Jennifer Pharr Davis Hoping To Thru-Hike Appalachian Trail In Record Time

Submitted by Kurt Repanshek on April 19, 2011 – 1:39am

Jennifer Pharr Davis, who already holds the women’s speed-record for a thru-hike on the Appalachian Trail, hopes to surpass the men’s record this summer. Courtesy photo.

Many hikers planning to walk the entire Appalachian National Scenic Trail are already on the iconic path, having started out from Springer Mountain, Georgia, with intentions of reaching northern Maine in August or September.

While those hikers will be at times slogging through spring storms and muddy trails, Jennifer Pharr Davis will be at home in North Carolina putting the finishing touches on her gear and physical fitness. She won’t be in a rush to hit the trail….until June, when she plans to hike from the trail’s northern terminus atop Mount Katahdin to Springer Mountain in as few as 47 days.

Ms. Davis already has hiked the 2,180-mile A.T. end-to-end twice, and holds the women’s speed record for thru-hiking the trail, having covered the distance in 57 days, 8 hours and 35 minutes back in 2008. Her first thru-hike in 2005 produced Becoming Odyssa, Epic Adventures on the Appalachian Trail, a book that laid bare much of her soul, at least the hiker within. This summer the book will be released in paperback form.

Many say hiking the A.T. end-to-end is a transformative experience, and for Ms. Davis her 2005 hike moved her from being a hiking neophyte to one who couldn’t get enough trail miles under her feet. Not only has she hiked the Pacific Crest Trail end-to-end, but also Vermont’s Long Trail, the Colorado Trail, up Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya, and quite a few other trails.

Along the way not only has she grown as an individual and become as comfortable in the backcountry as if it were her living room, but she’s parlayed her experiences into a career as a motivational speaker, guidebook author, and coach for those looking to train for either long-distance hikes or long-distance runs.

Her desire to eclipse the men’s record for thru-hiking the A.T. brings up a few obvious questions, most revolving around whether her attempt has evolved from a desire to enjoy the backcountry of America’s oldest long-distance trail to an athletic competition. After all, to surpass the men’s record of 47 days, 13 hours and 31 minutes, she’ll have to average 47 miles a day, no small accomplishment.

“I think in our modern-day society we tend to shy away from things that are hard or challenging. Things that we might not succeed at scare us,” she replied when asked what’s motivating her to chase the record. “But I believe that by pushing our limits we are able to refine ourselves and learn about ourselves in a positive manner, despite the outcome. We can never accomplish anything excellent or new unless we are willing to try new things and test our boundaries.

“I love being in nature. I love hiking slowly or running as fast as I can. The A.T. is an especially precious place for me, because I had a life-changing thru-hike on the path in 2005. In 2008, I loved setting the women’s record with my husband’s support; and I feel blessed – like I have been given a gift – to be able to have a similar experience once again.”

Speed hiking, which requires one to rise before the sun and settle down for the night often long after it has set, can lead to blisters and sore muscles that never seem to get enough time to recover. While Ms. Davis’ upcoming attempt will be somewhat easier than what the typical thru-hiker encounters because she’ll have a support team — including her husband — to ferry her gear from hut to hut along the way, the sheer need to cover nearly 50 miles a day in a rugged landscape that’s almost always going up or down reaches deep into her core and ignites something within.

“I know that I love pushing my limits on the trail… as if the more I pour out the more that I am able to learn and absorb,” said Ms. Davis. “And by trying for a new, possibly better, record I will either: 1.) prove that there does not need to be a gap between the men’s and women’s record on the trail, 2.) improve on my previous time, 3.) finish the A.T. for a third time, or 4.) if nothing else – I will learn about myself and my limits while spending time on my favorite trail with my favorite person – my husband! All those scenarios sound good to me, and worthwhile!”

In her bid, Ms. Davis will have trail support from ultra-runner and former A.T. and Pacific Crest Trail speed-record-holder David Horton, as well as veteran A.T. expert Warren Doyle, as well as her husband, Brew Davis.

Asked whether speed-hiking the A.T. diminishes its significance as a foot path many spend months on, a landscape not to be dashed through, Ms. Davis said the approach is simply another way to enjoy the trail.

