“Fuel Up to Play 60” grants landed by 6 Richmond elementary schools

If food is indeed a medicine, as the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates concluded over 2,000 years ago, Virginia has been feeding its youth pretty bad medicine for some time now. Although nutritional information across Virginia’s various school districts over the past decade is difficult to find, one needs only recall the school lunches that our own elementary and middle schools served…

While Virginia still isn’t a ‘healthy eating’ paragon, there are a number of signs that the state’s schools are getting serious about offering their students meals that are both tasty and full of nutritional punch. Of course, some school districts are better nutritional stewards than others at the moment.

Richmond could be considered among those regions in Virginia who stand to improve on their healthy eating opportunities. So it was with considerable excitement that six elementary schools in Richmond were awarded the “Fuel Up to Play 60” grants to “improve opportunities for healthy eating and physical fitness among students.”

The grants program is being run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in collaboration with two equally powerful representatives of America’s turn towards health (sarcasm): the National Dairy Council and the National Football League (NFL).

Removing the NFL from the healthy school menus equation for a moment, it’s disturbing that an organization that has so baldly lied to the American people about the potential effects of its products would be involved in any campaign that involves the dietary choices of Virginia’s school-age children. If the National Dairy Council were truly serious about reforming the food menus in Virginia’s schools, it would replace its factory produced milk products with those produced by grass fed and naturally raised cows. If you’re thinking that’s not very likely, I’d agree.

As long as powerful industry lobby groups like the National Dairy Council have a place at the policymaking table, Virginia’s school children will likely be the ones ultimately footing the bill of ill health as attempts to reform our state’s food menus remain just that, patchy attempts. But if Virginia wishes to raise a new generation of happy and healthy kids, it will have to shrug off the lobbying might of food industry groups whose main goal is profit, not a more fit and festive youth generation. 

Terry McAuliffe sets tone as governor on first day while expectations remain high

Now-Governor Terry McAuliffe’s “sweeping” executive order that prohibits gifts above $100 on members of the executive branch may have set the tone for the governor’s first day in office, but it also raised the expectations of those who see McAuliffe as Virginia’s best chance of restoring the balance of political influence between the average citizen of Virginia and moneyed businesses and individuals.

McAuliffe’s first day of governor of Virginia not only highlighted McAuliffe’s vision for the commonwealth over the next four years, it also reminded Virginians of the scandals and controversy that engulfed the previous governor’s final year in office. No executive administration in recent Virginia history made the contrast between the influence of moneyed groups relative to the average Virginian more stark than that of the McDonnell administration.

As one example, Gov. Bob McDonnell seemed to do everything he could to undermine the concerns voiced by Virginians over the issue of uranium mining, going so far as to exclude citizens groups from the Uranium Working Group while inviting Virginia Uranium, Inc. (VUI) lobbyist. Were it not for the adamant protests of citizens groups, it is highly likely that McDonnell would have asked for a regulatory framework to be written regarding uranium mining and milling before the moratorium was lifted, something the former governor’s friends at VUI would have appreciated.

McAuliffe’s first day as governor quickly set the tone for an executive branch that is just as beholden to the ‘Joe six-pack’ Virginian as it is to CEO’s of multi-million dollar companies. And while it’s true that interested parties with the means and motives to subvert government regulations often find ways to do so, the symbolic significance of McAuliffe’s executive order should be taken seriously.

Now, however, the governor has put himself squarely in the corner of reformer, and many of the Virginians who supported McAuliffe’s candidacy will expect more of the same over the coming years for issues ranging from abortion to fossil fuel reliance.

If ever there were a political candidate with the energy, intelligence, and personal charisma to keep Virginia moving forward with sensible reforms, that person would be Terry McAuliffe. At least, that’s what I hoping for.

Partisan blinders among Virginia’s voters shouldn't disallow fair assessment of McAuliffe

Virginia’s Governor-elect, Terry McAuliffe, got active over the weekend as he visited Women Giving Back, an organization based out of Sterling, VA that assists “transitionally homeless women and children get on their feet with clothes to help them enter the workplace.” Saturday was also a day that McAuliffe called on all Virginians to help out in their communities to highlight “how we can all come together to help one another.”

As McAuliffe prepares to be formally sworn in as Virginia’s 72^nd governor on January 11^th, it’s my hope that supporters and non-supporters of the former Democratic National Committee chairman will commit themselves to a balanced assessment of McAuliffe’s performance as governor, as opposed to the partisan mindset that has affected U.S. voters over the last few years in particular.

For supporters of McAuliffe, this means holding his feet to the fire if he abandons campaign promises or compromises fundamental Democratic Party values. It also means giving the Governor-elect praise when he carries out his campaign promises and furthers the Democratic Party agenda. Lastly, it means expecting reasonable compromises to be reached with Democratic and Republican Party colleagues in the legislature.

For non-supporters of McAuliffe, the Governor-elect should be judged by his willingness to listen to all applicable stakeholders and to make policy decisions based upon what is the best option for everyone involved. The Governor-elect should not be expected to abandon basic Democratic Party values or cave to unreasonable demands expressed by members of his own party or that of the GOP.

If anyone can convincingly argue that the partisan divide that defined politics in the U.S. over the past few years in particular have been more of a boon than a bane, then I’d like to hear it. But it should be clear to any reasonable observer that the partisan divide has only weakened the country in a number of notable ways. As Abraham Lincoln noted, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I’d also add that for a house divided , elected representatives on “our” side are often given a get-out-jail-free card that would not otherwise be granted, inhibiting an important ‘internal’ political check. McAuliffe deserves the benefit of the doubt, but he also deserves the full brunt of his supporter’s disapproval if his campaign platform falls by the wayside or he compromises basic Democratic Party values. 

Another U.S. divide: institutional players and the individual

As income disparities have continued to increase in the United States, the disparity between punishments meted out to so-called institutional players and individuals in the U.S. has also been a distinguishing disparity of the 21^st Century. In the wake of the economic recession which struck the U.S. in 2008, “too big to fail” financial institutions were all but given a slap on the wrist that “undermines the public’s confidence in our institutions and in the [principle] that the law is applied equally in all cases. “

While U.S. financial institutions put the global economy and U.S. national security at risk, these ‘institutional players’ walked away from the recession with a few bruises and a renewed sense of their own fundamental importance. Edward Snowden, on the other hand, also undermined U.S. national security (according to some) by releasing confidential National Security Agency (NSA) documents to various journalists and media outlets. Snowden, however, faces up to 30 years in prison, hardly a slap on the wrist.

Although a less significant example, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s recent refusal to increase the fines levied against Virginia Tech following the April 16, 2007 campus shooting to a mere $27,500 represents another case of an institutional player walking away from violations of the law (i.e., the Clery Act) as well as its own policy for issuing warnings regarding threats on campus.

After the Department of Education initially imposed a $27,500 fine for the violations, Judge Ernest Canellos reduced to the fine to $5,000, citing inconsistency in penalizing similar violations of the law. Arne Duncan then refused to reimpose the original $27,500 fine after being asked by his own department.

Not only is $27,500 a drop in the bucket to a big name school like Virginia Tech, more significantly the $27,500 fine was a symbol of the U.S. government’s ability and willingness to hold institutional players fully responsible for their actions (or inactions). What Duncan’s decision has once again re-ingrained in the minds of leaders of institutions such as universities is that their actions are not subject to the same (and stricter) laws that individuals in the U.S. are subject to. In effect, then, a legal divide has also grown more visible between institutional players in the U.S. and the individual over the course of the 21^st Century.

While public opinion has waxed and waned on how and when the U.S. will lose its position as the global superpower (e.g., China), the irony is that the U.S. is doing more to harm itself by creating multiple social and economic divides than almost any external factor could hope to do over the short term. The power of the U.S. does not have to recede, but it will as long as the U.S. remains divided against itself. 

Mental health services reform in Virginia seems likely in 2014

It may have taken a tragedy, but Sen. George Barker (Alexandria) and Del. Rob Bell (Charlottesville) took the first steps towards reforming Virginia’s mental health system by introducing bills that will allow facilities charged with holding individuals in temporary detention or emergency custody to do so longer than previously allowed. 3 of these bills include SB115, HB293 and HB294.

Although Michael Martz of the Richmond Times Dispatch ascribes 2 of these bills to Del. Joseph Yost (Blacksburg), he nonetheless provides a good summary of what changes are in store if passed.

In a state that is very much inclined towards less government control in the lives of individuals, it almost seemed inevitable that a tragedy would have to occur before Virginia’s lawmakers finally moved to reform the state’s health care system. A tragedy is exactly what occurred, befalling one of the legislature’s very own.

Virginia presents a great experimental ground, then, for finding a middle-ground between civil liberties and social welfare with regards to mental health. Holding anyone against their will is abhorrent to many Virginians including myself, but in a number of cases extensions of temporary detention orders and emergency custody may be necessary for public safety. Virginia’s (Republican) lawmakers appear to be finally realizing this point.

But within the conversation about detention periods and psychiatric bed location procedures, what is left out is the critical need to focus more resources on preventing acts of violence related to mental health in the first place by treating individuals. Executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness of Virginia, Mira Signer, makes this point: “None of this can be done in a vacuum. You’ve got to have more resources.”

Contrary to a myth believed by some within the ranks of the Republican Party, investing in the well-being of individuals is not an unnecessary ‘handout’. That is, there are many Virginians in particular, and Americans in general, who genuinely need state and/or federal assistance to overcome their mental health adversities.

The real irony is that after so many different tragedies over such a broad expanse of time, you would think that anyone who isn’t onboard with mental health reform are truly the ones who need to have their heads examined, metaphorically speaking.