Tired of the Alice Waters Backlash - Are You?

[SobaAddict70]

that cooking is something people don't do very much anymore and that if people are able to rediscover for themselves the pleasure that comes with preparing food, that would go a long way towards reversing some of society's present ills.

This sounds compelling, but here's an analogy. I love medieval literature and I think that if people were able to rediscover its pleasure and I think it might give people essential critical thinking skills and historical perspective that may go a long way to reversing some of society's ills. If I told you that, as a person who thinks and talks, you should be reading medieval literature because it's good for you and would solve some problems, despite the great deal of time and patience you have to devote to it, you might think I was some kind of elitist and you might be turned off to medieval literature.

Instead, it's better to meet people where they're at and tell them some cool stories from the lit to pique their interest, then if they're willing, you hook them up with a book. This works much better than telling people that they should do it because it's good for them.

A difference of perception.

You see instruction, I see curiosity.

It's very easy to dismiss someone like AW because of whatever disagreements you might have with her way of handling herself. It's like talking without listening. If you perceive that she's 'elitist' [and consequently a turn-off], that pretty much seals the deal.

This is a red herring. Nobody here is shutting their ears to the problems that AW is talking about. In fact, I think the problem might be that were all actually aware of everything she's talking about (it is, after all, old news to many of us I think). That's what gives us some critical distance: I for one am not attacking the message but the messager, as I think many on this thread are.

Now some do shut their ears up because of her perceived elitism. In the context of conveying a message, isn't this the problem of the person who's trying to communicate something and not the person their trying to persuade? Persuasion is about gently bringing people over to your side, not imperiously assuming they should already be there. This is the heart of the offense that people might take: AW seems to look down on people who aren't already on board. Obviously this is not her goal; I just think she can't do it any other way, hence my argument against her as a spokesperson for these issues.

←

She might not be the right spokesperson -- but if someone equates the idea of slow food with elitism, then you've got an uphill battle. I'd wager that that view has less to do with AW than people's discomfort in the kitchen, and that comes from not knowing how to cook.

I can't begin to tell you how many comments I've heard or received from people who say "this is beyond my ability", "there's no way I could possibly make this for dinner, how do you do something like that?" -- and so they don't even try. And when they see someone like me who really cares about where his food comes from, almost to the point of obsession, they look at me like I'm crazy or think that I'm out of touch.

If anything, AW wants us to learn how to cook -- because once you're exposed to this sort of thing, it opens up all sorts of possibilities, and maybe it'll lead you to places you've never been. Now, whether people are open to that sort of education is another thing altogether.

Edited May 12, 2009 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[Alcuin]

A difference of perception.

You see instruction, I see curiosity.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

She might not be the right spokesperson -- but if someone equates the idea of slow food with elitism, then you've got an uphill battle. I'd wager that that view has less to do with AW than people's discomfort in the kitchen, and that comes from not knowing how to cook.

If anything, AW wants us to learn. Now, whether people are open to that sort of education is another thing altogether.

I agree--it is an uphill battle and has to be handled delicately.

[SobaAddict70]

A difference of perception.

You see instruction, I see curiosity.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

She might not be the right spokesperson -- but if someone equates the idea of slow food with elitism, then you've got an uphill battle. I'd wager that that view has less to do with AW than people's discomfort in the kitchen, and that comes from not knowing how to cook.

If anything, AW wants us to learn. Now, whether people are open to that sort of education is another thing altogether.

I agree--it is an uphill battle and has to be handled delicately.

←

I explained myself when I edited my comment. See above.

You perceive her to "instruct" you to live your life better.

I'm open to being piqued to learn more about something. I don't see it as instruction but rather a way for me to think or learn about something that I haven't been exposed to.

Maybe it's just me.

[Alcuin]

A difference of perception.

You see instruction, I see curiosity.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

She might not be the right spokesperson -- but if someone equates the idea of slow food with elitism, then you've got an uphill battle. I'd wager that that view has less to do with AW than people's discomfort in the kitchen, and that comes from not knowing how to cook.

If anything, AW wants us to learn. Now, whether people are open to that sort of education is another thing altogether.

I agree--it is an uphill battle and has to be handled delicately.

←

I explained myself when I edited my comment. See above.

You perceive her to "instruct" you to live your life better.

