R Magic Brow

It’s no longer a secret that most of the food Americans eat is detrimental to their health. From chemical pesticides and GMOs to artificial additives, preservatives, and dyes, much of the common foods available today are loaded with junk known to cause health issues — even serious ones, like cancer and disease.Few, however, know that Big Food is largely owned by tobacco companies. On this episode of “Relatable,” Allie Beth Stuckey sits down with Ashley and Patrick Sullivan, the creators of the documentary “Breaking Big Food,” which pulls the curtain back on how the tobacco industry hijacked our food system and sparked a major health crisis. “In 1985, R.J. Reynolds, the maker of Camel cigarettes, purchased Nabisco for about $5 billion. In 1988, Philip Morris, the maker of Marlboro cigarettes, purchased Kraft Foods for about $13 billion,” Patrick explains, noting that “these are just two of the examples of Big Tobacco buying up” big name food companies.“By the 1990s, Big Tobacco actually controlled about 40% of the food supply in America,” he adds.Ashley explains that the reason for the push to control Big Food stemmed from the government’s decades-long anti-smoking campaign that resulted in a sharp decline in U.S. adult smoking rates — and a whole lot less cigarette sales.“[Tobacco companies] saw number one, the industry that they were in was going down in flames and maybe saw an opportunity in the food industry to go in and say, ‘We are the addiction people, let's figure out how to apply what we know to processed foods,”’ she says.“How did that actually affect the ingredients in the products at these companies?” Allie asks.Patrick says it began with the most rudimentary of business questions: “How do we get our customers to buy more of our products?”Science provided the answer.“The tobacco scientists became food scientists, and they began studying how do we tickle the pleasure centers of the brain with potato chips and candy and sodas, and they found this sort of perfect mixture of fat, salt, and sweet that makes it so no one can eat just one,” he explains.They also found ways to save money by using preservatives to expand the shelf life of food products and making cost-effective ingredient swaps, like “switching from cane sugar to high fructose corn syrup.”Companies used crafty marketing strategies, Ashley notes, to distract the public so it didn’t notice the significant changes that were being made to food ingredients.“Let's color this with red dye 40 and make it look really pretty. Let's do these fun ads. Let's target children, make it fun for them to want to purchase these foods,” she says.“Let's put a toy inside of the cereal. Let's give a free gift with a Happy Meal,” Patrick adds.Then the government inverted the food pyramid, recommending high portions of grain over any other food group. That wasn’t because humans thrive on a grain-rich diet but because of the “lobbying efforts on the behalf of grain producers,” Patrick notes.To hear more of this fascinating interview about how America’s food system became poisoned, watch the episode above.Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The gains made in classical education in recent years are truly encouraging. Students are once again learning great names and great stories, and they are encountering primary texts that invite them to participate rather than be passive observers.But while the classical academic program is teaching our children the names of virtues long out of fashion, we should ask whether we have created the conditions in which those virtues can truly take root and flourish.Students need raw contact with nature so that virtue is exercised with cold hands and aching backs, not merely batted around the seminar table as an abstraction.In the “Cyropaedia,” Xenophon’s account of Cyrus’ formation and adventures before he ascended to Persia’s throne, Xenophon describes the paideia, or the process of formation whereby young men become statesmen. Xenophon’s Cyrus grew up with rigorous discipline: combat, cold exposure, fasting, and the austere corrections of men hardened by war.His education was a series of experiences fashioning him for military service, accustoming him to privation, and schooling him in the unapologetic art of justice.What Xenophon sketches out, in the main, mirrors the Greek historian Herodotus’ description of the education of noble Persian youth in “The Histories.” They were sent away to spend time with military commanders on the empire’s frontiers.Far from the corrosive luxuries and intrigues of the court, the young learned to “ride, shoot the bow, and speak the truth.” Only when sufficiently hardened were they considered fit to return to the seats of power and take their place in the political life of the empire.Both Herodotus and Xenophon depicted an ideal education that prioritizes exposure to nature, the cultivation of martial virtue, and the use of simple, manly rhetoric consisting of straightforward, honest speech — rather than the forked-tongued parlance common in the halls of power. This, both Greeks report, is education that forms kings.Unfortunately, this is far removed from our modern approach to education. You won’t find anything like the kind of education depicted in the “Cyropaedia” in public, private, or STEM-focused schools — or even most classical schools.To help us take seriously what Xenophon and Herodotus say about education, especially where it is at odds with contemporary practice, we should enlist the aid of John Henry Newman, a theologian who wrote luminously about education. In a series of sermons, Newman criticized the nearly homogeneous-in-form book learning we call education today.RELATED: America’s classrooms are feeding the red wave — socialist red Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu/Getty ImagesIn a sermon on the state of innocence before the Fall, Newman argues that our reason is just as fallen and corrupt as our passions. He asks, “What then is intellect itself, as exercised in the world, but a fruit of the fall, not found in paradise or in heaven, more than in little children, and at the utmost but tolerated in the Church?” He continues, noting that after the Fall, “passion and reason have abandoned their due place in man’s nature, which is one of subordination, and conspired together against the Divine light within him, which is his proper guide.”Newman acknowledges reason as a gift from God for