that question about anything in life. Back before modern philosophy scrambled everyone’s brains — back to Aristotle — we understood that to know what something is, you have to know what it is for. So what’s the fat jab for? Put it down and ask that. What does it profit a man to mog the whole world but lose his, maybe slightly chubby, wife? Not a good trade.

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 recent lawsuit against Meta forces a question the company has long tried to sidestep: Is Instagram merely “problematic,” as its executives claim, or is it addictive by design? As a practicing psychotherapist, I don’t have to speculate. I see the answer every day in my office. In my clinical work, I’ve watched a clear behavioral shift unfold over the past decade, tracking almost perfectly with the rise of algorithm-driven social media. Patients describe struggling to focus, feeling restless when their phones aren’t nearby, and opening Instagram almost automatically. Many tell me they’ve tried to cut back or quit entirely and failed. They delete the app only to reinstall it days later. They promise themselves they’ll check for five minutes and look up 45 minutes later, wondering where the time went. That pattern should sound familiar. It’s exactly how addictive behaviors work. The psychology behind it is not mysterious. Instagram runs on intermittent positive reinforcement, the same mechanism that keeps people glued to slot machines. You never know when the reward will come. Likes, messages, and notifications arrive unpredictably, keeping the brain engaged because the next payoff might appear at any moment. Add infinite scroll, and the pull becomes even stronger. Unlike a book or a television show, Instagram never ends. There is no natural stopping point. The feed refreshes endlessly, removing the moment when a person might otherwise decide to stop. You don’t consciously choose to keep scrolling. The design removes the need to choose at all. In my practice, I see how this spills into real life. Relationships suffer because partners feel they are competing with a screen for attention. Couples argue about divided attention, one person scrolling during dinner, during conversations, or even in bed. Work suffers too. Patients check Instagram between tasks or during meetings, fragmenting attention and reducing productivity. Sleep is delayed. Exercise routines disappear. People who genuinely want to log off feel an almost magnetic pull to keep going. This is no longer a minor inconvenience. It’s behavioral interference. The changes even reshape how people experience time. One patient recently told me he now watches most videos at double speed and finds ordinary conversation painfully slow. He joked that he wished he could “2x” people in real life, but he wasn’t entirely kidding. His brain had adapted to rapid stimulation, making normal human pacing feel insufficient. Multiply that experience by millions of users, and the cultural shift becomes clear. We are training our brains to expect constant novelty, immediate validation, and nonstop stimulation. Attention shrinks, patience erodes, and quiet moments begin to feel uncomfortable instead of restorative. We are living in a culture increasingly conditioned to seek immediate reassurance, constant stimulation, and relief from discomfort rather than the slower work of reflection, frustration tolerance, and self-command. Instagram didn’t create that habit of mind, but it has become the technology that perfects it. This is why the lawsuit matters. Companies such as Meta resist the label “addiction” for a reason. If a product is merely “problematic,” responsibility falls on the user. If it is addictive by design, responsibility shifts to the company. That distinction is not semantic. It is legal, cultural, and moral. We’ve seen this pattern before. Industries built on engagement, from tobacco to gambling, have historically downplayed risk while emphasizing personal choice. The language is always similar: Use responsibly, know your limits, manage your habits. But when millions of people struggle with the same behavior, the issue is no longer individual discipline; it is design. Instagram can connect people and inspire creativity. That’s true. But acknowledging benefits shouldn’t require denying reality. Algorithmic personalization, unpredictable rewards, constant notifications, and infinite scroll are not neutral features. They are behavioral engineering tools built to capture and hold attention for as long as possible. And they are working exactly as intended. Calling this merely “problematic” understates what’s happening. Addiction is not limited to substances. Psychologically, it describes behavior that continues despite negative consequences and begins to displace more meaningful activities. When people lose sleep, struggle at work, withdraw from relationships, and repeatedly fail to cut back despite wanting to, we are no longer talking about a harmless habit. From where I sit as a therapist, the consequences are no longer theoretical. They show up every day in people who feel increasingly disconnected from their own lives and more tethered to their screens. That doesn’t look like a minor problem. It looks like addiction. *** Jonathan Alpert is a psychotherapist in New York City and Washington, D.C., and author of the forthcoming book “Therapy Nation.” Find him on X @JonathanAlpert.

