Belittling the accompolishment to disavow Obama's success...

[vaberella]

This is something that I have found particularly irritating coming from the left. I'm seriously fed up with it. This is not a focused attack on posters here-although some have definitely partaken in these actions. I have definitely seen this in articles and sites from the left. It's in the usage of words to discredit Obama's accomplishments. These people will make it seem as though the accomplishment does very little, doesn't provide any change or not "sweeping enough" change to really matter and there fore use this to prove that Obama was no successful, didn't do enough or is not warranted any sort of thanks.

I had spoken about women's rights and all Obama had done for women's rights over the past three years and someone had stated those bills were "token." Of course I took that statement personally. There is a writer who was going over Obama's LGBT record in an article I once read, his name escapes me now, and he actually first off stated Obama has "done nothing" for LGBT rights and then as he ran through the list he would say significant or somewhat significant, nothing was a fail or worthless. I have to say that even if the change affects a small minority of people, at least they're lives are that much better.

When I see this marginalization of the accomplishment, in order to also bring down Obama because that's what it also does, what I think the person fails to realize is that they are also stating that all those people who fought for those changes---because people did fight for them, were nothing. They fought for nothing--they in effect are worthless because the change is worthless. To some, certain actions like this are deemed "symbolic" or "token" and then dismissed. What they fail to realize, to many others this is their reality or an aspect of their reality. None of the Acts or bills Obama passed won't affect someone in some way, his Executive Orders will affect someone or something in some way. And for the most part these are good moves (don't get me wrong--there are some fails--but there are good).

This, however, is not coming out of the Republican camp. Republicans just think all of these new bills and or Executive orders are crap when they come from Obama. They don't see them as significant or even legitimate. But when I see this coming out of the Democratic/Left/Progressive side I have to wonder what is going on.

I know many people are critics of the President, I realize there are people who are saying they want to "hold his feet to the fire". But I think we can all agree there is no point in marginalizing any success. There is no point in saying that 1 million kids of 15 million are being fed, isn't doing much. That's 1 million more than there were before. I think we have to really separate our dislike of the President (because that is bordering on dislike, if not outright dislike) from policy. And if the issue was about policy, truly about policy, then why is there a need to crush appreciation for policies that are actually working positively for some people?

This just seems like the new way of doing things from the Left, rather than just going straight to Obama.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. The Left Agenda has no Cheerleaders ,not to be mistaken for a lack of..

allegiance ,it's like being a citizen of ancient Alexandria as opposed to Rome.http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/09/03_hard.html

[Mr Deltoid]

2. What critique of Obama from the left would you find acceptable?

If any...

[Bodhi BloodWave]

4. my own personal opinion...Fact based ones would be a good start n/t

[Mr Deltoid]

7. Ding ding ding!!

We have a winner!!

[YellowCosmicSun]

5. What would you find unacceptable? If any...

[vaberella]

6. Attack him on policies. But why marginalize the achievement some policies have.

In order to attack him? If the thread is about how many moves he's made for the benefit of women and women are enjoying some better moments of comfort due to these movements. Why would anyone belittle the policies that were put in place by him and these people are congratulating him. Why attack a policy that does this in order to attack him? It doesn't make sense. Do you think it's honorable to call the Lily Ledbetter Act or the new Tribal Act (which provides more protection rights to Native American women) token? Do you think that is fair and just? Because it's attacks of this nature I'm targeting, which I clearly stated in my post.

[Mr Deltoid]

8. When I see people do that, and I see it on both sides, I ignore it

When you are on a public board, there will always be outliers and assholes. They speak for themselves, not 'the left'.

[vaberella]

14. Once again it's not on both sides.

Republicans are just not supportive of Obama's initiatives point blank. These are not people who would EVER acknowledge the positive things he's done---so it's not a both sides thing. However on our side, what I'm seeing, and this is what shocks me, that even when something is positive--even if they don't like that it's massively sweeping--but good is coming from it, instead of acknowledge that and the struggles of the people behind it, they'd rather make it seems worthless. This shouldn't be coming from our side. People shouldn't sit there and call major legislation for women's rights---TOKEN. I don't see why you're apologizing for it.

