The back-and-forth intransigence between Republicans' in Congress and President Obama over such polarized issues like health care and deficit reduction must seem to many like watching Kennedy and Khrushchev square off eyeball-to-eyeball during the Cuban missile crisis; which side will blink first?

With Scott Brown soon to become the 41st Republican in the U.S. Senate, and as a result, ending the Democrats' supermajority, more gridlock is expected to set in, unless someone works some magic awfully soon--leading many to wonder whether any bipartisanship is possible with the 111th Congress?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word ``gridlock'' was first used in Paul Theroux's 1981 novel ``Mosquito Coast'' (``I tell you Charlie, it's an imperfect world, America's in gridlock''). The Financial Times caught onto the word two years later when on May 2, 1983 they wrote: ``The political `gridlock' in Congress might mean that no budget resolution could be passed for fiscal year of 1984.''

Since then, ``gridlock'' has become a common term to describe Congress locked into a stalemate over passing any legislation.

Though Democrats and Republicans in the present 111th Congress have reached agreement during the financial crisis on areas affecting the tumbling economy, such as with the stimulus bill and banking reform, other areas, more ideological, like health care and deficit reduction have run into choppy waters, with both sides refusing to give an inch.

Voices from the right say jittery voters are at odds with Democrats and health care reform, along with their recklessness in running up the deficits to alarming heights, while voices from the left say Republicans just want to run out the clock on the Obama administration, and deny him a historic legislative victory with midterm elections scheduled for the end of the year.

Was this what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, making it virtually impossible for drastic reform to take place with a bicameral legislature?

It sure looks that way.

According to Sarah A. Binder's book ``Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock'', ``James Madison bequeathed to us a political system designed not to work, a government of sharply limited powers.'' Binder goes on to write the Framers had a profound appreciation for gridlock, designing a system that would in fact guarantee gridlock.

Other legal scholars point out the gridlock component of the Constitution is there to hold legislators accountable to the changing mood of voters over public policy.

With the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress and a popular president in the same party, why hasn't the 111th Congress been able to seal the deal on health care reform?

On reason for this may be attributed to the fact that most Democrats are on one extreme, Republicans on other far end, without any coalition from both parties occupying the center.

Congressional scholars, for example, point to the 83th Congress (1953-55) during the Eisenhower administration, when Republicans' held a single-vote majority in the Senate and less than a dozen in the House. Those on the right were able to come together with a large bloc in the middle, leaving those on the far left with little leverage. This centrist Congress successfully passed a Social Security Expansion Act, the Housing Act of 1954, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Agriculture Act of 1954, and the Communist Control Act of 1954, which banned the Communist party, a move spearheaded by the Democratic Party.

As Charles M. Cameron writes in ``Veto Bargaining'' ``Southern Democrats, moderate Democrats, and liberal-progressive Republicans could find a working majority to support the creation of national infrastructure, the development of national resources, and anticommunism abroad and at home.''

Despite being saddled with a Republican Congress, Harry Truman during the 80th Congress was able to build a bipartisan foreign policy coalition in containing communism and rebuilding Europe through the Marshall Plan.

And the most recent example of a bipartisanship at its best came when the Republicans, running under the banner of ``Contract with America'' won control of Congress during in 1994, in one of the largest midterm gains since 1946, which added 52 GOP seats to the House, while capturing eight seats in the Senate.

In 1996, the Clinton White House and a Republican controlled House of Representatives found it in their best interest to agree on important legislation rather then lock horns in an ideological stalemate. It was in 1996, remember, when Welfare Reform was passed, the line-item veto was passed, as was the Anti-Terrorist Act, the Health Insurance Portability Act, Immigration Reform, as well as Telecommunications Reform.

David Mahew, professor of Political Science at Yale University, points out the Republicans don't exactly hold a monopoly on acting like obstructionists or being labeled the party of no.

``Party polarization, Mayhew writes in an email, has been the norm for at least twenty years, especially in the House''. ``I don't see the Republicans as being especially responsible for this. Both parties have a large paw print on it''

Mayhew in his 1993 book: ``Divided We Govern'' argues it matters little whether one party controls the White House and Congress. Historic legislative innovation has been accomplished in both unified and divided control. What usually leads to successful legislation being passed, according to Mayhew, is the shift of political moods guiding policy, along with the rise of issues that cut across ideological differences.

Binder echoes this sentiment in her article ``Elections and Congress's Governing Capacity'' when she writes: `` our political system requires broad, and usually bipartisan, coalitions to adopt major policy change--coalitions that are easier to build when legislators occupy the political center.''

Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute tells me last June, only 37 percent of independents disapproved of President Obama. In January of this year, by comparison, 48 percent of independent voters now disapprove of Mr. Obama's performance.

This might suggest that it matters little if Democrats control both the White House and Congress; if they're losing the center of the country, their majority is a fragile one unless some kind of bipartisanship begins filling the air.

The only question is: who will blink first?

-Bill Lucey
WPLucey@gmail.com

***
Productive Congresses:

• The 80th Congress (1947-48) was the most productive Congress, when Democrat Harry Truman was in the White House and the Republicans controlled the Congress. During this period, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley act, (an anti-union rollback of the Wagner Act); approved aid to Greece and Turkey, passed the National Security Act of 1947 (when military branches of government became unified under one Defense Secretary), passed the 22nd Amendment, (limiting the president to two-terms), passed the Marshall Plan (European Recovery Plan), passed an income tax cut (over Truman's veto), and passed the Water Pollution Act of 1948.

• Another highly productive Congress was the 88th Congress (1963-64), with Democrat John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson in the White House and a Democratic controlled Congress. During this period, the followings bills passed: the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was ratified, aid to medical schools (student loans, buildings), Clean Air Act of 1963, Equal Pay Act of 1963 (outlawing gender discrimination), Civil Rights Act of 1964, (banning discrimination in public accommodations), Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (LBJ's anti-poverty program), JFK's tax cut (to spur economic growth), the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, and the Food Stamp Act of 1964.

• The last Congress to coalesce and pass major legislation came with the 89th Congress (1965-66) during Johnson's ``Great Society''. Bills passed during the period, included: Medical Care for the Aged, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD was established); regional medical centers for cancer, disease, stroke in the form of federal grants, Immigration Reform (ended quotas), the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities was established, Higher Education of 1965, (scholarships and insured loans for college students), Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1965, Department of Transportation established, Air pollution control (aid to states and locales), and a minimum wage increase.

Source: ``Divided We Govern'', by David R. Mahew

The president acknowledges that healthcare negotiations have fallen short of his standard for openness. He says it was a 'messy process.'

One casualty of President Obama's first year in office: the notion that he would transform a political system mired in gridlock and secrecy, opening a window to the legislative process.

"That was sweet," Roger Federer said to Wayne McEwan, tournament referee, shortly after subduing Andy Murray 6-3, 6-4, 7-6(11) in two hours and 41 minutes on Rod Laver arena last night.

With the victory, Raja wins his fourth Australian Open crown and his 16th Slam title, moving his championship accomplishments into a higher stratosphere.

Reuters

As peytonallen commented:

What else can you say about Federer? He played great. He missed the Grand Slam last year by a few games. With Rafa on walkabout, and Fed already slaying his French demons its [sic] not unrealistic to follow this story. Especially when his rivals continue to fall.

The man is approaching 29 and he's proving to be in superior shape against everyone else on tour. When was the last time this guy sprained an ankle? To be this age in his tennis career and not really miss any time for injuries is remarkable. I used to doubt his boasts that he could go into his mid-30s, but really he looks just as fresh now as he did at 22.

I think its [sic] impossible to pick a greatest player of all-time, only the greatest of his era, or the greatest 'careers.' Fed is having a career no other male player dared dream. He's 2 slams away from tying [Chris] Evert and Martina [Navratilova]. A player on the ATP could have 18 slams. Laughable. If he gets there by the US Open, wouldn't his attention have to turn to the all-time record, men and women's? Which is, what? 22? I'm being lazy and not looking but he's not stopping.

The Fed storyline in the last year has really come out of a comic book alternative universe plot. After looking mentally broken from the first part of the year after the [Rafael] Nadal defeat his biggest rival, a man some were ready to proclaim as the better player goes down with injury and mental fatigue. The result has been Federer's wonderland.

I wonder if whoever is writing this decides its [sic] time to reintroduce the Nadal character into the storyline? I know many of the book's readers think so.

I love it when someone else does my work.

For me, I hoped the match would go five sets, but I always believed it would be over in three. Thus, the "ass on a silver runner-up platter" prediction. The outcome was just never in doubt. Yes, Murray put up a fight to not go down two breaks of serve in the second set. Yes, Murray played some great tennis to get a break midway though the second set, but it took a string of errors from Raja to even get the chance. Yes, the 24-point tiebreak was dramatic, with the outcome of the set in doubt as the score teetered from set point to championship point.

But the outcome of the match was never in doubt. Even if Murray had won the tiebreak, we knew Raja would win the fourth. Even when Murray served for the third set at 5-3, we knew he wouldn't close.