A House Democratic candidate for a Congressional district that lies on the southern border once appeared on stage with a popular singer tagged as a “front” man f0r a cartel trafficker. Bobby Pulido, a Latin Grammy winner, is running to unseat incumbent Republican Rep. Monica De La Cruz in Texas’ 15th Congressional District in November. The Tejano singer once performed on stage with a Mexican cartel operative. He also appeared at his concerts on numerous occasions before the Mexican singer was formally sanctioned by the United States government. The Department of the Treasury sanctioned Julión Álvarez in August 2017 for acting “as a front” person for a drug trafficker and his cartel, while holding “assets on their behalf.” The federal government also said Pulido had a “longstanding” relationship with Álvarez. Pulido performed on stage with Álvarez in October 2018, sharing the video on his Facebook page, where he called the sanctioned singer “mi amigo.” The two were seen embracing, patting each other on the back, and shaking hands as they sang together before a cheering crowd. Álvarez previously denied the cartel ties, claiming that the only connection was through a real estate purchase, according to CNN. The Biden administration removed Álvarez from the sanctions list in 2022, CNN reported. The Trump administration later revoked Álvarez’s visa to perform in the United States in 2025, the singer said. In a statement, Pulido’s campaign manager Abel Prado claimed that “Álvarez was cleared,” adding that “Bobby and Álvarez are not friends, and this is just another case of Republicans not understanding our culture – ‘amigo’ is a common expression.” “Republicans think all these attacks on Bobby are going do something… but the fact of the matter is he is a beloved figure and they’re going to find that out in November when he flips this seat,” Prado said. The latest revelation comes after the New York Post reported that Pulido toured with a sex offender. On more than a dozen occasions, Pulido performed with accordionist Frankie Caballero, who was sentenced to prison for indecent contact with an eight-year-old girl, according to the New York Post. Pulido performed and recorded one of his hit songs with Caballero before his conviction, the outlet reported. He toured again with him decades later, after his four-year prison sentence. “Bobby was never made aware of Caballero’s sex offender registration and would never knowingly associate with anyone with that kind of history. Bobby extends his deepest sympathies and support to all of the victims involved,” Pulido campaign manager Abel Prado told the New York Post. Pulido himself also once played a pervert who masturbated in public and exposed himself to a woman in a 2010 music video for his song “Dias de Ayer,” according to the New York Post. The Tejano singer played several characters in the video, including a gay admirer of the pervert. Pulido also has several previous posts on social media espousing homophobic views. “Igualmente amigo, no homo,” he wrote in response to a fan in 2019. “1. I don’t like those guys. 2. You can’t have children. 3. Stop being a jerk already,” Pulido said in response to a user’s post calling him a “hottie” in 2017.