“Speed hiking is a different way to experience the trail. It is not better or worse than thru-hiking or section hiking. It is simply more concentrated,” she said. “The A.T. is way too thru-hike centric. The trail was never created to be hiked all at once, and even though that has become a popular use of the route, that doesn’t mean that it is the best or only way to enjoy the trail.

“I don’t feel that my record hike is in any way better or more noble than the mom who takes her kids out to day-hike different portions of the trail near their house, she went on. “The trail is there to meet you where you are at. The purpose is to make it accessible to everyone that travels by foot – but that includes trail runners, speed hikers, and record setters. As long as you are respecting the trail, others, and yourself then you have a right to be on the famous foot path.”

In the end, said Ms. Davis, the goal is not to tick off miles or chase a clock, but simply to take away something from the experience. How you decide to get that experience — thru-hiking, section hiking, or speed-hiking — in the end is largely irrelevant.

“The A.T. is there for every person, at every stage or life, and at every speed. After spending a day on the trail speed hiking I don’t lose any sleep at night for not appreciating the trail or enjoying the path in a ‘proper’ manner,” she said. “I love my time on the trail, and I always take something positive away from my time spent in the woods.”

By going after the men’s record, Ms. Davis hopes not only to learn a bit more about herself and to further cement her relationship with her husband — “I know that we will grow in trust, communication and teamwork. Those traits not only serve us well on the trail, but in our marriage as well.” — but to raise people’s awareness about the A.T. specifically and the outdoors in general.

“I hope to elevate awareness of the sport and the outdoors, and to get more people involved in sharing a similar passion,” she said.

*This post originally appeared on the National Parks Traveler website. Find it here!

Sticking to the No-Advance Model

by Rachel Deahl – Publishers Weekly, 4/19/2010 12:00:00 AM

It was the imprint of the future. That was at least one of the more dramatic claims made in the media about HarperStudio when Bob Miller’s lean unit was announced at HarperCollins two years ago. The idea, though not entirely new—Roger Cooper launched the similarly drawn Vanguard in 2006—was pitched as an author-driven model in which writers would agree to lower advances in exchange for higher royalties and bigger marketing budgets. While the media may have played the biggest role in decreeing HarperStudio the next big thing in an otherwise traditional—and perhaps broken—industry, the imprint drew an outsize amount of attention for its small list—24 titles a year—and approach.

So how is the no-advance model faring now that HarperStudio is no longer? PW talked to two of the original no-advance evangelists, Eric Kampmann at Beaufort Books and Cooper, and both said they are faring well, if still facing the same uphill battles as everyone in publishing.

Cooper, who does more of a mix of fiction and nonfiction than Kampmann (who largely focuses on nonfiction), said that he’s been slightly more successful publishing his nonfiction titles. He noted that each contract is drawn up differently in relation to marketing budgets, observing, “There’s no formula we’re being slavish to.” Vanguard’s print runs vary widely, between 25,000 and 150,000 copies, and Cooper said the idea is that a book “doesn’t have to be a home run every time. The stakes are to do the best job possible.” With this model, he said, that goal is more feasible.

Kampmann said the Beaufort model was more like the Vanguard one in that neither gives advances, while HarperStudio offered advances as high as $100,000. And, like Vanguard, the indie caters to authors, he said, “who are willing to become more a part of the publishing process.” While Kampmann said Beaufort was really put on the map—and in authors’ and agents’ minds—when it published O.J. Simpson’s If I Did It (working with the Goldman family) in 2008, his colleague, associate publisher Margot Atwell, said that HarperStudio did bring attention to Beaufort and Vanguard’s models. “I think HarperStudio brought a lot of attention to the profit-share model,” she said. “Before, it was a little harder to explain what we do.”

That attention has changed, slightly, the acquisition process. Although both Cooper and Kampmann said projects come in via solicitation and from agents, (and, sometimes, in other ways) more people in the industry are taking notice. Beaufort is publishing Jeff Foxworthy’s next book in October, and, Kampmann said, the comedian’s agent, Peter McGuigan at Foundry, brought the project to him. Erin Smith, who handles publicity at Beaufort, said she believes “there are certain agents thinking outside the box and trying to find ways to work with their authors,” many of whom can benefit from the setup of getting less money upfront with the chance of getting more down the line.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/456777-Sticking_to_the_No_Advance_Model.php

by Toon Zone

http://www.toonzone.net/blog/blogs/212/the-censorship-of-south-park-and-our-cultures-courage/

I am of course confident that I will fulfill my tasks as a writer in all circumstances—from my grave even more successfully and more irrefutably than in my lifetime. No one can bar the road to truth, and to advance its cause I am prepared to accept even death. But may it be that repeated lessons will finally teach us not to stop the writer’s pen during his lifetime? At no time has this ennobled our history. -Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Since April 21, 2010, fear-driven censorship has once again been on the march. It marches at the expense of free expression, artistic liberty, and our collective understanding of the fundamental truth that thought cannot, should not, and never will be governed or truly conquered by any force on this Earth.

I am obviously referring to what the internet and the entertainment media have been talking about to death since Thursday morning: the censorship of the prophet Muhammad on the raunchy, rude, and fearless animated comedy South Park on Comedy Central. I will not bore readers with the details that most of you likely already know. If you are new to the controversy over this incident and want to fully understand the events that led to it, the New York Times has reported on it excellently. In addition, an editorial by Toonzone News’ editor-in-chief addressed the censorship of Muhammad in the episode Cartoon Wars just over four years ago with reason and class, and it’s as relevant now as it was then.  Finally, if you are one of the few that have not seen it, here is the official statement that South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker have issued about Comedy Central’s censorship.

In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn’t some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn’t mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We’ll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we’ll see what happens to it.

Lest we forget, of course, South Park has been harshly but peacefully condemned for “blasphemy” as well as its content by at least one group aligned with the Christian faith–the Catholic League–in the past. Whatever you happen to think of that or other disputes, it suffices to say that these past controversies amounted to peaceful wars of words and ultimately never resulted in any special treatment.

Now for all of the opposition that is being offered against this incident right now, I have to honestly and sorrowfully say that I don’t think it’s at the level that it should be just yet.

The opposition is not angry enough and it has yet to fully address all of the aspects of the issue. Meanwhile, in my view the few that sympathize with the network’s decision are utterly lost at sea. In response, I will humbly take it on myself to directly state some truths that we should not overlook as individuals or as a society.

The first critical thing to understand may be the most obvious, but it should be said in plain English often and without apology. This censorship this is absolutely a surrender to Islamic fanaticism and the threat of violence. In short, it is a clear concession to terrorism. In the episode 200, the image of Muhammad was censored while the prophet himself was talked about. After that episode aired, a member of the radical fringe group Revolution Muslim spoke out and suggested that South Park’s creators were risking violence because of that episode’s content. When the episode 201 aired, even saying “Muhammad” or “prophet Muhammad” meant a censorship beep. As the New York Times reports, Comedy Central declined to comment about whether Revolution Muslim had any influence on its decision. Perhaps that’s because everyone understands that they don’t need to.

Another critical fact about this censorship is that it is unprecedented. It is new. Things were not always this way. In the 2001 episode Super Best Friends, Muhammad was parodied along with a slew of other significant religious figures as a member of a goofy superhero team. With the multi-part episode Cartoon Wars from 2006, the image of the prophet Muhammad was controversial and ultimately never shown on television. In 2010, for the episodes 200 and 201 Muhammad was allegedly hidden in a U-Haul truck and disguised by a bear suit (it was really Santa Claus), drawn as a generic stick figure, and completely covered by a black censorship bar. Even without an actual visual representation of Muhammad on the screen, the episode provoked extremist reactions and the comments of Revolution Muslim.

Related to this, the reality is that the censorship also quickly expanded after the airing of 201. At first, the reruns of 201 were canceled and not hosted on southparkstudios.com. By Thursday night, Super Best Friends was pulled not only from South Park Studios, but from legal online sources such as Amazon Marketplace, Netflix’s streaming service, and the iTunes store. That’s right folks, we are now reduced to the point where they refuse to directly sell you a cartoon that so much as depicts the prophet Muhammad. At the time of this writing, the only method left is probably to buy South Park season 5 on DVD. This is assuming, of course, that the fools won’t find a way to pull that off of the shelves in a completely unhinged scorched-Earth strategy.