Reuters

Why? Because despite all the childish and brotherly mind games the players indulged in before the match, Murray openly admitted that he's not trying to win Slams for himself. Despite my belief that he simply doesn't possess the requisite weaponry to win a Slam, there's simply no way the mindset expressed in this exchange is going to produce a champion.

Q. Is there any extra motivation for you to know that you could be the one to break a long Grand Slam drought for Britain?

ANDY MURRAY: Yeah, I mean, I'd obviously love to do it. It's not really the only reason, you know, that I want to win a slam. I want to win it, you know, obviously for the people that I work with, for my parents and stuff, who obviously helped me when I was growing up, then doing it for British tennis and British sport would be excellent, as well.

But, you know, the pressure that I feel doesn't come from the people that are around me. They obviously are happy with anything that I do. But, you know, I want to win for them first.

It's one thing to read this exchange, it was quite another to witness it on television. Murray's body language and countenance betrayed a sense of resignation. I suppose living your life for other people and not (yet?) being able to find the desire to live for yourself can produce the demeanor he displayed during this exchange.

If Murray is to prove me wrong and mature to a point where he can actually play for himself, develop some weapons, and win a Slam, he's going to need to extract himself from the mental war he's allowed Raja to draw him into. He's going to need to do what Mats Wilander hoped and not "give a shit about Britian."

As for Raja. Having claimed his first major as a father, I suspect he'll win many more. One of his new stated goals is to hoist a trophy when his twin girls are old enough to appreciate their father's triumph. We have no reason to believe he won't stay healthy long enough to achieve it. And we know if Andre Agassi was still contesting major titles into his thirties, Raja will also be motivated to improve upon that by actually winning them.

For now, it's up to Juan Martin del Potro and Rafael Nadal to stop him.

Reuters

Getty

To read more visit Craig Hickman's Tennis Blog

More on Tennis

Another piece of Ted Kennedy's dream of universal health care may be lost in the compromise meat grinder that has produced a deformed, complicated, top heavy and unpopular pro-insurance company bill-his proposal to begin building, for the first time, a civilized policy for the long term care of millions of elderly and disabled Americans.

First, the apparent loss of a strong public Medicare-like choice among the insurance options, included in Kennedy's bill, will likely mean that private insurers won't offer younger workers and aging boomers long term care insurance at an affordable price. Only a few employers, including the federal government, offers such policies.

But more specifically, there is doubt that Kennedy's measure, called the CLASS Act (for Community Living Assistance Services and Support) will survive in the health reform legislation strong enough to be any good. The CLASS Act, though far from adequate, would provide for workers to voluntarily contribute to individual accounts that eventually would pay part (perhaps $100 a day) of the cost of their long term care. Some suggest this should be mandatory.

It would be the first, small step towards a public program to eventually provide long term care for every American who needs it. Naturally, it is opposed by long term care insurers and their allies among Republicans and conservative Democrats who worry more about the bottom line than people's well-being. So far, the proposal does not have a high priority among advocates of health care reform, including the White House, for they're concentrating their efforts on the 47 million middle and working class people, mostly young, who are without basic health coverage.

Yet AARP said years ago that the lack of a long term care policy was the nation's "greatest unmet health care need." And little has changed. Just as the young don't plan for the infirmities of age, it's easy for policy makers to ignore the needs of elderly American couples facing the terrible time when one or the other needs long term nursing care-at home or in an institutional setting.

It didn't have to be that way. President Obama, mistakenly, I think, abandoned his own earlier views and refused, from the beginning, to consider the long-standing congressional proposals by the two most senior House members-Michigan Democrats John Dingell (1955) and John Conyers (1965)-to provide Medicare for All. It would have gradually eliminated the costs of health insurance, which, along with payroll taxes would have financed universal health care including long term care. See http://www.johnconyers.com/hr676text

But Obama, who has since retreated on the public option, said the country was not ready for Medicare for All, despite advice to the contrary from his own Chicago-area doctors. But I doubt he even read the Dingell or Conyers bills, nor did most interested Americans, for as I've written, most of the main stream press blacked out these single-payer proposals for months while the debate was taking shape. The Washington Post ignored these bills. Even the Kaiser Family Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund and AARP, declined to include the proposals in their discussions on the grounds that they did not have a chance to pass, thus guaranteeing that their self-fulfilling prophecy would be fulfilled.

But I have digressed, for I meant to emphasize that among the biggest gaps in Medicare coverage-which many older Americans don't realize--is that it does not cover long term nursing care. After a three-day hospital stay, Medicare will cover-with high co-payments to be paid by the beneficiary or his/her supplemental insurance-up to 100 days in a skilled nursing facility for rehabilitation, say for a hip replacement or to recover from an accident. And that's all.