Dinesh D’Souza posed a chilling rhetorical question in his 2020 book, “United States of Socialism”:  Think how insane it would be if someone said, ‘Let’s try slavery again. Slavery didn’t work in the past because we didn’t have the right people to implement it. But this time we’re going to have the right people, and this time we’re going to get it right.’ Yet this is exactly what the socialists say about socialism. He is still correct six years later. Democrats and their fellow travelers, however,  seem to have doubled down on this backward thinking and are proceeding full steam ahead into socialist waters. The ultra-progressive Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) released a new poll — their first formal poll, in fact, a telling sign of their extending tentacles into the mainstream — showing that 53% of Democratic voters prefer politicians described as similar to Senator Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, while only 33% favored those similar to Senator Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi. These numbers aren’t an anomaly; they are a trend. Since 2016, rank-and-file Democrats have grown increasingly hostile toward the system that built this country. According to recent Gallup data, the gap has expanded to a staggering 24 points, with 66% of Democrats viewing socialism favorably compared to just 42% for capitalism. What exactly do these voters find agreeable about the ultra-left, socialist wing of their party? For starters, the lofty ideals that big government should be in control, that billionaires are evil, that corporations and high-income earners should be taxed into oblivion, that Congress should enact more regulations on workers and consumers, and that housing, healthcare, and utilities should fall under the purview of the public sector. To conservatives, most Independents, and even some Democrats, these goals portend only bureaucratic bloat, delays, and the stifling of innovation. Most proponents of capitalism believe the private sector is best equipped to improve Americans’ lives. They generally support lower taxes, oppose government regulation of businesses, and want the private sector to own key industries — like housing, healthcare, and utilities — as confirmed by the DSA’s own poll. A staggering 74% of likely Democratic voters said democratic socialism comes closest to their viewpoint. That means America will be seeing a rise in the Bernie, Mamdani, and AOC type — and with it, a severe stifling of growth and innovation, a rapid spike in taxation, and an influx of leftist agenda items into the mainstream. Bernie Sanders — the unproductive socialist Senator from Vermont, and a man who has added precious little of significance to his state or his country in his decades in office — is now using the socialist wave to push his latest agenda item: a federal moratorium on the construction of new AI data centers, with his collectivist companion AOC in tow. This moratorium, like so many of the policies this pair champion, would erect burdensome bureaucratic roadblocks that frustrate innovation and squander entrepreneurism. In Bernie’s world, we should fear millionaires — no wait, billionaires (he’s now a millionaire himself) — technology, and climate change at all times. Better yet? Just stay in your home until further notice. This new wave of socialism will also bring suffocating taxes and a collectivist mindset — because, as comrade Mamdani proclaimed, the blanket of collectivism is so warm and cozy. Bernie and his proletariat wouldn’t just tax the billionaire class; they would enact wealth taxes across the board. Taxing “unrealized gains” or net wealth forces billionaires to sell their stocks, which can crash market prices and reduce the capital available for businesses to expand and hire. IRS data shows that the top 1% already pay roughly 40% of all federal income taxes. The Democratic Socialists want you to believe that poor people pay all the taxes and the wealthy get off scot-free — they have it completely backward. They would simply like to take $10 billion from a technology company or its founder and pour it into a government black hole of bureaucracy, where Sanders and his friends reside. Leave that money with founders, entrepreneurs, and innovators, and it goes into rockets, electric cars, and global internet access. As Margaret Thatcher wisely noted — and Elon Musk has echoed — eventually, they run out of other people’s money, and then they come for you. The final and perhaps most alarming aspect of this modern socialist resurgence is its Trojan Horse delivery system. Under the banner of the DSA, we see a conglomerate of radicalism — where traditional Marxists, climate extremists, and anti-western agitators coalesce into a single political force. By quietly installing hundreds of activists into local school boards, city councils, and state legislatures, they are executing a long march through the institutions. This isn’t just a policy shift — it’s a calculated, multi-level erosion of the capitalist fabric our founders painstakingly cultivated. Apparently, they didn’t anticipate the “watermelon coalition” growing so rapidly, or that its mission — to dismantle the American capitalist empire from within the “belly of the beast” — would find willing participants at every level of government. The good news is that Democrats have tried their socialist playbook before, and while it performs reasonably well at the local level, the national stage has been another story entirely — as 2024 made clear. But that isn’t stopping them. “What the mainstream of the party wants is both democratic socialism as a value system and democratic socialist politicians,” said Gabe Tobias, executive director of the Democratic Socialists of America Fund, to POLITICO. Democratic socialism is a pretty way of blending class-based Marxism with modern identity politics. It is no longer just about the proletariat — it’s about mobilizing a coalition of the oppressed to overthrow the oppressor and pave the way for state-sponsored redistribution. It won’t work. It never does. But it looks like the American left is going to have to find that out the hard way.