These people do call themselves the left. Undoubtedly they do speak for themselves. But many of them are really using this as a sound stage to get their message through and others follow suit. For instance Suskind, who was seen as a critic of Bush. Was taken seriously on this board when he suggested that Obama was a chauvinist until information came out. Leftist writers and some bloggers have a way to control the stage they're speaking too and they manipulate the understanding. Posters on here and other Dem sites don't have the same stage but they do in effect, reflect some views and I can name 5 threads where this has happened recently.

[Pab Sungenis]

22. Then do so

since you admit this is a call-out thread. Back up your claim, please.

[Mr Deltoid]

37. On the contrary

By both sides I mean Obama supporters and his critics in the Democratic party.

[ClassWarrior]

9. Why do those you describe attack? Because they want him lose. Ignore them. Don't take their bait.

Who cares if they think something is "honorable" and "fair and just?" They're our opponents.

Unless, of course, getting vengeance for "attacks of this nature" is more important to you than re-electing the President.

NGU.

[vaberella]

15. What are you talking about?

Attack, criticize, go after him---on policies is what I mean. I have no idea what else you're reading in my post. I think it's a legitimate reason to go after him on policies. For instance I never agreed with the Libya policy however it was done. I don't see anything wrong with that and should be done.

Secondly, the people I am talking about are not opponents. I didn't realize that I have to view others on the left, democrats, or liberals as opponents. This is shit coming from our side. This is what I'm taking issue with and I think it should be talked about, not ignored like it doesn't matter. It's insulting.

As for "getting vengeance"... This is not about vengeance, where in my post is it about vengeance. This is me venting my frustration over this sort of language that permeates the left. Something that needs to be worked on. You see it as "vengeance"---that's on you.

[ClassWarrior]

17. So people who want to "discredit Obama's accomplishments" aren't our opponents?

People who want Obama to lose aren't our opponents? I don't care what "side" it's coming from. If people here says they oppose Obama, those people are my opponents. And those are the only people I see "belittling" him. The vast majority of DUers who criticize him do so on policy.

:shrug:

NGU.

[vaberella]

39. I didn't think I had to look at fellow dems as opponents. n/t

[Pab Sungenis]

23. There is a big difference between the Lily Ledbetter Act/Tribal Act and

hosting a party, awarding a medal, or recording a video.

Those are symbolic, token acts. Lily Ledbetter was not. Lily Ledbetter was an accomplishment. A really big accomplishment decades later than it should have come. Awarding a medal to Billie Jean King and Harvey Milk is not.

In a similar vein, how would you feel if I said that "the fact of the matter is that no single person has done more for the women in the entire history of our country (than Barack Obama). No joke." if I may ask? Wouldn't that be insulting Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Belva Lockwood, and thousands of others?

(Edited to clarify meaning; might be interpreted I was saying there were big differences between LLA and Tribal Act which is not what I meant to say.)

[Pab Sungenis]

27. Why feel the need to inflate "achievements" to be more than they actually are?

When he's struck a blow for income equality you don't brag that he once tipped a waitress 30%. You brag about the income equality.

[EffieBlack]

3. Very well said! nt

[Number23]

10. Very well said, vaberella

What I don't understand is the people who act as though even mentioning his successes is somehow telling other people to "shut up." It makes no sense.

If people are unhappy, fine. Tell people why. But there are obviously people who AREN'T unhappy. The unhappy people have decided that they and only they speak for everyone and any attempts by those who are happy/less unhappy to say why they aren't is perceived as an affront to the unhappy. It's restrictive and incredibly short-sighted. I don't understand it at all.

If his failures are so numerous and resplendent, then why the need to shut everyone up about his successes? His successes (be they large or small) benefit ALL of us. Why that is perceived by some here as being told to "shut up" is incredibly juvenile and stupid imo. And just like you said, every bit of progress that gets every one fed/employed/clothed etc., is something we should be congratulating.

[YellowCosmicSun]

11. Use the Bully Pulpit! > It's just words.

Same old song and dance.

[yurbud]

12. there is a very pragmatic reason for saying some accomplishments haven't gone far enough

incremental change can easily be rolled back when the GOP gets their ducks in a row. More sweeping change will be harder to undo.

That is especially the case with Wall Street and banks. He needed to put the fear of God in them, not put them in his cabinet.