If your partner, spouse or loved one needs long term care, meaning help with what are called the "activities of daily living," or ADLs, such as bathing and dressing, Medicare will only help pay for medical needs. I repeat, for nursing care, at home or in an institutional settling, there is no rational, national public program for the long term care of the elderly. In this America is alone among most of the countries of Europe; we say we venerate the aged, but our policy doesn't reflect that.

There is long term care insurance, but the cost for a 65-year-old is hardly affordable, at about $3,000 a year-if he or he has no illnesses and can qualify. The long term care insurance industry exhorts workers to buy when they are young, and the cost is relatively inexpensive.

But chances are a person will pay the premiums for 25 years and never use the policy; less than one in three need long term care and nursing home stays are relatively short. A long term insurance policy usually has limits, in dollar amounts or the length of stay. And as an investment it sucks, for unless you spend considerably more, there is no surrender value. If you don't use it, you lose the thousands you've spent.

In addition, many insurers raise the premiums when the beneficiary is old and can least afford it. No surprisingly some drop their policies. Several insurers have changed hands, or they have sought to save money by challenging claims, when the beneficiary is at a disadvantage seeking to appeal. Most of the very old in nursing homes tend to be widows. And despite inflation riders in some policies (which cost more), many do not keep up with the cost of a nursing home, now averaging between $79,000 and $125,000 a year-depending on where you live.

The Bush administration and Republican congresses, which rejected any public long term care program, have sought to encourage the purchase of long term care insurance by allowing people to deduct portions of the premiums as part of their medical costs. They've even encouraged people to take out reverse mortgages on their homes or sell their life insurance policies to finance long term care policies.

But more important, the last Republican led congresses have sought to make it more difficult for the middle and working class elderly to use the only public program that has become a vehicle for long term care-Medicaid. It may be demeaning for families and couples to turn to welfare to get long term nursing care for a loved one, but it has been the only alternative for millions of the elderly.

Medicaid, passed around the same time as Medicare, is a federal program, administered by the states, that provides comprehensive medical care, including medicines, for the poor-people whose incomes are beneath or just above the official poverty line. But over the years, with the help of elder lawyers, families have found that with planning, they can "spend down" the savings of a loved one, impoverishing him or her, to get long term nursing care. That's called "Medicaid planning," and it has become an elder law specialty.

A few years ago, at the behest of the long term care insurance industry, the Republican congress made Medicaid planning a crime, but the "granny goes to jail" attempt was unenforceable and dropped. Nevertheless, the congress has since made it tougher to take advantage of Medicaid, requiring, for example, that a beneficiary wait five years and exhaust his/her savings before becoming eligible for Medicaid in a nursing home.

Thus you are poor, but have worked most of your life, Medicaid long term care is a blessing, but it means spending your last days on welfare. And even those funds are being cut by many states hard-hit by the recession. Nursing homes by law may not discriminate between the paying and Medicaid patients, but they do. And fewer doctors will take Medicaid patients because compensation rates are low.

Among couples or families with modest nest eggs, their problem is how to avoid impoverishing the spouses (most are women) who remain at home when a loved one must be sent to a nursing home. Under the arcane law, the spouse may keep half the couple's assets up to around $109,000 (not counting the home, a car and the spouse's personal IRAs, if any.). In addition, the spouse is limited to a monthly allowance of up to $2,739 a month-not a lot to pay for food and other bills, taxes and upkeep on the home, while looking after a husband in nursing care.

Some states allow the spouse to refuse to pay any bills for his/her loved one in nursing care, and keep all their next egg, if any. That means that a wife must sign an affidavit abandoning financial responsibility for the father of her children. But even then, hard-up states can and do sue to get the Medicaid money back from women whose savings are diminishing. I've gone at length into this thicket, to demonstrate that middle-class families, as well as working couples, who have been the backbone of American society, are obliged to scheme and, yes, cheat and give up their savings and dignity to get loved ones on welfare to obtain long term nursing care. That is how America treats millions of its older citizens.

A few year ago a woman, a former gym teacher in the New York public schools, told me that she had just put her husband in a nursing home because he was suffering from rapidly advancing Parkinson's. A lawyer helped her impoverish him to get him on Medicaid. After years of hard work in the garment industry, he was on welfare and she hoped, with her teacher's pension, and their savings, she would have enough to live on for the rest of her days..

"Who knew we would live this long?" She lamented. Little has changed in the years since. And now, with all the talk of health reform, there will be no long term care and few seem to care.

Write saulfriedman@comcast.net . Friedman also writes for www.timegoesby.net

.