However, let’s realize something else that is important. It was not only references to Muhammad that were targeted for censorship. We have also been told by Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone that the moral lesson offered near the end of 201 said nothing at all about Muhammad. It was about “intimidation and fear” and, we can assume, about how it’s important to not succumb to these things. Comedy Central censored the entire bloody thing with beeps. Not only did they give in over Muhammad, they also fruitlessly silenced rhetoric that would have damned them for it — rhetoric in a two part episode that, on the whole, pretty much did exactly that anyway. So here we have in fact been confronted with the reality of two types of cowardice: cowardice against violent threats and cowardice against, of all things, the strength of a simple argument. One inevitably has to wonder: will Comedy Central silence Cartoon Wars next since it also debates this issue of whether free expression should ever succumb to the threat of violence? Tell us, Comedy Central. Tell us, Viacom. Are you that cowardly and afraid? We all hope not.

All of this said, it is not enough to only condemn Comedy Central.

Comedy Central has made itself a significant part of the problem, but it did not start this problem and it is not the only sinner. It is essential to understand this, lest this issue be narrowly defined by skeptics and censorship apologists as only a simple skirmish over a popular cartoon show that isn’t worth a human life. This controversy is one fight in a bigger battle. Comedy Central does what it does because of the cultural climate that has tragically been created by the riots that occurred in response to published editorial cartoons which attacked Islamic extremism. These Danish cartoons were printed by the newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005 and were then eventually reprinted in dozens of newspapers throughout the European continent during the following year. Many of these cartoons depicted Muhammad, most notably the cartoon that drew a bomb where a turban would be. Angry riots were waged in 2006; propaganda at the time would have you believe that they were 100% spontaneous. Even today, propaganda would have you believe that Islam universally bans any representation of Muhammad when in reality, the truth is more complicated. Different schools of Muslim theology have different views about this. Furthermore, the fanatics’ propaganda wants you to believe that violence is without any doubt Islam’s mandated response to blasphemy. That is not true.

Many of these riots were violent. Danish embassies in the Middle East were trashed, and people died because of some of the protests. Since then, the political cartoons have been considered taboo by many, and depictions of Muhammad have been opposed by respectable, well-educated, and influential people.

It’s true. Consider the fact that from the start, these cartoons have been talked about but not shown by major newspapers in the United States. If there are examples, they are sadly exceptions to the rule. This subject has also proven controversial in academia; you can just ask professor Jytte Klausen of Brandeis University. She wrote a scholarly and well-researched book called The Cartoons That Shook The World. Its purpose was to analyze the Danish cartoon controversy and the political fallout it caused. It was true scholarship; it was a work on the opposite extreme compared to the deliberately silly satire of South Park. It was intelligent, it was well-researched and footnoted, and it was created with absolutely no intent to insult the Muslim faith in any way whatsoever. Among other images, the book was going to include a picture of a newspaper page that displayed the cartoons.

This book was accepted for publication by Yale University Press. Then Yale’s administration made the call to remove that image from manuscript. Let me just repeat that: Yale censored an image of a newspaper that included the very cartoons that the book was created specifically to discuss, analyze, and talk about. This would have been bad enough on its own, but they went even further; all pictures related to Muhammad were removed from the book, including a 19^th century painting by Gustave Dore that had never before provoked any protest or been the subject of any controversy.

How was this decision reached? Yale University Press appealed to the University for guidance. The University consulted many experts about the ramifications of publishing these images and whether they should do so. The alleged consensus was that there was a risk of provoking violence around the world that shouldn’t be taken. These experts included diplomats and counter-terrorism officials, according to Yale’s claim (it did not name all of those consulted). At least some stood up for liberty. Others made excuses, and they won. One such man was John Negroponte, who among other things was once the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and its first Director of National Intelligence. He publicly endorsed the censorship. Another was Fareed Zakaria, the editor of Newsweek International and the host of Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN. He summed up the surrender position quite well: “As a journalist and public commentator, I believe deeply in the First Amendment and academic freedom. But in this instance Yale Press was confronted with a clear threat of violence and loss of life.” Let’s be crystal clear about this, dear reader: no threat had been issued in response to the upcoming book. At the time, Cary Nelson, the president of the American Association of University Professors, bitterly commented that, “We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands.”

By the way, the censored illustrations and brief discussions of their context have all since been printed in a short book called Muhammad: The “Banned” Images. The man responsible for this is Dr. Gary Hull, an honors professor at Duke University and a real-life American hero. He accomplished this and made the book available ASAP by side-stepping University publishers, producing the book via independent contractors and an imprint created specifically for this purpose, Voltaire Press. The book has been for sale since October 29^th, 2009. Hey, guess what everyone. No mass uprisings. The world didn’t come to an end.

So much for the experts.

Academia is unmistakably a battleground in this fight. So is far too much of the Western mainstream media. So is film. Let’s remember the man that Revolution Muslim referred to, the politically incorrect Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. He was murdered by a terrorist for making Submission, a ten minute film that attacked the abuse of Muslim women. The film aired on TV in many European countries, but it was pulled from the International Film Festival Rotterdam. They didn’t want to endanger the other filmmakers. The writer of Submission, feminist activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, went into hiding to protect her life. She intends to make a sequel to Submission someday, lest the message be sent that violence works. Meanwhile, I have heard of no upcoming Hollywood film that is following suit. Hell, I’m waiting for a Western film that will follow the example of Persepolis.

There’s more. Writing for the New York Times today, Ross Douthat takes note of other past compromises such as “…the German opera house that that temporarily suspended performances of Mozart’s opera “Idomeneo” because it included a scene featuring Muhammad’s severed head,” as well as “Random House’s decision to cancel the publication of a novel about the prophet’s third wife.” This novel was The Jewel of Medina by Sherry Jones. Fortunately, it was ultimately published by Beaufort Books instead and people are free to judge its merits for themselves.

Who still wants to argue that this is just about some silly cartoon?

To return to the issue of blame, I’ll take things even further. Some have said that Islamic extremism and Revolution Muslim are exclusively to blame. They must indeed be vigilantly and relentlessly opposed. However, just as the problem is not all about Comedy Central, our greatest challenge is not Revolution Muslim or Islamic radicals as a group. These individuals are crazy and intolerant today, they were crazy and intolerant yesterday, they were crazy and intolerant before I was born in 1982, and they’ll be crazy and intolerant tomorrow. The fanatics are not new, and truth is that the fanatic himself will never become extinct so long as human nature is as imperfect as human thought is free. The conclusion to draw from this reality is as logical as it is painful to understand. It is we that have changed. Consider where we stand now: there is a serious debate about whether it is acceptable to risk violence in exchange for a freedom that our fellows and our ancestors have willingly fought and died for.

Now some have come to the conclusion that, well, the censorship is really quite understandable because Comedy Central ought to protect itself and the people that work for it. This line of thought has been propped up by no less a prominent figure than Jon Stewart, the host of The Daily Show. Now yes, Islamic radicalism was justifiably eviscerated by Mr. Stewart on his show, and he does not approve of the censorship. More power to him. But Mr. Stewart also remarked that Comedy Central writes the checks. It’s their right to censor South Park, he says. I’ll freely admit that this is true. After all, the network has censored language for years. But how unfortunate that he and others are right in the process of side-stepping the real question: was this censorship the right thing to do?

We have to understand the context of the so-called warnings that were issued between the airing of 200 and 201. As has been reported, Revolution Muslim is a very small organization based out of New York City. It doesn’t have more than twelve people working in its office. At best, Revolution Muslim is a fringe group of extremist crackpots, not an Al Qaeda cell. According to the New York Times, even the FBI and the New York Police Department believe that there is nothing that law enforcement can do about the group right now. Of all things, this is the group that the apologists say that Comedy Central is justified in surrendering to?

But make no mistake: the censorship apologists can and should be treated seriously and respectfully. They can be confronted and defeated on their own terms. So let us assume for a moment that direct threats have been made against Comedy Central that we do not know about, or that there really was a small possibility that referencing the prophet Muhammad in 201 would have provoked a violent response.

Don’t misunderstand me. I am completely certain that most Comedy Central sympathizers don’t like that Muhammad was censored on South Park. Maybe Jon Stewart honestly doesn’t think he’s in a position to condemn his bosses even though he hosts the hottest television show on the network. I really doubt that Fareed Zakaria and John Negroponte want to believe that censorship is necessary. I am even willing to concede that the decision to censor Muhammad probably wasn’t an easy snap judgment. And yes, there is always that slim chance that tragedy will happen if you do not surrender to the threats of the fanatic. Yet ultimately, this point of view amounts to an attempt to rationalize what has happened.

You can’t do that.

You cannot advocate playing it safe while imagining that you stand for liberty and against the tyranny of fear without indulging in extreme self-delusion. This is following the path of least resistance. I’m personally no fan of Noam Chomsky, but he understood the principle of free speech when he said that “If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like.” This is an excellent point, and not just because of the way it advocates tolerance. The greater message is that if you believe in certain principles, then you believe in them when it is hard to do so. With that in mind, I submit the following: if you believe in freedom of speech, then you believe in it when it is challenged.

Terrorism attempts to force or coerce change through intimidation and fear. It is not merely a challenge against a Government, nor is it someone else’s problem. Terrorism’s true target is culture and civilization. Its true target is the people. Its true target is us. Terrorism does not work when it threatens us. Terrorism does not work when it kills people. Terrorism works when it achieves change in response to its actions. The fanatic does not care if you submit to him while calling him a radical bastard. He cares about having his way.

I implore each and every one of you to seriously think about the reality of the world we live in. When do you think Islamic radicalism will dissipate to the point that it will be completely safe in your mind to reference Muhammad, let alone to think about and portray and discuss him in the same way that we do Jesus Christ? Is it ten years? Twenty years? Thirty years? Will it be when you’re a grandfather or a grandmother? For how long would you like to wait while fear-based censorship becomes progressively more ingrained and accepted in your culture? Who will decide when it’s safe enough, and how? At what point do our institutions and our media and our entertainment industry declare with a unified voice that is enough is enough?

Principles are not principles if you abandon them at the first sign of a reasonable excuse.

My plea is that you do not feel disappointed about this censorship. Do not feel sad. Do not satisfy yourself with the idea that season 14 of South Park will eventually be released on DVD completely uncensored, which it damn well better be. Above all, don’t feel passive or decide that this is the only way that things can be.

You should be mad. You should remember every attack of any variety against our way of life and etch them into your mind. Let them inspire not rage, but renewed determination. This is about you.

We must insist that Muhammad return to television and to the internet until Muhammad becomes an uncontroversial part of our public discourse. Because the human mind must be allowed to create and to think and to assert completely unencumbered by fear. Most importantly, do not keep your discontent quiet. Do not be content with complaining on Twitter, or on Facebook, or on your personal blog. Contact Comedy Central and its corporate parent Viacom directly, and let them know exactly how you feel. Be respectful but tough. Don’t spam them, wait for just a little while and see what happens. Then protest all over again if nothing has changed. The best possible response to censorship is to strongly and consistently say, “No.”

There’s more to it than even that. Go out of your way to see, show, and understand what the clueless executives and the foolish faction of intellectuals don’t want you to see. Watch for other threats of compromise and take a stand when they emerge. Do all of this with the knowledge that this cultural battle can be won. In the long run, we lose only if we forfeit the game. That’s true for a very simple reason.

There are more of us than there are of them.

Todd “GWOtaku” DuBois is a contributing writer for Toonzone.

FOOD JOBS Wins 2008 Gourmand World Cookbook Award:
Best Food Book for Professionals in the World

New York, NY (July 3, 2009)– FOOD JOBS: 150 Great Jobs for Culinary Students, Career Changers and Food Lovers by Irena Chalmers had been awarded the 2008 Best Food Book for Professionals in the World, following her January award of Best in the U.S. by the Gourmand World Cookbook Awards committee. Chalmers’ title was selected from more than 6,000 submitted titles in 40 languages from 107 countries.

The Gourmand World Cookbook Awards has recognized FOOD JOBS for offering uniquely practical and vital insights and answers to entering one of the few industries that is growing in the U.S. and around the world.

Edouard Cointreau, founder and president of the Gourmand World Cookbook Awards, calls FOOD JOBS very timely, useful and needed. “In these difficult times, jobs are probably the most important issue, before banks or real estate,” said Cointreau. “FOOD JOBS is packed with practical information, easy and even funny, very serious and accurate in its comments and advice. It is difficult to imagine how it could be better.”