Anglonautes > English vocabulary / words > Language > Adverbs

The boy sneaks food. I’ve seen him. His appetite is formidable, and he knowingly eats more than he should or must, to the steady concern and occasional consternation of his parents.

Sometimes they keep count: “How many pretzels?” Sometimes they vainly suggest an apple instead. Often they look away, not wanting to aggravate an eating-related anxiety that they can already sense in him on the cusp of adolescence.

The girl treats food warily. Edging into adulthood, she worries about what too many French fries — what any French fries — could do to her, and monitors her waistline even though her own parents have never exhorted her to. Does she monitor it too closely and joylessly? Can parents prevent that? They wonder. So do I.

Neither of these children, with whom I interact occasionally, comes close to being a statistic or case study. He isn’t obese; she isn’t anorexic.

But they represent a larger group of young people between those widely publicized (and much more complicated) extremes. And they speak to a subtler parental challenge: how to coach children away from unhealthy eating without sowing panic; how to make them conscious of their intake without making them too self-conscious about its consequences.

Over recent years, worry about what and how much children eat has intensified, in part because of the regular references to childhood obesity as an epidemic. And right now, as children head back to school, where they graze beyond the gaze of parents, potentially dangerous eating habits are getting fresh attention.

School cafeterias and vending areas have become ground zero in the battle against overweight and poorly nourished children; from coast to coast this fall, students will encounter fewer sugary soft drinks, fewer fried foods, class birthday parties without cupcakes and class bake sales with calorie-reduced brownies.

That may help. But it’s just one piece of a puzzle that health experts and concerned parents are still sorting out. Conflicting information about the fiercest culprits in child weight gain abounds. Beyond genes, which obviously play a fundamental role, is soda pop a major factor? What about too little sleep?

There are hundreds of studies and thousands of opinions, and Tom Baranowski, a professor of pediatric nutrition at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, says they’re inconclusive. He has reviewed research suggesting that there are viral prompts for childhood obesity and research suggesting that children fond of fruits and vegetables aren’t any less heavy than those mad for Mountain Dew.

Dr. Baranowski’s verdict? “A lot more work needs to be done.”

Diet, it seems, is a dirty word. A Stanford University study found that a father’s projected attention to and remarks about a daughter’s weight may increase her risk of eating disorders. A University of Minnesota study found that children whose parents encouraged diets were significantly more likely to remain overweight than those whose parents didn’t.

Cynthia M. Bulik, the director of the University of North Carolina Eating Disorders Program, explained that “diet” implies deprivation, “and deprivation goes into that whole mindset that, ‘I deserve something when this is over, and this is short term.’ And it can’t be. It’s got to roll right into a lifestyle.”

Those words ring true for me. As a fat boy who ate expansively and compulsively, I went on the first of many strict diets at age 8 — and thereby commenced decades of untenable regimens and compensatory pig-outs, of binging and purging.

But my outsize hunger seemed flat-out chromosomal, and my insecurity about it predated those early weight-loss schemes. Should my parents have forbidden them? What’s the best course for today’s parent, in a society where fast-food come-ons drown out Alice Waters, and models no thicker than swizzle sticks still rule fashion magazines?

“We get nutrition advice, but that’s not the same as eating advice,” said Rebecca Saidenberg, a Manhattan mother of a 16-year-old girl, referring to child-rearing tips. She said that as her daughter went through puberty, she worked particularly hard to encourage healthy habits — balanced meals, restrained portions — in the hopes of minimizing the chances of a weight problem that might follow her daughter through life.

At the same time, Ms. Saidenberg wanted to push back against “a trend of treating food like medicine.”

“I don’t like that,” she said. “There are a lot of psychological pleasures that come from sitting at a table and enjoying a meal.” She doesn’t want her daughter deprived of those.

So she didn’t despair when the teenager recently returned from a summer trip to Italy during which, it was clear, the joys of gelato were fully explored. But she did get herself and her daughter a membership at a local gym, where they go together.

In my conversations with Ms. Saidenberg and other parents, I was struck by just how much thought they had given to coaxing their children toward sensible eating and away from extreme indulgence or self-denial. They clearly saw that as a parental responsibility akin to giving a child a first-rate education.

But their prescriptions and beliefs diverged, illustrating the elusiveness of a ready consensus about what’s most effective.

Joan Yamini, a mother of one in Austin, Tex., said it was important not to have unhealthy foods around the house, but Andrew Segal, a father of three in Glen Ridge, N.J., said that children who can’t find cookies, ice cream and similar snacks at home can always find them elsewhere — and probably will.

Every parent fretted over the right language to use with children.

Janis Azarela, a mother of three in Sudbury, Mass., recalled the upset her husband caused a few weeks ago when he questioned their 16-year-old daughter’s decision to eat ice cream immediately following a three-mile run.

“He asked because she’d just worked so hard to run and be healthy — why not make a healthier choice?” Ms. Azarela recalled. “And she said, ‘Dad, are you calling me fat?’ ” The teenager abandoned the ice cream, stomped out of the kitchen and didn’t speak to him for a good long while.

Ms. Azarela said that her daughter is, in fact, slim, and gravitates naturally toward less fattening foods. Her 7-year-old son, on the other hand, has the fiercest sweet tooth in the brood. A budding problem? Time will tell, and meanwhile she has vowed to “keep reintroducing foods, because palates change so quickly.”

That’s consistent with advice from diet and nutrition experts, who agree, for the most part, on a few prudent strategies.

They say parents can and should encourage sensible eating and vigorous physical activity by engaging in both themselves; children are likely to imitate those behaviors.

Whether parents allow junk food or not, they should make sure healthier alternatives are even more available — and should promote them. They should also make time for family dinners, the nutritional content of which they can monitor more carefully than they can a quick meal in an economical restaurant.

And by actually involving children in the shopping for, and cooking of, meals, some parents have successfully given them a consciousness about food — and a way to think about it — that guards against an abuse or disregard of it. When it comes to overeaters who clearly thrill to that gluttony, it’s vital for parents to try to find some replacement activity — a hobby, say — that affords similar emotional gratification.

“Food lights some people up more than it lights other people up,” Dr. Bulik said. “We’re not born the same.”

I see that in the boy and girl. If they were merely emulating their parents, he’d be the measured eater and she the exultant one. That the opposite is true underscores the mysteries of appetite — and the tricky task parents face in trying to regulate it.

Frank Bruni is the author of a new memoir,

“Born Round: The Secret History of a Full-Time Eater.”

Parenting and Food: Eat Your Peas. Or Don’t. Whatever.,
NYT,
30..8.2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/weekinreview/30bruni.html

The Cairo Speech

June 5, 2009
The New York Times

When President Bush spoke in the months and years after Sept. 11, 2001, we often — chillingly — felt as if we didn’t recognize the United States. His vision was of a country racked with fear and bent on vengeance, one that imposed invidious choices on the world and on itself. When we listened to President Obama speak in Cairo on Thursday, we recognized the United States.

Mr. Obama spoke, unwaveringly, of the need to defend the country’s security and values. He left no doubt that he would do what must be done to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban, while making it clear that Americans have no desire to permanently occupy Afghanistan or Iraq.

He spoke, unequivocally, of the United States’ “unbreakable” commitment to Israel and of why Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. He was also clear that all of those listening — in the Muslim world and in Israel — must do more to defeat extremism and to respect the rights of their neighbors and their people.

Words are important. Mr. Obama was right when he urged leaders who privately speak of moderation and compromise to dare to say those words in public. But words are not enough. Mr. Obama, who, after all, has been in office for less than six months, has a lot to do to fulfill this vision. So do others.

Like many people, we were listening closely to how the president would address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He did not shy away from pressing Israel’s new government, insisting that the construction of settlements must stop, the existence of a Palestinian state cannot be denied, and “the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.”

In the same stern tone, he pressed the Palestinians to reject violence and said that Arab states must stop using the conflict “to distract” their people from other problems. They must recognize Israel and do more to help Palestinians build strong state institutions.

We couldn’t have agreed more when he said that the elements of a peace formula are known. We are now waiting to hear his strategy to move the process forward.

On Iran, Mr. Obama warned that its pursuit of nuclear weapons could set off a dangerous arms race in the Middle East. He also renewed his offer of serious negotiations. We are waiting to see what Mr. Obama will propose and how he plans to persuade Russia, China and the Europeans to support a credible mix of punishments and enticements to try to change Tehran’s behavior.

Mr. Obama challenged the conspiracy-minded who questioned, and those who justified, the Sept. 11 attacks. He said the war in Afghanistan was one of necessity and insisted that despite the high cost, in lives and treasure, America’s commitment will not weaken.

At the same time, Mr. Obama said the war in Iraq was a war of “choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world.” Mr. Obama, who said Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, missed a chance to urge Iraq’s neighbors to do all they can to help hold the country together as American troops withdraw.

The audience was undoubtedly waiting to hear how Mr. Obama handled the issue of democracy — and its depressing scarcity in the Islamic world. He avoided President Bush’s hectoring tone and did not confront his host, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. But we suspect everyone in the hall knew whom he was talking about (they applauded at key moments) when he said that governments must maintain power “through consent, not coercion” and that “elections alone do not make true democracy.” We hope he made those points directly when he met Mr. Mubarak and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Before Thursday’s speech, and after, Mr. Obama’s critics complained that he has spent too much time apologizing and accused him of weakening the country. That is a gross misreading of what he has been saying — and of what needs to be said. After eight years of arrogance and bullying that has turned even close friends against the United States, it takes a strong president to acknowledge the mistakes of the past. And it takes a strong president to press himself and the world to do better.

The Cairo Speech, NYT, 5.6.2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/05fri1.html

Preparing to Sell E-Books,

Google Takes on Amazon

June 1, 2009
The New York Times
By MOTOKO RICH

Google appears to be throwing down the gauntlet in the e-book market.