Newly elected Senator Scott Brown deflected discussion of running for president in 2012 but didn't give a Sherman-esque denial either during an appearance on ABC's 'This Week.'

"I have to tell you. I don't even have a business card," the Massachusetts Republican said. "I haven't even been sworn in. And it is very humbling and flattering but my job is to do the best possible job I can, very quickly -- hopefully sooner rather than later -- to represent the people of Massachusetts."

In an interview that touched the entire political waterfront, Brown discussed everything from "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (he wants to hear from the generals before weighing in on repeal) to his nude photo-spread in Cosmopolitan Magazine several decades ago.

On former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Brown said he did believe she had the capacity to hold the office of the president.

"I mean she's been a mayor and a governor and has a national following," he said. "But I think the more people in a presidential race the better. The caveat to that is I never met her. She's never contacted us and vice-versa. I know she's very popular and has a new book out. I haven't read it and hope to someday."

On abortion policy, he acknowledged that he still was a supporter of Roe v. Wade, though wanted to make it more difficult for abortions to tale place. "I feel this issue is best handled between a woman and her doctor and her family," he said. "And on the marriage issue that you brought up, it's settled here in Massachusetts, but I believe that states should have the ability to determine their own destiny and the government should not be interfering with individual states' rights on issues that they deal with on a daily basis."

And on health care reform, he insisted that the entire package should be shelved in favor of a more transparent and open process.

"I think it was on its last legs before I even got elected," he said, "because the Democrats even were upset at the backroom deals, for example, in Nebraska. And they want a chance, I believe, based on just what I'm hearing -- and I can't -- I'm not going to quote anybody directly -- that to go back to the drawing board and do it in a transparent, bipartisan manner -- that's the big difference between Massachusetts and Washington."

I started my new 'Balanced Life' segments on the KTLA 5 television news show last year with what seemed like a 'Trial By Fire.' The subject chosen -- 'Why Sleeping Separately Can Be Good for Your Relationship' -- is one of the most controversial that I tend to speak out about. After all, I sleep separately from my husband of nearly seven years and have a fantastic relationship. So as this month's theme in 'Living' is about sleep, I of course, have to put in my two cents worth!

Let me, at least, set the scene for you. Imagine this: I am whisked out of the make up chair, to the guest chair about one minute before being on. One of the anchors says something like "This sleeping separately business is crazy!" Then the director shouts "Camera two" and that is that, we are live. I have no idea where camera two was, so if you do watch it you might notice me swinging 'round looking for a label!

Oh, and the look on my face, well that is actually the realization, in that moment, that this is not going to be the gentle chit chat that I expected -- more like the Spanish Inquisition. As an aside though, I finished the segment and one of the crew whispered in my ear. "Thank you for being on the show Sophie, I have slept separately from my wife for 21 years and we have a fantastic relationship."

So keep in mind this 'sleeping separately' business isn't for everyone. It certainly isn't for you if you sleep beautifully with your partner and you are brilliantly compatible while you are asleep. However, if there is any form of incompatibility -- they snore, hog the sheets or keep you up in any other way -- and you have tried everything to remedy the situation, then maybe you might want to think of sleeping in separate rooms.

Even as newly weds, my husband and I slept separately, due to incompatible sleep habits. He needs only five hours sleep, is up quite a bit through the night and snores very loudly. I, on the other hand, am a very light and quiet sleeper and need eight hours rest. With our differences we knew that there was a potential huge problem very early on in our relationship and even though it took us time to get used to it, we decided that sleeping apart was the best long-term solution. Most people believe that if you have separate rooms it must mean that you are probably not having sex. But that, from my experience, is absolutely not true at all. Sleeping separately did not bring the passion out of the relationship. On the contrary, I actually think that it quite possibly enhanced it. So if you haven't read them before or need a refresher, here are my top nine positive aspects to sleeping separately.

1. Well, obviously you have no one next to you who is snoring. You can get to sleep without interruption and will not be woken in the middle of the night!

2. You are free to turn the light on or off when you want, at any time, without worrying about disturbing anyone else and thinking of their needs.

3. If you wake in the middle of the night you can do what you like to do when you can't sleep, whether it is to watch movies, read, go on line, listen to music, write etc. Whatever you do, there will be no one to complain about it.

4. If you're tidy, there is no one to make the room messy and conflict with your orderly tendencies. If you're messy, you don't have anyone on your back to tell you to clean up.

5. You can have your own space in the house where you can withdraw at any time and have some peace to yourself when you need it.

6. It is the one room in the house that you don't need a consensus. You can express yourself as you please and decorate your space in your own style, without having to compromise.

7. You can have the room the temperature that you like. Or Hog the duvet to yourself, without anyone pulling it away from you and kick the sheets off when you're hot.

8. You can romantically 'visit' each other's room and jump in to each other's beds in the morning and at night to connect. When it is time to sleep one of you will withdraw in to their own room.

9. You will become even more conscious about how much sex you need and are having. This can actually be a good thing, as you can both make sure that you make time to get both your needs met.

Sleeping separately can initially take a lot of guts to try it out, because you have to dispel the belief that it is not good for your relationship or worry that others will think you that aren't in a good relationship or having sex. But all of this in time you will get over. The most important aspects to think about are is, what is best for your health? And what is best for the longevity of your relationship? Then make a joint decision from there.

If you would like to watch this or any other segments go to www.howhappyis.com. Where you will be able to sign up for the monthly newsletter, ask me questions, watch more videos and much more. Love Sophie x

More on Sleep

Whenever someone other than Disney wanted to make a Disney-like animated movie, they usually came to Don Bluth. After a long career at Disney, beginning with work on Sleeping Beauty (rating: 90) in 1959, in the late '70s, he made a series of movies with all the Disney design principles, that were often better than Disney's contemporary output, but, in my opinion, couldn't match the classic Disney magic. Still, he produced a remarkable number of contemporary classics in the two decades to follow: 1986's An American Tail, 1988's The Land Before Time, 1989's All Dogs Go to Heaven, and 1995's Anastasia (rating: 60).

The plot of The Secret of NIMH is an interesting mix of fantasy and realistic elements, as the title itself suggests. "NIMH" stands for "National Institute of Mental Health," a part of the human world surrounding the world that the fieldmice and other animal creatures uneasily occupy. The movie opens with the main character, Mrs. Brisby, seeking aid for her ailing son, Timothy. But it's almost harvest season, which means that the tractor is about to come destroy their field home, and she and her family will have to move with all the other field creatures to colder climes -- a journey that is sure to kill Timothy. In order to save her family, she'll need love, courage, help from some special rats, and a little bit of magic. It's based on the Newbery Award-winning book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH -- Frisby was changed to Brisby to avoid legal battles from the Frisbee toymakers -- and the plot is clearly the movie's strength. The movie is 82 minutes, and it ends not a moment too soon.

The Secret of NIMH, released in 1982, was his full length directorial debut, and it's got an extremely assured visual design, with Disney-esque character designs for all the woodland creatures, cute good guys and scary-looking bad guys. Video game designer Al Lowe once explained the Disney principles:

Character definitions are crystal clear. You always know who's what. People look exactly like what they are: bad people look evil and wear black. The hero looks good and wears light colors.

But as much as the look is right, the feel is off. Any given animated cel looks like pristine Disney. But perhaps because he has a smaller stable of animators, the animation itself tends to be much jerkier, less smooth and fluid. Thankfully, it's not a totally star-laden cast (one of the detractions from Anastasia), but there are a few recognizable names, including the great Derek Jacobi as rat leader Nicodemus and John Carradine as the Great Owl. Two of the child characters are voiced by Shannen Doherty and Wil Wheaton, before they became stars. The comic relief, Jeremy the crow, looks like a Disney animal pal, but as voiced by Dom DeLuise, he's so annoying that he would have been better left on the cutting floor. The score, by Jerry Goldsmith, is by turns overly bombastic and strangely absent. The whole movie seems just a half-step out of tune.

Of course, I'm reviewing this movie as an adult who had never seen it before. It's still a good kids' movie -- it's a beautiful-looking film with a great story that's over in less than an hour and a half. Children will certainly still enjoy it. It just doesn't hold up as well for adults.

Rating: 65

Crossposted from Remingtonstein.

SAN DIEGO — Phil Mickelson hinted at legal action Saturday for being accused of "cheating," saying that if the PGA Tour did not do something about him being "publicly slandered," then he would let others handle it.

Mickelson didn't mention Scott McCarron by name in a series of interviews after his third round at Torrey Pines.

McCarron was quoted in The San Francisco Chronicle on Friday as saying about Mickelson using the Ping-Eye 2 wedges with square grooves, "It's cheating, and I'm appalled Phil has put it in play."

The USGA has a new rule this year that irons have V-shaped grooves. However, the Ping-Eye 2 wedges that were made before April 1, 1990, remain approved for play through a Ping lawsuit that was settled 20 years ago and takes precedence over new regulations.

Mickelson is using one of those wedges this week after reading about John Daly and Dean Wilson using them in Hawaii.

When asked Friday about McCarron's quote about him cheating, Mickelson declined to get into what he referred to as "name-calling." Instead, he suggested that McCarron was upset with the new rule on grooves.

But after a 70 in the third round put Mickelson within four shots of the lead, he made it clear he would not go quietly.

"We all have our opinions on the matter, but a line was crossed and I just was publicly slandered," Mickelson said. "And because of that, I'll have to let other people handle that."

Asked he was contemplating a lawsuit, Mickelson said, "I'm not going into specifics what that meant."

Still, it was clear that his message reached PGA Tour headquarters. The tour released a statement during the third round explaining why the Ping-Eye 2 wedges with square grooves were approved for play.

"Public comments or criticisms characterizing their use as a violation ... are inappropriate at best," the statement said.

Told about the tour's statement, Mickelson paused before saying it was "cool if they put that out there."

"Again, everybody has their opinions and so forth, and it's healthy to talk about it," he said. "But when you cross that line and slander someone publicly, that's when the tour needs to step in – or someone else."

McCarron, who missed the cut at the Farmers Insurance Open, could not be reached for comment. He did not back off his criticism Friday of Mickelson using the wedges, although he used "bending the rules" instead of "cheating" in his comments.

He maintains that Mickelson, and others using the Ping wedges, are violating the spirit of the new rule.

Mickelson has been feuding with the USGA, in particular senior technical director Dick Rugge, since last summer when it became clear the new grooves would be effective this year.

He said he was not even certain that 20-year-old wedges spun the ball more than his new wedges, yet offered no apologies because the clubs are approved for play.

"I understand black and white," Mickelson said Friday. "And I think that myself or any other player is allowed to play those clubs because they're approved – end of story."

Instead, the story might just now be starting.

McCarron, who is on the 16-man Players Advisory Council, said the wedges would be discussed Tuesday at a PAC meeting in Los Angeles with PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem.

More on Golf

MIAMI — The U.S. military has halted flights carrying Haitian earthquake victims to the United States because of an apparent dispute over where seriously injured patients should be taken for treatment.

An American doctor treating victims in Port-au-Prince warned that at least 100 patients needed to get to better hospitals or they could die, while the U.S. government said it was working to expand hospital capacity in both Haiti and in the U.S.

It was unclear exactly what prompted the Wednesday decision by the U.S. military to suspend the flights, or when it would end. Military officials said some states were refusing to take patients, though they wouldn't say which states.

"There has been no policy decision by anyone to suspend evacuee flights," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said. "This situation arose as we started to run out of room."

The halt came one day after Florida Gov. Charlie Crist wrote a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, warning that "Florida's health care system is quickly reaching saturation, especially in the area of high level trauma care."

But officials in Crist's office said they didn't know of any Florida hospitals were turning away patients. He asked Sebelius to activate the National Disaster Medical System, which is typically used in domestic disasters and pays for victims' care.

Poor coordination and limited resources, not costs, drove the governor's request, said John Cherry, spokesman for the Florida Division of Emergency Management.

"We've made it clear that (the cost) is an issue we'll deal with down the road," he said.

State health officials say some medical flights landed in Florida without any advance notice, and the poor coordination may be keeping some survivors from getting the help they need, Cherry said. He cited the case of a burn victim flown earlier this week into Tampa, which is not equipped to treat those injuries.

Meanwhile on the ground in Haiti, Dr. Barth Green, a doctor involved in the relief effort in Port-au-Prince, warned that his patients needed to get to better hospitals.

"We have 100 critically ill patients who will die in the next day or two if we don't Medevac them," said Green, chairman of the University of Miami's Global Institute for Community Health and Development.

Civilian flights have not been stopped, but Green said he was relying on U.S. military flights to fly out patients because they are larger and better equipped to handle injured patients.

At a temporary field hospital at Haiti's international airport set up with donations to Green's institute, two men had already died of tetanus. Doctors said 5-year-old Betina Joseph faced a similar fate within 24 hours unless evacuated to a U.S. hospital where she can be put on a respirator.

The girl – infected with tetanus through a two-inch cut on her thigh – weakly shooed a fly buzzing around her face as her mother caressed her corn rows, apparently unaware that getting the girl out could mean life or death.

"If we can't save her by getting her out right away, we won't save her," said Dr. David Pitcher, one of 34 surgeons staffing the field hospital.

The White House said federal officials were working with other states and non-government aid groups in Haiti to expand hospital capacity so they can make more room for critically injured patients aboard the USNS Comfort hospital ship anchored off the coast of Port-au-Prince.

There have already been 435 patients evacuated to the U.S., 18,500 patients treated by HHS personnel on the ground in Haiti, and 19,000 patients treated by the Comfort either on ship or on shore, with 635 patients currently on aboard the Comfort.