[vaberella]

13. HCR is not incremental change.

However, there are people hear saying it's not going far enough. Expanding protection rights of Native American women is not incremental change, this was a big change and it showed. I don't think you're gathering the full grasp of things. For many people, me included, there are some forms of change that may appear incremental for some but have serious revolutionary affect for others, trans-formative.

In actuality I think when it comes to incremental change, you'd have to wonder to whom it's incremental. I would assume women's right initiatives would be incremental for a man, but massively sweeping for a women. I would assume LGBT protection rights might be incremental for a heterosexual, since it no way impacts them but massively sweeping for those are of LGBT. Additionally, I think incremental changes can be harder to roll back. For instance a desegregated military was an executive order which some would see as incremental and it wasn't changed for a long time. Again when changes are fought for, which most of these were--they are not something that can be waved away.

As I said also, by suggesting that women's rights accomplishments under Obama are "token" is insulting and discredits the women who fought for those rights. But that is what people have said. I'm not saying don't criticize the President. But don't sit there on a thread and disparage the work of hundreds, thousands, or millions of people who fought hard to get something better passed for this nation. Which is what these people have done in their flippant way of talking about the positive changes he's made.

[JoePhilly]

16. There are 2 totally different "Obama Bad" memes. One from the right, on from the left.

The one from the right claims he is a socialist who hates America.

The one from the left claims he is a corporatist who hates America.

The first is intended to increase the turnout from those who lean to the right.

The second is intended to depress the turnout from those who lean to the left.

If those 2 things happen, even in small ways ... the 2012 election gets close and a GOP nut has a shot.

[vaberella]

20. You're post needs to be rec'ed and given it's own thread to go to the greatest page. Seriously.

It seems to be playing out very well, if that's the case.

[JoePhilly]

30. Thanks ... and I do think it is that simple.

The media is playing up only those two story lines.

I've tried this as an OP here on DU a few times. Predictably, most of the responses, are that the people who believe the right wing version are ABSOLUTELY CRAZY ... and that the people who believe the left wing version are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

The reality in 2010 was not that the angry left stayed home, but that their endless screaming caused enough of the moderate dems to simply shrug their shoulders and stay home.

And of course the right wing screaming got the craziest tea party folks out in droves.

Sadly, we seem to be too dumb as a party to get this.

[LWolf]

18. Why do you come to a self-identified left-wing discussion board

to rant about how fed up with the left you are?

:shrug:

[vaberella]

19. Because it's many of the actions here that need to be called out.

We're a left leaning sight where people are allowed to bitch on moves that are proving successful for many people. Rather when good news on a bill that positively affects someone is posted, people bash it. I have to wonder why we would call the Lily Ledbetter bill token. Why would "left-wing discussion board" have members who say such a thing?

[Pab Sungenis]

21. So you admit this is a call-out thread?

I thought those were supposed to be against the rules.

[vaberella]

24. Didn't you read my post?

"This is not a focused attack on posters here-although some have definitely partaken in these actions."

This includes people on this board. I never denied that in my post, which is the third sentence of my post in the first paragraph. Looking at my quote (of myself) above would state that people on this board are included. But it's not just them. It's also these left wing writers who do the same. Basically they marginalize the hard work of the people who fought for such legislation. So basically when people stated that...oh I don't know that certain LGBT rights only affect those in the government sector and therefore amount to nothing of importance---I take great insult in that because there are those in the LGBT community who fought long and hard for such recognition. This was said by a left wing blogger. These sorts of actions I think need to be called out and this includes people on this site, off the site and what not. My statement is general---it goes to anyone who partakes in the action---I never lied about that in my post.

Maybe that is against the rules---but I'm not singling out just this board. As I clearly stated many times. This is a general look at many people in the left-wing sphere.

[Pab Sungenis]

25. Yet you admit that you are calling out those who

in your own opinion "marginalize" the President's accomplishments. By your definition that's about 95% of DU since none of us here (except the very hard core) are 100% happy with everything he's done.

The problem is in people who want to claim that everything Obama has done is 18k gold. If any of us even dare say "he should have held out for more" on anything we get shouted down by a very vocal minority.

I'd still like to see where you claim people are saying the Lily Ledbetter Act was a token act. Considering the scope of that bill and how long it took to pass I find such an attitude hard to credit.