In discussions with publishers at the annual BookExpo convention in New York over the weekend, Google signaled its intent to introduce a program by that would enable publishers to sell digital versions of their newest books direct to consumers through Google. The move would pit Google against Amazon.com, which is seeking to control the e-book market with the versions it sells for its Kindle reading device.

Google’s move is likely to be welcomed by publishers who have expressed concerns about Amazon’s aggressive pricing strategy for e-books. Amazon offers Kindle editions of most new best sellers for $9.99, far less than the typical $26 at which publishers sell new hardcovers. In early discussions, Google has said it will allow publishers to set consumer prices.

“Clearly, any major company coming into the e-book space, providing that we are happy with the pricing structure, the selling price and the security of the technology, will be a welcome addition,” said David Young, chief executive of Hachette Book Group, which publishes blockbuster authors like James Patterson, Stephenie Meyer and Nicholas Sparks.

Google’s e-book retail program would be separate from the company’s settlement with authors and publishers over its book-scanning project, under which Google has scanned more than seven million volumes from several university libraries. A majority of those books are out of print.

The settlement, which is the focus of a Justice Department inquiry about the antitrust implications and is also subject to court review, provides for a way for Google to sell digital access to the scanned volumes.

And Google has already made its 1.5 million public-domain books available for reading on mobile phones as well as the Sony Reader, the Kindle’s largest competitor.

Under the new program, publishers give Google digital files of new and other in-print books. Already on Google, users can search up to about 20 percent of the content of those books and can follow links from Google to online retailers like Amazon.com and the Web site of Barnes & Noble to buy either paper or electronic versions of the books. But Google is now proposing to allow users to buy those digital editions direct from Google.

Google has discussed such plans with publishers before, but it has now committed the company to going live with the project by the end of 2009. In a presentation at BookExpo, Tom Turvey, director of strategic partnerships at Google, added the phrase: “This time we mean it.”

Although Google generates a majority of its revenue from ad sales on its search pages, it has previously charged for content. Three years ago, it opened a Google video store, and sold digital recordings of N.B.A. games as well as episodes of television shows like “CSI” and “The Brady Bunch.” This year, Google said it might eventually charge for premium content on YouTube.

Mr. Turvey said that with books, Google planned to sell readers online access to digital versions of various titles. When offline, Mr. Turvey said, readers would still be able to access their electronic books in cached versions on their browsers.

Publishers briefed on the plans at BookExpo said they were not sure yet how the technology would work, but were optimistic about the new program.

Mr. Turvey said Google’s program would allow consumers to read books on any device with Internet access, including mobile phones, rather than being limited to dedicated reading devices like the Amazon Kindle. “We don’t believe that having a silo or a proprietary system is the way that e-books will go,” he said.

He said that Google would allow publishers to set retail prices. Amazon lets publishers set wholesale prices and then sets its own prices for consumers. In selling e-books at $9.99, Amazon takes a loss on each sale because publishers generally charge booksellers about half the list price of a hardcover — typically around $13 or $14.

Mr. Turvey said that Google would probably allow publishers to charge consumers the same price for digital editions as they do for new hardcover versions. He said Google would reserve the right to adjust prices that it deemed “exorbitant.”

Miguel Helft contributed reporting.

Preparing to Sell E-Books, Google Takes on Amazon, NYT, 1.6.2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/technology/internet/01google.html

Steve Coleman, Weaving Symbolics

(Label Bleu)

Friday 28 April 2006
The Guardian
John Fordham

Steve Coleman, Weaving Symbolics

The occasionally severe American alto-saxist Steve Coleman is the man who invented the m-Base tag to describe the influential New York jazz/avant-funk movement of the late 1980s. He's recently been energising his enigmatically counter-melodic, dynamically narrow ensemble music with adventurously Latin-funky grooves - and Weaving Symbolics, despite its title, develops that inviting vein. An ambitious double-CD with a big cast and a movie of Coleman playing a Charlie Parker tribute and explaining his work, it might contain a shade too much contemporary-classical vocal gymnastics and long, entwining group improv for regular jazzers - but it's full of surprises, stunning playing, and an idiomatic breadth that reflects contributing sessions conducted in Brazil, New York and Philadelphia. The classically-trained Taiwanese singer Jen Shyu is a remarkable presence, so are star flautist Magic Malik and two terrific trios involving Coleman. The merging of Coleman's impassive, pattern-twisting approach with jazz brass and the rhythms and sonics of a Brazilian percussion section ends up almost vivacious. Coleman is a formidable contemporary-jazz brainiac, but he can appeal to the feet, too.

Steve Coleman, Weaving Symbolics,
G, 24.4.2006,
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2006/apr/28/j
azz.shopping1

Related > Anglonautes > Vocapedia

describing / talking about

language, actions, things, facts, events, trends, ideas,

sounds, pictures, places,

people, personality traits, behaviour

Voir aussi > Anglonautes >

Grammaire anglaise explicative -niveau avancé

Adverbes > Places de l'adverbe

Adverbes > Split infinitive

Adjectifs > Adjectifs en -ly