Healthy eating and activity practitioners are increasingly noting that violence is undermining the effectiveness of chronic disease prevention strategies. Prevention Institute has conducted community and academic research to gain an understanding about the relationship between violence and healthy eating and activity and solutions for addressing these complex issues. Additionally, the Institute is coordinating six United States pilot sites in an effort to reduce violence and promote healthy eating and activity in local communities. This work is supported by Kaiser Permanente and the Healthy Eating Active Living Convergence Partnership. Violence negatively affects determinants of health such as where people live and shop, parents not letting their children play outside, and avoiding walking to school or work, which can exacerbate existing illnesses and increase the risk for disease onset. Violence alters the community environment making it less supportive of healthy eating and activity by reducing social cohesion and disincentivising community investments such as healthy food retail. Further, vulnerable populations are disproportionately impacted by high rates of community violence, and this disparity contributes heavily to overall health inequities. Given rising concerns about food- and activity-related chronic disease, this growing recognition of the impact of violence on outcomes presents an opportunity to bring attention to efforts in preventing violence. This presentation provides the unique perspective of a community voice that affirms the growing research base, delineates emerging strategies and the roles for violence prevention and healthy eating and activity practitioners, and highlights opportunities for strategic partnerships between them to create safe and equitable communities.
The " Federal Principle" B y RIJFUS DAVIS Reconsidered PART 1 I. Introduction.In this essay I propose to re-examine some of the main concepts associated with the conventional idea of the "federal principle". The belief, central to this analysis, is that the pre-occupation of 19th century AngleAmerican analytical jurisprudence and German Staatrlehre with the formal power-relations in the federal state has yielded a language and a set of premises which are suited, if a t all, only to the esoteric purpose of their enquiry. Outside this enterprise, the categories and metaphors which describe the jural structure of the federal state are entirely inadequate to explain the manifestations of extra-legal power factors in society, their disposition or their functi0ning.l Were the limitations and frontiers of the formalist tradition recognised and precisely mapped, there would have been little cause for disquiet.2 But over the years we have become conditioned to understand federal institutions, to appraise their performance, and to recommend their reform in the same language, the same categories, and the same fictions as the main corpus of juristic ideas concerning the nature of the federal state. It is no part of my business here to explain the reasons for this tendency.The notable fact is that through this confusion of categories our whole approach to federal issues has been caught, as it were, in a spider web of legal and metaphysical abstractions, and our answers, more often than not, expressed in the mould of some personal political in~lination.~
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.