[vaberella]

28. False. You didn't read my post b/c you obviously don't understand my meaning.

It's hardly about the President. But again that seems to be lost to you. What I did say is that they marginalize the accomplishment---ie some bill or act that has passed congress and done some amount of good---they do that to indirectly attack the President. The President is secondary if anything in my entire statement or focus. You choose to focus on the President. My issue is attacking the bill or act. By calling it flippantly labeling the actions as "symbolism" or "token" is nonsensical and hurtful. Hurtful to those who fought, who died, and still fight for some "incremental" change that would make their lives better. My issue is why attack a policy that is doing some good---by marginalizing it's importance in the lives of at least a few people.

You however don't see that. You see it as a protectionist thread for the President which is nonsensical. I'm tired of the bashing of policies that do something positive, even if it's a little bit. They may not be 100% perfect, they may not be the sweeping grandiose changes people would like, but they have done something and instead of people feeling some sort of happiness that there are lives being changed by what they deem to be an "incremental" policy----for the people who are benefiting from it, it's not incremental. But what is done, is that this marginalization---of not the bill which I see them using to target Obama---actually insults the lobby of people who fought for it. Basically the people who call these bills or acts as "symbolic," "not significant," "token," and so on...are mocking and devaluing the cause! And it's that, that irks me. I said it quite clearly.

You just pick and choose what you want to read and understand, from what I can see.

[seaglass]

34. Nope it is a call out thread. You are calling out a comment that was in another one of your threads

You have a lot of other words in here but you most certainly did call out another DU member.

[vaberella]

38. A poster, a blogger, a writer, lefty pundits; they all said someting..I implied as much in my post.

I'm not denying that I called them all out, never did. They are one of MANY! Which I clearly stated. I can link to those other blogs, that I implied and called out---should my thread be locked for that reason? I singled out many people in my post. I definitely mentioned some bloggers who I left nameless as well. But the thread is calling out the actions that belittle the fight of other people---making them worthless. However, I notice a big defense of people who belittles the struggle of others---which makes me wonder about people's priorities.

[Pab Sungenis]

40. "some have definitely partaken in these actions."

That's your call-out right there.

[vaberella]

44. Okay.

Then please alert and have the thread blocked or deleted. I'm not stopping you. I made my point and you helped in kicking it on the first page. Hats off.

[seaglass]

42. You are calling out a DUer that responded on one of your recent threads. Be honest!

You can call out anyone else you want, just not another DUer - it's against the rules.

What don't you get about that?

[vaberella]

43. In actuality no.

In all honesty...and you don't have to believe me. I was too disgusted to bother with said poster. You can push that view point all you want until you're blue in the face--that is NOT my point. I said as much in my post to said poster--people who make me physically ill are not worth much of my time. However, there have been many.

In all honesty, it was another person who pushed my buttons in the same way that encouraged my post. That person was a blogger/writer. So if you want to know the root cause of my post, it was the blogger who said something very similar which irritated me and then instigated all of this. This was a blogger was someone I called out on DU before although hailed as some hero by some. Due to the fact the statements were similar, and then seeing other posters following suit in other threads--such as one on HCR, another on LGBT rights, and so on and on other sites like DK or even on Huffpost commentaries...I had something to say. It came across as a meme for me.

So no, I was not calling out a particular poster, but several. I was not calling out a particular blogger but several. This is not relegated to one person or one poster or one blogger. This is me calling out something I see as a sort of mentality that is being developed.

Lastly, if my post is against the rules, please alert it. That is your right. And the mods can delete it or lock it. It's up to you. I don't see why you don't just go and do that, instead of asking me to admit to something as though I'm some sort of criminal. My disgust with one comment, was one incident. However, this was something mirrored throughout the left, by different people, in various ways. So the way you are singling out one person is absurd because I would never waste my time on one individual. My time can be better wasted.

Further more, I don't really appreciate the way you're derailing the point of my post. I see this as an important issue, and you're wasting my time on what you assume, which is far from true. Many people can attest to noticing this on a variety of places where people are marginalizing positive bills, to in some way weaken the President; and as a result insult the people who fought for them. However, to you it's me attacking one individual. Please. No one can raise that much inspiration out of me.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LWolf]

49. I haven't called the bill anything, positive or negative.

Have you asked those who have called it a "token" bill why? I'm sure they have reasons, and would be happy to discuss it with you.