which we should be grateful. But this hardly contradicts his call for us to refrain from idolizing it, whether at the expense of the passions or not.In another sermon, Newman exhorts, “Now the danger of an elegant and polite education is, that it separates feeling and acting; it teaches us to think, speak, and be affected aright, without forcing us to practise what is right.” He continues: “The refinement which literature gives, is that of thinking, feeling, knowing and speaking, right, not of acting right; and thus, while it makes the manners amiable, and the conversation decorous and agreeable, it has no tendency to make the conduct, the practice of the man virtuous.”This sounds like bad news for a culture whose educational practice consists almost entirely of sitting, reading, and thinking.But we might object that reading about heroic characters can inspire us to emulate their virtues. So too can vicious characters warn us off their path and help us to see patterns of evil as they develop. Without rejecting literature-based education entirely, Newman plays out a likely scenario involving the breakdown of character when it has been reared on affect rather than its rougher cousin, reality:For instance, we will say we have read again and again, of the heroism of facing danger, and we have glowed with the thought of its nobleness. We have felt how great it is to bear pain, and submit to indignities, rather than wound our conscience; and all this, again and again, when we had no opportunity of carrying our good feelings into practice. Now, suppose at length we actually come into trial, and let us say, our feelings become roused, as often before, at the thought of boldly resisting temptations to cowardice, shall we therefore do our duty, quitting ourselves like men? Rather, we are likely to talk loudly, and then run from the danger. Why? — rather, let us ask, why not? What is to keep us from yielding? Because we feel aright? Nay, we have again and again felt aright and thought aright, without accustoming ourselves to act aright; and though there was an original connexion in our minds between feeling and acting, there is none now; the wires within us, as they may be called, are loosened and powerless.“Loosened and powerless” is a sad substitute for what Newman suggests we ought to demonstrate instead: “hardy, rough-handed obedience.”We now find ourselves back with Cyrus on the frontier, where reality itself is the teacher and the lesson is not optional. Even students in the best classical schools today spend too much time in purely intellectual arenas, where they can separate feeling from action, sentiment from reality — arenas where talk is as cheap as it is plentiful.Fortunately, there is a corrective. But be warned: It is as rugged and as demanding of adults as of the young. It will require many in education who are accustomed to the relative comfort of lecture halls and seminar tables to relearn the feel of callouses and the inevitable alternation between sweating and shivering that the unmediated life provokes.The corrective, simply put, is robust physical training in fitness, athletics, or the school of the outdoors — camping, climbing, and diving. Students need raw contact with nature so that virtue is exercised with cold hands and aching backs, not merely batted around the seminar table as an abstraction.They need hard, physical work — tilling the soil or caring for animals — that teaches patience and responsibility and impresses upon them the limits of human will. They need to willingly forgo modern comforts that obscure the lessons contained in God’s book of nature.Hard labor and self-mastery learned through challenge can no longer serve as mere supplements to education. As long as we treat them as such, we should not expect our children to demonstrate the “hardy, rough-handed obedience” that Newman argued is the hallmark of citizens of great nations.Editor’s note: This article appeared originally at the American Mind.

Oklahoma City Police this week released video recorded around 8 a.m. July 2 showing a suspect throwing a Molotov cocktail at a victim in a wheelchair — and authorities said the "terrifying incident unfolded right across the street" from police headquarters."What happened next showed the absolute best of our community and our first responders," police said.'These are people, these are our neighbors, these are our fellow Oklahomans. These are people with hopes and dreams, just like any of us.'Police department detectives and a "quick-thinking bystander immediately rushed into danger to help the victim and take the suspect into custody on the spot," police said, adding that the city's fire department "was also quick to the scene to provide crucial medical aid."Police said, "Thanks to this rapid, heroic response, the victim is expected to recover, and the suspect is behind bars."The Oklahoman reported that a city police officer wrote in a court affidavit that the perpetrator was walking westbound on Main Street when he saw the victim — who was in a wheelchair — crossing the street. The perpetrator turned around and approached the victim, then ignited a Molotov cocktail and threw it directly at the victim, which set him on fire, the paper noted.RELATED: Man flings Molotov cocktails at federal building while yelling 'anti-ICE' comments, feds sayThe Oklahoman said the video shows the victim wheeling himself out of the fire — but the suspect who threw the Molotov cocktail then appears to try to push the victim back into the flames.Two Oklahoma City police detectives exited a vehicle at the intersection and took a 38-year-old suspect into custody, the paper said.The victim was treated for minor injuries, including burns on the back of his neck and arms, the Oklahoman said, citing court documents.More from the paper:According to the court affidavit, the suspect told investigators he was "looking for marks" and intended to kill the victim because he thought he saw a "mark" and believed the victim was a child molester. He also told investigators he made two Molotov cocktails but was only able to use one before detectives stopped him.After the attack, the suspect was booked into the Oklahoma County jail on complaints of first-degree arson, assault and battery with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to kill and two counts of possessing, using, manufacturing or threatening to use an incendiary device or explosives.KOCO-TV identified the suspect as Alexander Emery, adding that authorities said Emery has a lengthy criminal history, including charges of trespassing, burglary, drug offenses, breaking and entering, and assault and battery — with cases dating back about a decade.Jail records indicate Emery's bond amount is $200,000.RELATED: Democrats wanted a makeover. They got Marxism and Molotov cocktails. Alexander Emery. Image source: Oklahoma County JailKOCO said a news crew from the station found the Molotov cocktail attack victim, who is homeless, in his wheelchair near the scene of the attack. The station said he declined to go on camera but told the news crew he's OK, feels grateful, and believes God was with him during the harrowing incident.The victim also told KOCO he was treated at the scene but declined to go to the hospital. He also told the station he doesn't know the attacker or the reason behind the assault.Meghan Mueller, president and CEO of the Homeless Alliance, told KOCO the video of the attack is "absolutely horrific.""The fact that this happened is something that should shock the community," Mueller added to the station. "These are people, these are our neighbors, these are our fellow Oklahomans. These are people with hopes and dreams, just like any of us."Mueller also told KOCO that "the really important thing to remember is that we all need to take better care of each other."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Social Security trust fund is projected to run out of money by 2032. Without legislative reforms, retirement benefits for tens of millions of Americans could face significant cuts.As lawmakers debate how to preserve the program, most proposals focus on raising payroll tax revenue or making other budgetary adjustments. But these discussions miss a larger point: The program itself is increasingly ill-suited for younger generations. Americans who are decades away from retirement should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and pursue retirement planning through private alternatives.Rather than forcing Americans into a system that may not deliver on its promises, policymakers should allow young workers to opt out and prepare for retirement in their own way.America’s younger generations are coming of age amid an affordability crisis. Housing costs, groceries, health insurance, transportation, and higher education consume a growing share of household budgets. In such an environment, financial flexibility matters more than ever.Yet every paycheck is hit by a 6.2% Social Security payroll tax, withheld with the promise that workers will receive benefits decades later when they reach retirement age. For many Millennials and members of Generation Z, that promise appears increasingly uncertain.The idea that workers simply “pay in” and later receive back what they contributed has long been misleading. Today’s payroll taxes largely fund benefits for today’s retirees. As demographic pressures strain the system, younger Americans face the prospect of paying into Social Security for decades while receiving far less in benefits than previous generations. In turn, few Gen Zers count on Social Security to support them in retirement someday. More than half expect to rely on personal retirement accounts as their primary source of income in retirement. Only 35% expect the program to still be around when they retire.Rather than dragging younger workers through years of uncertain taxation, policymakers should give them a choice. Americans who are decades away from retirement should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and pursue retirement planning through private alternatives.The freedom to decide how to spend and save one’s income is deeply ingrained in American culture. Some people rent apartments, rely on public transportation, and prioritize international travel. Others buy homes, raise families, and invest heavily in property or small businesses. The diversity of lifestyles that defines the United States is made possible by economic liberty.Social Security’s mandatory payroll tax limits that liberty, particularly for younger generations who are unlikely to receive the same value from the program as their parents and grandparents. Every dollar directed to Social Security is a dollar that cannot be used to pay down debt, purchase a home, invest in education, build a business, or save independently for retirement.RELATED: Rural health is the next MAHA frontier Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post/Getty ImagesPrivate retirement accounts also offer greater opportunities for long-term growth. Historically, diversified investments held through 401(k)s, IRAs, and other retirement vehicles have generated substantially higher returns than the growth reflected in Social Security benefits. Depending on their investments, 401(k) plans may return 5% to 8% annually, while some Roth IRA portfolios may return 7% to 10%. In contrast, Social Security payments reflect 1% to 3% annual growth, matching cost-of-living adjustment inflation rates.Younger workers with decades of investing ahead of them are uniquely positioned to benefit from compound growth. But the ineffective Social Security system holds them back from the thousands to millions in returns available by private-sector investment vehicles.In an era of accessible investing platforms and unprecedented financial tools, a one-size-fits-all government retirement system makes less sense than ever. Americans are capable of making different choices about their financial futures. They should have the freedom to decide whether Social Security is one of them.As lawmakers confront Social Security’s looming insolvency, they should look beyond tax increases and accounting fixes. The debate should include a more fundamental question: Why should younger Americans be required to participate in a system they increasingly doubt will deliver on its promises?Social Security was created for a different era, when workers had fewer options, people did not live as long, and America’s population was booming. Those conditions no longer exist, and it leaves the system unable to afford its original obligations.If Social Security cannot provide future generations with the same security it once promised, then those generations should be free to pursue their own path. Young Americans deserve the freedom to build their own financial future.Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.