Captain Kevin Aandahl, spokesman for U.S. Transportation Command, said no evacuation requests have been made by U.S. military medical facilities in Haiti, including the Comfort, since the flights were suspended Wednesday.

U.S. Ambassador to Haiti Kenneth Merten said he did not know who ordered a stop to the evacuations but said it is a problem that should be fixed.

"I'm sure the Department of Defense wants to do the right thing as do we," he said Saturday in a conference call. "Look, everybody is here working on the ground trying to do the right thing for as many people as possible."

___

Associated Press writers Frank Bajak in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Danica Coto in San Juan, Puerto Rico, contributed to this report.

More on Haiti Earthquake

President Obama had two things in mind when he invited himself to the cozy GOP in house confab in Baltimore. One was to tell the GOP to knock off the hits, digs, and its reflexive obstructionism to any and every one of his initiatives, the proposed tax cuts, pumping up small business, and big defense budgets. These are the same initiatives that are long standing GOP political mantras. McCain made them his sacred creed during the presidential campaign. If McCain had bagged the White House and pushed them the GOP would have wildly cheered them. Obama won and lightly borrowed them from him.

Obama had to clear the air on something else. And that's the notion that he is a closet socialist. Obama referenced his signature health care reform bill as the prime example of the initiative that GOP took the biggest pot shots at with the ludicrous rap that it's Bolshevik. The implication is that there is a sneaky socialist motive behind his whole agenda.

The Obama as Bolshevik card has been the ace in the deck GOP ultra conservatives, Rush Limbaugh and the pack of right side talk show jocks have dumped on the political playing table from the moment he tossed his hat in the presidential ring. It has had an amazing shelve life. There are millions of references, quotes, quips, comments, and notations on Google tarring Obama as a socialist. The irony is that then candidate Obama gave backdoor dignity to the silly label in October 2008 during a rally in Raleigh, North Carolina. Obama mocked the charge in a blast at McCain for strongly hinting there was a red taint to his agenda. Obama laughed it off saying, 'what's next, calling me a communist?' As events have shown, there are countless numbers who say it and believe it about him and his agenda.

But even if Obama had never pursed his lips and dignified the idiocy, and the GOP had played it on the up-and-up-and-up during the campaign and stuck to the standard attack on Democrats as pro-tax and spend, big government, and dovish on defense, Obama still would be branded a socialist. It's a loaded term that touches a raw nerve with most Americans who are in a fog on what socialism is and how it works as a system. To many a socialist is someone who is pro-union, pro-increased government spending on health and education programs, and pro-civil liberties and especially civil rights. This always drew fire from the right. During the 1960's Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was routinely smeared as a communist and socialist.

The mildest criticism of big business and the wealthy insure a slap on of the socialist tag. The American economic sacred cow is that laissez faire wealth is tantamount to a divine right of kings, and any attempt to touch it is economic heresy. Politicians know that's it is a kiss of death to be seen as an advocate for tax and income fairness. That invites being plastered with the socialist tag.

GOP presidents and presidential candidates ritually play the 'tax and spend' card to brand their Democratic rivals as dangers to middle-class wage earners. This stokes fear that underneath the Democrat's supposed taxing and spending the rich will be hammered and the poor will be the beneficiaries. The wealth taking scare has worked in the past precisely because wealth and income iniquities are so great, and the notion that there's nothing wrong with those iniquities is so deeply entrenched in tax policy, philosophy and politics.

Any talk of putting more wealth into the hands of the non-wealthy in the way of tax cuts, a Social Security tax increase on upper income wage earners, capital gain increases, and closing tax shelter loopholes is plainly regarded as wealth redistribution downward. During the campaign, McCain grabbed at the formula that GOP contenders traditionally use and hit Obama with it.
The GOP has done the same with him in the White House. Despite public fury at Wall Street and the Big Banks for their greed and profiteering, if Obama pushes hard for real reform, tough regulations and strong consumer protections, the whispers and murmurs that he's a socialist will be heard even louder.

Obama cringed in horror at the absurd notion that he is a wait-in-the wings Marxist. But tossing the damaging political label at him is more than just a calculated political ploy to smear and taint Obama. It taps into the deeply held belief--and even fear--that Obama can and will actually mug the rich and by extension those who fantasize about being rich.
Obama has spent much time assuring the GOP and the public that nothing could be further from the truth. He stripped the public option from health care reform bill and rejected setting up government employment programs ala FDR from his stimulus bill. That didn't stop the talk of him as a socialist. His direct challenge to the GOP won't either. But it was something he had to do.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is, How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge (Middle Passage Press) will be released in January 2010.

More on Barack Obama