[johnaries]

47. First of all, have you checked the NAME of this board? Secondly,

many of us on the LEFT disagree with the attacks of a small number of others on the left. Just because a few Leftists hold a particular opinion don't assume ALL Leftists agree. That's what the RW does.

There is no litmus test for being a Liberal.

[LWolf]

48. Typical.

:eyes:

Obviously, I know the NAME!!! of the board.

Anyone can claim to be on the left, just as anyone can claim to be a liberal, or anything else.

The number of centrist/dlc/3rd way/"new" democrats claiming loudly to be "liberal" or "left" these days is ludicrous.

It's a hard, persistent effort to re-brand. If that effort is successful, the actual left will be looking for some other way to identify themselves.

[frazzled]

26. I understand the constant nitpicking

And that is why I reject it.

Many years ago, when I was in graduate school, working on my doctorate, I realized an important deficit in my budding career. I was the star student in my department, on full fellowship, first to be given a teaching post, always able to produce a sharp and clear analysis. Only there was a deep dark secret I realized: I had built my reputation on my ability to logically deconstruct the theories of others. I could always find the flaw in the arguments, the counterexamples, the gap in the theoretical premise. Very incisive, and very impressive. The big problem is that I felt like a fraud: I knew that despite these clever nitpickings, I did not have the ability to come up with creative theoretical approaches on my own. I didn't have the courage, either: because a theory is only good insofar as it is disprovable, and I didn't want to be wrong. I wasn't going to advance my field. I was only going to be the professional naysayer.

So I left. After 4 years and passing the orals. Perhaps I gave up on myself too early. Perhaps I could have turned myself around to be courageous enough to think and act positively instead of just being a fault-finder. But it was a decision I had to make for my own good at the time.

It left me a humbler, and I think better person in general, not just in my rarified field. I no longer wanted to criticize films or plays or food so definitively either: dammit, a film is hard to make, and flawed as a particular one might be, it was an achievement to have made it. Politics too became less dogmatic and judgmental, though I always remained a firm liberal. I'd worn a Mao button back in those days and cheered on the Cultural Revolution ... until I'd met people from China who had suffered under it. Maybe I didn't have all the answers. Maybe perfection in government is not achievable. Maybe governing includes compromises and failures as well as bold moves. Maybe having an opinion is a lot easier and more clever than actually having to do something complex in the world.

There are times when one must stand up unequivocably and call something wrong: the war in Iraq, for example--for wars are irrevocable once started. The death penalty, to me, for sure. But we do not have to find the fatal flaws in every piece of legislation or every pronouncement. Of course, you CAN find them. You can find them in anything. It's very clever and gives a lot of satisfaction ... until you realize it is fraudulent in the grander scheme of things, and that nothing will progress if that's all you can do.

[vaberella]

29. Thanks for that FRAZZLED. It was very well said.

This is exactly the point. I think further what's lost is the way these sort of statements affects the people who did fight for these changes. Some of them are small, some of them are never heard in the news and they all matter. They're all significant. To label something "symbolic" or "token" or what not, when it's a clear change in policy is insulting to the people who lobbied for them. We all know there is no perfect bill, each bill will face it's changes and I doubt any bill has EVER been "teh perfect" but these sorts of actions go beyond lessening Obama's accomplishment but also the accomplishment of the cause.

[Enrique]

31. would you extend that to criticizing Bush?

you should if you mean all that. And yet somehow I doubt you said it, though I could be wrong.

Same with the OP, and many other complaints about Obama criticism. I'm seeing some ways of thinking here that started when Obama became president.

[frazzled]

35. Yes, retrospectively, and even at the time

I criticized like hell the Florida recount and Supreme Court decision.
I marched in the street in opposition to the Iraq war. (I got extremely mad at my then senator, Kerry, for voting for the IWR, and carried that anger over into the 2004 primaries, unnecessarily criticizing him for everything because of that response; fortunately, I righted myself by the time he won the nomination).
I called him stupid.
I thought Dick Cheney was evil.

There was plenty to criticize about the Bush administration. Objectively. And the media made us want to criticize even more because of its blind obeisance. I wasn't saying that criticism is never called for.

But there was probably excess criticism, too. We didn't become a police state. It wasn't like "Nazi Germany," as some claimed. By Tea Bagging standards today, Bush seems somewhat mild in comparison. Even if they didn't do much of anything positive and a whole lot negative (with assistance from many Democrats).