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. *** Gen Z’s taste in music is not all misanthropic Chappell Roans and sexed-up Sabrina Carpenters. If you’ve never heard of Raye, you might want to check her out.  The artist, whose real name is Rachel Agatha Keen, is best known for her viral hit “Where Is My Husband!” that was released last fall. “Why is this beautiful man waiting for me to get old? / Why he already testing my patience? / I only fear he taking time with other women that ain’t me,” she sings. Not all Gen Zers are afraid of marriage. On her second album, “This Music May Contain Hope,” she’s experiencing heartbreak with flair. “This is curated melancholy, a 73-minute melodrama where sorrow is filtered through an Old Hollywood lens until it sparkles,” Pitchfork declares. She’s also talking about relatable issues such as body image and comforting friends. On this sophomore album, we feel Raye’s mixture of hope and despair, beautifully demonstrated in songs such as “I Will Overcome” and “The WhatsApp Shakespeare,” which speak to experiences of disappointment. Her ability to intertwine the truth with pithy rhythms keeps you engaged and interested. I have already listened to a few of the songs with my girls (12, 8, and 6) because the themes are appropriate for them to hear and relatable to what they are going through right now. The jovial “I Hate The Way I Look Today” is a self-pep talk with scat singing and an all-male choir serving as backup. “Though it isn’t simple as it sounds / But when self-love lets you down / You must never sigh and fret / Get a grip, that’s what I said,” Raye sings.  The catchy “Skin & Bones” and the aforementioned “Where Is My Husband!” appear back-to-back on the album, emphasizing the need for a real man in a woman’s life. “He’s insane ’cause he thinks he can make love / Without having to love me,” she sings on the first track. There are themes of faith, family, and the importance of community, and two songs made me cry. “Fields” with her Grandad Michael brought back memories of the influential patriarchs in my family and childhood. I’ve sent the ballad “I Know You’re Hurting” to so many women in my life this week because sometimes when we don’t know what to say, a song can speak for us. “You give when you have little left to give … Your body aches from marching up your mountains / But you always keep pushing on,” Raye sings. When she sang, “I’m thinking of you, dear, I hope you’re okay,” I thought of a friend who just lost her dad, one going through a divorce, another newly widowed with two young girls, and yet another with a scary medical report. Like Raye, “I said a prayer for you, I hope it’s working.” The musical style ranges from big band to jazz, ballads to oldies, and top 40 pop tunes. The song “Lifeboat” has a club-friendly beat as she croons, “Criеd myself an ocean / Tryin’ not to drown in it …  Lord, sеnd me a lifeboat / Something I could cling to … I don’t know how I’m gonna do this / But I know I’m not givin’ up.” I don’t know if Raye has a specific genre, and I am okay with it. She collaborates with the talents of the London Symphony on “I Know You’re Hurting,” Hans Zimmer on “Click Clack Symphony,” and Al Green on “Goodbye Henry.” The album feels like an autobiography, a stream of memories both good and bad. The gist is a young woman questioning herself, her industry, and the world, and who (like many of us) still needs a pep talk and time with family and friends. She seemingly wants to bestow on the next generation the strength not to give up. Even at her lowest, she’s optimistic. With vocal chops making the internet buzz, she sings in “Nightingale Lane,” “Somebody loved me once … And someday, somebody will again.” “This Music May Contain Hope” is an example of how something does not have to be perfectly conservative or religious to exhibit truths, such as community matters. For Raye, it was her parents, grandparents, and an entire host of talented musicians that she names (one by one) in “Fin” at the end of the album. To the tune of a Disney fairy-tale-style song, which the artist calls a “musical hug and an orchestral kiss,” she sings, “The sun has promised to shine / All four beautiful seasons, even if we can’t see it / Hope must always exist.”  Yes, hope must exist, and this album made me hopeful, which means it was titled accurately for this writer who’s listening on repeat. *** Elisha Krauss is a conservative commentator, writer, and speaker who resides in Los Angeles, California, with her husband and their four children. She is an advocate for women’s rights, school choice, and smaller government.