I'm open to being piqued to learn more about something. I don't see it as instruction but rather a way for me to think or learn about something that I haven't been exposed to.

Maybe it's just me.

←

My point is that when you're trying to teach somebody how to like something, not every one is immediately receptive. You and others here (it's not just you) are already on board. It's those who aren't but who might be, that someone like AW is really addressing.

So, the real question is: If I tell you that Beowulf is good for you and you should just accept that even if you're skeptical because I say that you should already have been pouring your time into when you were wasting your time watching tv, will you still be so curious and eager to think the thoughts I suggest? Probably not and that's the problem.

[SobaAddict70]

A difference of perception.

You see instruction, I see curiosity.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

She might not be the right spokesperson -- but if someone equates the idea of slow food with elitism, then you've got an uphill battle. I'd wager that that view has less to do with AW than people's discomfort in the kitchen, and that comes from not knowing how to cook.

If anything, AW wants us to learn. Now, whether people are open to that sort of education is another thing altogether.

I agree--it is an uphill battle and has to be handled delicately.

←

I explained myself when I edited my comment. See above.

You perceive her to "instruct" you to live your life better.

I'm open to being piqued to learn more about something. I don't see it as instruction but rather a way for me to think or learn about something that I haven't been exposed to.

Maybe it's just me.

←

My point is that when you're trying to teach somebody how to like something, not every one is immediately receptive. You and others here (it's not just you) are already on board. It's those who aren't but who might be, that someone like AW is really addressing.

So, the real question is: If I tell you that Beowulf is good for you and you should just accept that even if you're skeptical because I say that you should already have been pouring your time into when you were wasting your time watching tv, will you still be so curious and eager to think the thoughts I suggest? Probably not and that's the problem.

←

Well...I've already read Beowulf [translations of course as my ability to read Old English is lacking].

It depends on the person and whether he or she is open to hearing other points of view and possibly acting on them.

I don't think AW is going to change, at least not without significant media retraining. In fact, I don't think I'd want her to change. But I recognize that I'm in the minority here and that's ok.

[Fat Guy]

I'd just like to note (again) that many of us are objecting to both the messenger and the message.

[SobaAddict70]

On another board, someone mentioned that Jamie Oliver (JO) would be an acceptable AW-like figure without the perceived elitism.

It doesn't really matter to me who the messenger is as long as it gets people to a place where they care about what they're eating and where it comes from.

That's the only way that you'll see any sort of sustained change -- if people vote with their forks.

[andiesenji]

On another board, someone mentioned that Jamie Oliver (JO) would be an acceptable AW-like figure without the perceived elitism.

It doesn't really matter to me who the messenger is as long as it gets people to a place where they care about what they're eating and where it comes from.

That's the only way that you'll see any sort of sustained change -- if people vote with their forks.

←

I agree. And I still don't understand why so many people choose to ignore or misunderstand the true and factual message of Alice Waters.

When I met her some 35 years ago, she was still finding her feet but was passionate about using fresh, local where possible, foods in her fairly new restaurant.

It took her several years to get to the point where she could expand her vision and establish her foundation that has done a great deal to help people who want to pass on the message AND THE METHODS to the next generation.

She may come across as pedantic but she hasn't hired enormously expensive media coaches to groom her for the public because she prefers to put her money where it will do the most good and not for her personally.

And I particularly notice that she has not become an "empire" and opened restaurants all over the country (as have no many "celebrity" chefs) because she prefers to keep her vision within her own grasp and under her own control with just Chez Panisse and Fanny.

I give her a lot more credit than I do the "absentee chefs" who open restaurants and then only visit them twice a year, if then.

[djyee100]

My point is that when you're trying to teach somebody how to like something, not every one is immediately receptive. You and others here (it's not just you) are already on board. It's those who aren't but who might be, that someone like AW is really addressing.

So, the real question is: If I tell you that Beowulf is good for you and you should just accept that even if you're skeptical because I say that you should already have been pouring your time into when you were wasting your time watching tv, will you still be so curious and eager to think the thoughts I suggest? Probably not and that's the problem.

I agree. Thirty years ago I moved from the East Coast to SF. I was an impoverished grad student living on a stipend. When I began shopping at a local organic food co-op, I was shocked at the high prices for organic produce. In California, no less! I asked one of the co-op workers, How can people buy food at these prices? She replied, People should eat less.

That comment did not go over well.

Over the years, I've come to regard organic food more positively. IMO, it tastes better, it contains more nutrients, and it's less harmful to other plant and animal species from insecticides and herbicides. But it was the benefits of organic food, not somebody telling me how I should eat, that persuaded me. It seems to me that a wiser approach is to inform people of the benefits of organic food, and let people figure out their own choices.

(Postscript: Also, I've tried to listen to Seamus Heaney's audiobook of Beowolf, and couldn't get through it. )

[cinghiale]

I'd just like to note (again) that many of us are objecting to ... the message.

←

I guess I'm just not getting how the a scold who says, "You can choose to have your expensive shoes, your nightly DVD rental, your [insert other not-thought-through income-/environment-wasting expenses] and -- since corners must be cut in your home budget -- sacrifice food for that, or you can redirect some of that limited income to better sustenance," has an objectionable message.

I think it's wonderful that someone's gone on record as calling out those non-judgmental types who speak no ill of others at whatever cost.

[Mano]

Alice Waters is a big enough celebrity to go on 60 Minutes and give national interviews to further her cause. She's been in the public eye long enough to know how she comes across. Regardless of how "pure" she may be compared to other chefs some people here regard as sell-outs, the fact is that turns off a lot of people. It's naive to make excuses for her and insist that somehow the rest of us have to be better listeners so that we get her message.

Most weeks I listen to a locally produced PBS radio show, "You Bet Your Garden," hosted by Mike McGrath, who "offers fiercely organic advice to gardeners far and wide." A former editor-in-chief of Organic Gardening magazine, McGrath is fun to listen to. He acknowledges the efficacy of chemicals and the limits of organic gardening and gives me, at least, some good advise about how to go organic without too much cost or hassle. He comes across as a "regular Joe," while Waters comes across as a culinary Marie Antoinette.

As far as the message itself is concerned, I'm a bit on the fence. Some of Water's cooking methods, at least on 60 Minutes are inane and a bit insane. Growing your own is something my family enjoys particularly when it comes to heirloom tomatoes. But the goal of a self-sustaining household or small community is far fetched in today's world.

I like the idea of organically grown produce and animals that are raised on organic grains and grass. In fact, my wife buys organic whenever it's available in the supermarket and at Trader Joes. The 30 lbs. of grass fed beef we bought from a local farm last summer was very good. But to be honest, I'm not sure it's that much better than the good stuff that was there before. And I certainly don't know that it's worth the premium price.

I'm wondering if Waters and others who swear by "organic" and all it stands for are playing off a truism: "Organic is better for you and better for the environment."

I should also add that while living in California in the 1980's I worked as a prep cook at a restaurant that was inspired by AW's revolutionary "California Cuisine." In many ways I'm a fan of hers.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Mano (log)

[SobaAddict70]

Oh, I know how she comes across to people. I don't think I'm being naive at all.

Idealist perhaps. Stubborn definitely.

I can see that you have your perception, and I have mine so I think we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Besides, we're not AW's target market so it doesn't matter anyway.

But I can't help and mention a recent example, like from this weekend while I was at the farmers' market.

A fellow was showing off a bucket of fiddlehead ferns and people were stopping by, curious at the spectacle. You could tell that several people were interested but something kept them from delving further. Could it have been the price? Those ferns were selling for $8/lb. Could it have been the pre-cooking prep involved? Because you can't just toss them into a saute pan and call it a day. You have to get rid of the chaff and possibly rinse them in a couple changes of water. Could it have been other factors, like maybe a lack of desire or knowledge about cooking? That's entirely possible, as this isn't a vegetable you normally see at the market so of course people aren't entirely familiar with them, as opposed to say, artichokes.

It could have been any number of things, or perhaps people were just interested merely because it was an unusual sight. It's not an every day sort of occurrence.

Well, maybe that was a bad example.

There have been times where I'm at the market, and it could be Jerusalem artichokes, or purple potatoes or my perennial spring favorite, ramps. Or something as mundane as squash or flounder. People are clearly interested in wanting to cook and eat better, but the problem is that they don't know what to do with half the stuff and so consequently, not only don't they try, they don't broaden their experiences.

And we wonder why some people think that cooking (never mind AW) is something they can't fathom.

Edited May 12, 2009 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[Dignan]

I'd just like to note (again) that many of us are objecting to ... the message.

←

I guess I'm just not getting how the a scold who says, "You can choose to have your expensive shoes, your nightly DVD rental, your [insert other not-thought-through income-/environment-wasting expenses] and -- since corners must be cut in your home budget -- sacrifice food for that, or you can redirect some of that limited income to better sustenance," has an objectionable message.

I think it's wonderful that someone's gone on record as calling out those non-judgmental types who speak no ill of others at whatever cost.

←

This is a good example of the problem. "As my intention is virtuous in my opinion, how could you possibly disagree with it." It permeates current events.

Or maybe not. I don't understand your last sentiment.

[Fat Guy]

On the evening of 14 May there was a panel in Hartford that included Waters, Bourdain and Duff the Ace of Cakes guy. I haven't seen a lot of detailed reporting on it, but here's something from the Hartford paper. Did anybody attend, or does anybody have access to a transcript or something?

[slkinsey]

Over the years, I've come to regard organic food more positively. IMO, it tastes better, it contains more nutrients, and it's less harmful to other plant and animal species from insecticides and herbicides. But it was the benefits of organic food, not somebody telling me how I should eat, that persuaded me. It seems to me that a wiser approach is to inform people of the benefits of organic food, and let people figure out their own choices.

As I've mentioned before in other threads, "organic" doesn't necessarily mean any of these things. An organic farmer can practice intensive, non-sustainable agriculture and use any number of pesticides, fungicides, fertilizers, etc. so long as those things are all "organic." In the United States, for example, an organic farmer can use copper sulfate. Copper sulfate has been banned in Europe because it is a permanent soil contaminant that has high toxicity for both humans and fish. But it is organic.

Similarly, as pointed out in this article at Huffington Post:

. . . organic may not mean the food is better for you. Organic may not mean the animal was treated right. Organic may, in fact, be little more than a sweet notion and marketing campaign that rests easy the hearts of the eco-conscious consumer. Organic, in other words, is not always the right choice. Sorry, but it's true.

Personally, I have always felt that small farmer was far more important than organic, although I recognize that boutique small farmers will never be able to grow enough food to feed this country, and that we need to figure out ways to do large-scale industrial farming and raising of livestock in a more responsible and ethical way.

Oh, I know how she comes across to people.  I don't think I'm being naive at all.

Idealist perhaps.  Stubborn definitely. 

I can see that you have your perception, and I have mine so I think we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I think that some of this can be a matter of cutting Alice some slack because she's preaching to the choir, and in this instance you're the choir. To a certain extent, she's preaching to the choir to me as well, and I don't find her personally all that annoying to me, but putting myself into someone else's shoes, I can understand how she might be to them.

I have some experience with this sort of thing myself. I am a lifelong performer and consumer of classical music, and I believe that our society would be a lot better if the arts were a larger part of our educational curriculum and everyday lives. I also believe that, as a culture, the popular music and art that most of us consume is pablum, and not only reflective of but contributing to, in a vicious cycle, the dumbing-down of our society and our cultural lives. At the same time, I recognize that, as much as I believe it would make our society better for people to listen to Radiohead less and Benjamin Britten more, I'm not going to accomplish much by telling people that if they stopped spending so much money on Nikes and start spending on tickets to the Metropolitan Opera, they would figure out that Kanye West (or whoever) is crap, and would improve their cultural lives -- despite the fact that I actually believe this is true. And, believe me, I could easily make some "Alice Waters-style" comments about the musical listening choices of most of the people who participate in these forums that would make you feel like I was talking down to you and turn you all off to my message just as much as Waters can with the way she expresses her message sometimes. Meanwhile, plenty of my like-minded colleagues in the world of classical music wouldn't see any reason why people might be turned off at my plainspoken statement of something that is not only self-evident but also aimed at "helping these people be better."

[docsconz]

Over the years, I've come to regard organic food more positively. IMO, it tastes better, it contains more nutrients, and it's less harmful to other plant and animal species from insecticides and herbicides. But it was the benefits of organic food, not somebody telling me how I should eat, that persuaded me. It seems to me that a wiser approach is to inform people of the benefits of organic food, and let people figure out their own choices.

As I've mentioned before in other threads, "organic" doesn't necessarily mean any of these things. An organic farmer can practice intensive, non-sustainable agriculture and use any number of pesticides, fungicides, fertilizers, etc. so long as those things are all "organic." In the United States, for example, an organic farmer can use copper sulfate. Copper sulfate has been banned in Europe because it is a permanent soil contaminant that has high toxicity for both humans and fish. But it is organic.

Similarly, as pointed out in this article at Huffington Post:

. . . organic may not mean the food is better for you. Organic may not mean the animal was treated right. Organic may, in fact, be little more than a sweet notion and marketing campaign that rests easy the hearts of the eco-conscious consumer. Organic, in other words, is not always the right choice. Sorry, but it's true.

Personally, I have always felt that small farmer was far more important than organic, although I recognize that boutique small farmers will never be able to grow enough food to feed this country, and that we need to figure out ways to do large-scale industrial farming and raising of livestock in a more responsible and ethical way.

Oh, I know how she comes across to people.  I don't think I'm being naive at all.

Idealist perhaps.  Stubborn definitely. 

I can see that you have your perception, and I have mine so I think we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I think that some of this can be a matter of cutting Alice some slack because she's preaching to the choir, and in this instance you're the choir. To a certain extent, she's preaching to the choir to me as well, and I don't find her personally all that annoying to me, but putting myself into someone else's shoes, I can understand how she might be to them.

I have some experience with this sort of thing myself. I am a lifelong performer and consumer of classical music, and I believe that our society would be a lot better if the arts were a larger part of our educational curriculum and everyday lives. I also believe that, as a culture, the popular music and art that most of us consume is pablum, and not only reflective of but contributing to, in a vicious cycle, the dumbing-down of our society and our cultural lives. At the same time, I recognize that, as much as I believe it would make our society better for people to listen to Radiohead less and Benjamin Britten more, I'm not going to accomplish much by telling people that if they stopped spending so much money on Nikes and start spending on tickets to the Metropolitan Opera, they would figure out that Kanye West (or whoever) is crap, and would improve their cultural lives -- despite the fact that I actually believe this is true. And, believe me, I could easily make some "Alice Waters-style" comments about the musical listening choices of most of the people who participate in these forums that would make you feel like I was talking down to you and turn you all off to my message just as much as Waters can with the way she expresses her message sometimes. Meanwhile, plenty of my like-minded colleagues in the world of classical music wouldn't see any reason why people might be turned off at my plainspoken statement of something that is not only self-evident but also aimed at "helping these people be better."

←

Beautifully thought and written response as usual, Sam, the difference between your music analogy and food is that everyone has to eat to live, but not everyone has to listen to music to live.

[Fat Guy]

Yes, everyone has to eat to live. So the bigger difference is that if we switched worldwide from pop music to classical music then nobody would be hurt by it. We'd just have better music. Whereas, if we switched worldwide from industrial agriculture to small-scale farming we'd probably have to kill off a significant portion of the world's population to make that work, or at least compel global vegetarianism at gunpoint to prevent widespread famine.

[slkinsey]

Beautifully thought and written response as usual, Sam, the difference between your music analogy and food is that everyone has to eat to live, but not everyone has to listen to music to live.

Grazie, Dottore.

I'm not sure that makes a meaningful difference in the example I'm making. Everyone eats and virtually everyone in our society listens to music. It's a question of trying to change habits and expose people to new ways of being not only for their individual good but for the good of society as a whole, and what kinds of messages and ways of expressing those messages are likely to be taken in a way that makes the listener more receptive as opposed to less receptive.

Edited May 16, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[paulraphael]

Sam, I agree on general principle, but have to say that my friends who are classical musicians would (and do) cringe at the notion that Benjamin Britten has some innate musical or cultural superiority over, say, Radiohead.

It strikes me a bit like the belief that haute cuisine is somehow superior to regional cuisine, when in my experience there are inspiring and disappointing examples of each.

I tend to agree with Alex Ross, music critic at the New Yorker on the general issue.

And on Radiohead.

[Chris Amirault]

A telling quotation from the Hartford event worth noting:

Alice Waters, the only guest who is neither on television nor a culinary school graduate, said she doesn't watch television. She proceeded to envision a celebrity show to her liking: one that educated viewers about food simply and effectively. "Like Mr. Rogers," said Waters.

That speaks volumes for why she drives some people crazy, I'd say.

[Mano]

A telling quotation from the Hartford event worth noting:

Alice Waters, the only guest who is neither on television nor a culinary school graduate, said she doesn't watch television. She proceeded to envision a celebrity show to her liking: one that educated viewers about food simply and effectively. "Like Mr. Rogers," said Waters.

That speaks volumes for why she drives some people crazy, I'd say.

←

Mr. Rogers went for the heart. In comparison Alice Waters goes for the jugular, or perhaps a parochial school nun dragging you along by the ear.

But on a personal note, if not for her I never would have learned long-forgotten skills of making ice cream and sausage from scratch.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Mano (log)

[docsconz]

Yes, everyone has to eat to live. So the bigger difference is that if we switched worldwide from pop music to classical music then nobody would be hurt by it. We'd just have better music. Whereas, if we switched worldwide from industrial agriculture to small-scale farming we'd probably have to kill off a significant portion of the world's population to make that work, or at least compel global vegetarianism at gunpoint to prevent widespread famine.

←

That is a possibility though certainly not a given. Another possibility is that a failure in large scale monoclonal industrial agriculture could lead to massive famine and starvation. Failures could be due to any number of reasons including for example pesticide resistant insects, viruses,etc. perhaps the greatest advantage of small scale agriculture is a greater preservation of biodiversity making those large scale die-offs more unlikely.

It is sheer hubris to think that science can and will stay a step ahead of any eventuality. The more narrowly we focus our food supply (that is what large-scale industrial agriculture does), the more likely we will be subject to some catastrophic occurrence, not to mention the more likely it becomes that we lose valuable food items from a gustatory point of view, which is a separate point.

[Busboy]

Having already expressed my devotion to the principles espoused by Alice and my annoyance at the messenger, I feel obligated to post comments by the anti-Alice, who is, in every respect, worse than she is. http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/2009/05...-teen-ass-play/

[maggiethecat]

A telling quotation from the Hartford event worth noting:

Alice Waters, the only guest who is neither on television nor a culinary school graduate, said she doesn't watch television. She proceeded to envision a celebrity show to her liking: one that educated viewers about food simply and effectively. "Like Mr. Rogers," said Waters.

That speaks volumes for why she drives some people crazy, I'd say.

←

Mr. Rogers went for the heart. In comparison Alice Waters goes for the jugular, or perhaps a parochial school nun dragging you along by the ear.

But on a personal note, if not for her I never would have learned long-forgotten skills of making ice cream and sausage from scratch.

←

Hmmmmm. I like your concept of Alice being a knuckle-whacking nun. I think you may have put your finger perfectly on the reason for the backlash. But I'm gonna hang my neck out over the cutting board once again: As a woman, I think a lot of the reason for the backlash is not because of the God-sent message, but because it's being delivered by a middle-aged woman in a beret, kinda like Sister Immaculata, if Alice had taken orders -- unlikely, given her amatory past.

I like your personal note too. If I had a wad of bucks, Trotter's might not be my first Chicago restaurant choice, but his Lime Caramel Ice Cream recipe continues to rock my world. As I said a mile up topic, a famous guy chef would have been lauded for the things Alice is doing. Everyone gives Oliver, White, Brown, Ramsey Hugh Whoozit the benefit of the doubt. I believe that if Alice Waters was a man we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[SobaAddict70]

A telling quotation from the Hartford event worth noting:

Alice Waters, the only guest who is neither on television nor a culinary school graduate, said she doesn't watch television. She proceeded to envision a celebrity show to her liking: one that educated viewers about food simply and effectively. "Like Mr. Rogers," said Waters.

That speaks volumes for why she drives some people crazy, I'd say.

←

Not sure how that speaks volumes. Explain?

FR encapsulated value-laden messages on his show in an effective manner towards his intended audience -- children.

She's not advocating that we be treated like children, but rather that whatever message is transmitted be conveyed in a way that communicates effectively to the people who need to hear it most.

I don't see her imposing her will on anyone. People will do whatever they want until they experience an epiphany or hell freezes over, whichever comes first.

Edited May 17, 2009 by SobaAddict70 (log)