As I said above, I will always remain a liberal within the broad scheme of things, and will always work to advance those values I believe in. What I will not do is pick through every difficult decision a Democratic president makes to see if it is in perfect conjunction with the best possible world imaginable.

What this OP about is criticism of a president who HAS made positive accomplishments, and at a very difficult time. Sure, we can always find something to disagree about. But it's been a tough time where standard responses don't always apply and where much the president would prefer not to have to have dealt with must be. The larger issue--the thing that will get us ahead--is not to pick apart all the little gotcha things but to prevent another Bush administration, or worse.

[JoePhilly]

32. Great stroy ... reminds me of something a friend and I discussed in Graduate School

We were in graduate school in the late 80s, and we noticed that for a number of areas in our field, different "schools of thought" had developed. In each case, there were usually two professors from different Universities, who were the "brains" behind some theory on the same topic. And each cranked out an endless stream of graduate students whose research supported that professor's "school of thought", his theory.

And so, the "two schools of thought" would crank out paper after paper, questioning each other's research methods and findings. The professors and some of the students built up larger lists of articles, even books. But we also noticed that much of it was pedantic. Lots of articles on trivial side issues. Nit picking. Kind of like you describe. Finding flaws and gaps, not to advance the field, but simply to find flaws and gaps.

So, we came up with a great (but totally ridiculous and impractical) idea. He and I would pick some area of research and simply take opposite sides. We'd come up with a "school of thought" for him, and one for me. And then, we'd do nothing but publish on those points. We'd enlist other students as followers of our separate schools. We'd publish and endless stream of articles, going back and forth.

And all along, we'd maintain a running, scientifically complete, record of our efforts. How we had devised experiments that had GAPS just so the other school could try to fill them. And then repeat the process.

And then, when we were old and famous (because you get famous by developing a "school of thought"), we'd write the definitive book. Not only on the area in question ... but on what we did to cause the battle.

I should mention that we came up with this great idea at a happy hour. Once sober, we determined that it would be a waste, and that what we should each do was focus on effort to advance the field, or to directly apply learning from our field.

The only practical thing we've done relative to this, is to counsel other research to never simply align with one school of thought or another. To do so is to lock yourself in, and the hypotheses you then create, are weaker, and you are more likely to "inadvertently" (cough) leave out variables that matter when they might not "fit" your theory.

[frazzled]

36. Happy Hour is the genesis of many great insights!

I'm glad you were able to continue with your research with such a wise perspective.

[TwilightGardener]

33. Good, thoughtful post.

[Number23]

46. Really amazing and intelligent post

So glad that you took that truly wonderful lesson. It is the easiest thing in the world to criticize what others are doing, particularly when you aren't doing the hard work yourself.

But it saddens me to think that you considered yourself a fraud. I doubt that anyone who thinks as profoundly as shows as much as insight as you seem to could be a fraud.

Have you ever seen the movie "Ratatouille"? Probably not as it's a kids' film. As the mother of a 5 year old, I spend far too much time watching kids' movies. :)

There is a food critic (Anton Ego) in that movie that has one of the most amazing speeches that I've seen in a long time:

"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.

But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talents, new creations. The new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new; an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking, is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto, "Anyone can cook". But I realize — only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ratatouille

Basically, he came to the exact same conclusions that you came to.

You can even watch it on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPOoFkrh94 It's amazing.

[frazzled]

50. Thank you for that quote!

I did see the movie-- without kids even. (Mine were already grown up.) But I'd forgotten that speech altogether. I'll keep it in mind now, and yes, it does mirror my feelings in so many ways. (Which doesn't mean I'm immune to criticizing still: I just try to catch myself when I go overboard or take my own opinion too seriously.)

I think the idea that "a great artist can come from anywhere" also applies to human effort in general. I've had great admiration for the work that some people do, plumbers and carpenters--work that should be truly respected but often is not. And I've been privy to some deeply intelligent and provocative conversation from sources I might never have imagined: a burly moving-van guy, the delivery man whose English was broken but who had some really interesting ideas to impart. We should all try to be humble and seek out the new--we don't always remember to, and we don't always succeed, but when we do it's always worth it.

[wndycty]

45. K & R

:kick: