In a seperate related article that came out today for AP, you are referenced and quoted as follows:

"Tom O'Neil, a columnist specializing in awards coverage for the Los Angeles Times' "The Envelope" Web site, has pondered whether "Ratatouille" — which he calls the best reviewed movie of the year — is the equivalent of "Beauty and the Beast," only it had to deal with the specialized category.

"Is this a case where it's penalized and ghettoized because there's a separate category for animated fare?" O'Neill said. "It seems to have the same respect in the industry and among film critics as `Beauty and the Best.'""

As an long-time ex-Disney creative employee (Disney Publishing Worldwide) who was around for "Beauty and the Beast", "The Lion King", as well as "Toy Story" and all of the rest of the Pixar properties through "The Incredibles", I have also pondered the same as you, and have come up with the following answer:

The Academy has to put "Ratatouille" in the Best Animated Film category, otherwise what would be the point of having a seperate category for animated features (this point can also be pondered and debated additionally, as many have and still are).

Having said that, I believe that the Academy is giving "Ratatouille" the same kind of respect and nod that it gave "Beauty and the Beast", by also nominating Brad Bird for Best Original Screenplay.

After following the Oscars for over the last twenty years, I have come to the conclusion that there are few organizations (other than perhaps Disney itself) that are more political, and whose actions and lack of action are more shrouded in mystery and intrigue (unless they feel you are infringing on their copyright or trying to buy and Oscar statue), so this type of gesture is completely within their scope and their style.

Tim Lewis
Burbank, CA