Contact: red_ankle@mac.com

WWW Mac-a-ro-nies

Contribute:

Law: Court supports Guantanamo inmates

Hundreds of prisoners who've been stripped of all semblance of due process by the U. S. government now can hope for a chance at freedom. Most of them have been held without hearings for years. The men detained are accused of having links to Al Qaeda or other terrorist group. The Bush administration has claimed that since the prisoners are not American citizens and are not being held on American soil, they have no rights. A U.S. District Court says otherwise.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Guantanamo Bay terrorism suspects have the constitutional right to pursue lawsuits challenging their imprisonment, a federal judge ruled on Monday in a defeat for the Bush administration that struck down how the U.S. military reviewed their cases.

The prisoners at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green said.

She ruled that the special military tribunals to determine the status of each Guantanamo detainee as an "enemy combatant" violated the constitutional protection of a fair hearing. Such a designation allows the government to hold the suspects indefinitely.

Green said the procedures failed to give the detainees access to material evidence and failed to let lawyers help them when the government refused to disclose classified information.

In addition to those constitutional defects applying to all the cases, Green also cited problems with the tribunals relying on statements possibly obtained by torture or coercion, and by using a vague and overly broad definition of enemy combatant.

Though there were 50 named plaintiffs, the ruling probably applies to most of the 550 inmates at Guantanamo Bay. The Bush administration tried to evade the constitutional issues by setting up a form of tribunal that it claimed replaced judicial review. The body, called the "Combatant Status Review Tribunal," used evidence that would not be admissible in normal judicial proceedings. In fact, some of the evidence may have been obtained by torture. Once an inmate was designated an enemy combatant, he was deprived of the right to due process that normally applies to U.S. citizens, and, foreign nationals charged with crimes in the U.S.

Judge Green was unrelenting in her disapproval of the special tribunal. But, earlier this month, another federal judge ruled that the procedure is legal.

The Washington Post reports.

In a 34-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon said that Congress has granted President Bush the authority to detain foreign enemy combatants outside the United States for the duration of the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and that the courts have little power to review the conditions under which such prisoners are held.

In a 34-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon said that Congress has granted President Bush the authority to detain foreign enemy combatants outside the United States for the duration of the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and that the courts have little power to review the conditions under which such prisoners are held.

Leon's decision was the first district court interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling last year in Rasul v. Bush , which affirmed that the Guantanamo detainees, who number about 550, have the right to ask federal judges to release them through a writ of habeas corpus.

Ultimately, the controversy will likely be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Reasonably related

It is believed that some of the abusive practices that later surfaced at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were in use in Guantanamo Bay.

Opinion: Gallagher should donate flack funds to charity

I have been musing about Maggie Gallagher's misstep. By now you've probably heard about the Right Wing columnist secretly flacking for the government. Gallagher (pictured) received a tidy sum for promoting marriage in her syndicated column and an article. Some people are wondering if the Bush administration has a pattern of paying conservatives to be behind the scenes promoters of its policies.

The Daily Ilini looks at the evidence so far.

Wednesday's Washington Post reported that syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher was paid $21,500 by the Department of Health and Human Services to encourage President Bush's $300 million program to strengthen marriage. Gallagher drafted a magazine article for the department official overseeing the program, wrote brochures for the program and briefed department officials.

The Post article is only the latest report of the Bush administration using bribes and deception to get favorable media coverage. Last year, the administration sent "video news releases" touting the President's prescription drug plan to TV stations, who aired them as if they were regular news reports. And just a few weeks ago, commentator Armstrong Williams was found to have accepted $240,000 to push the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind initiative.

Blogger Trish Wilson notes that Gallagher also received a second payment for an article she wrote for the National Fatherhood Initiative. It was for $20,000.

Anne Martens, writing at Blue Oregon, is wondering if what Gallagher did is really grounds for being pilloried.

I've long complained that it's difficult for government to sell the public on policies without being permitted a huge advertising budget. And if government could promote itself in the same ways that Nike and Exxon and Ben & Jerry's do, then maybe people wouldn't hate government so much and maybe we could build widespread support for particular policies. Propaganda! Outrageous! Well, of course, but also very effective, and frankly much needed in this crowded age of less news and more opinion.

Really, it's not so surprising that people who believe a certain thing are happy to accept money to say what they were going to say anyway. How does this differ from the standard lecture circuit, where bigwigs get paid big bucks to say what they already believe? Is it because the money comes from the government and not some other source? Is it because we know lecturers are being paid and we expect pundits not to be? Are either of those complaints really legitimate?

Gallagher's response to the criticism has been she forgot to tell people that she was being paid to promote marriage by the government. As someone who writes for money, I do not find the practice something to be criticized in itself. I believe Gallagher's failure to disclose the relationship is the problem. Though she may personally agree with every word officials of the administration have to say about marriage, money is an incentive that can influence what a person writes, so it should be reported. In addition, one can't help but wonder if the DHH's money was wisely spent. The $41,500 paid to a columnist who claims she would have written in favor of marriage regardlessly seems to be a waste of taxpayers' money.

Therefore, I have a proposal. If Gallagher could forget about 40 grand, it must not be a significant part of her income. She wouldn't miss it if she gave it up. I propose that Maggie Gallagher donate the $41,500 she received from the government to charity. The name of the charity should be publicized and the donation confirmed. If Gallagher is truly contrite, the suggestion should fill her with relief. She can prove the situation is a misunderstanding by refusing to profit by it. Tongues will stop wagging. At least one newspaper, the Middletown Journal, in Ohio, has dropped her column. Her generosity might prevent others from doing so. And, as a a bonus, she would no longer be grouped with sleazy Armstrong Williams. His past includes being a living lawn jockey for the late senator and arch hypocrite Strom Thurmond, and, being sued for sexual harassment after allegedly chasing a male co-worker around his office. Surely, a gal who considers herself virtuous does not belong in such company. I will be mailing my proposal to Gallagher. I hope to receive a thank you note. Any other remuneration will be reported.

Reasonably related

•Editor & Publisher has been very thorough in its coverage of Miss Maggie's Misstep. Start with this index.

•Religion columnist Michael McManus has also received money from the Bush administration for promoting its marriage policy in his syndicated column. The New York Times has the story.

Technology: New Apple products are about value

One of the criticisms of people whose grit their teeth at the mention of Apple Computer, Inc., is that its products traditionally have sold for a higher price than competitors.' The usual response of Apple enthusiasts is that the better design, and, easier use justify the higher price. Furthermore, Apple's profit margin on its products has steadily decreased over two decades. But, the two new hardware devices introduced at last week's MacWorld exposition will not need to be defended. Both the Mac Mini and the iPod Shuffle address the oft repeated criticism of Apple's prices being too high. They are about value.

The iPod Shuffle, a new flash based MP3 player, resulted in a stampede to the San Francisco Apple Store when Apple CEO Steve Jobs said some might be available there. Alas, the 2,000 iPod Shuffles sold out in a few hours. Though stores from A to C -- Apple, Best Buy and CompUSA, are promoting them, there is said to be a month-long wait to get one of the miniscule music players in hand. The iPod Shuffle undercuts competitor flash MP3 players in price and capacity. The 512 MB model costs only $99. In addition, the device features Apple's vaunted excellent design and ease of use. Wilson Rothman, writing at Time, explains the appeal of the product and answers the questions on the tips of our tongues.

Gadget of the Week

Surely you have questions about the new iPod Shuffle. In a world filled with flash-memory players, what makes it so special? Does a USB "thumb drive" MP3 player that doesn't even have an LCD screen actually count as a true iPod? Is this something worth buying or is it just a sly marketing move?

It's okay to worry about being caught up in the hype. After all, this is not the first, smallest or most feature-rich flash-memory player on the market. However, in a twist that seems to be Apple's theme of the moment, it is the most affordable. It's also, in some ways, the simplest to use.

. . .Does the Shuffle count as an iPod? I have a sideways answer: I think that people who own iPods will want an iPod Shuffle. Not only is it undeniably affordable, but as a lightweight plastic thingamajig with no moving parts, it can go where a hard-disk iPod risks more long-term damage. But that doesn't mean it isn't still sly Apple marketing.

Demand seems to already be proving that the iPod Shuffle is something consumers want. My initial skepticism about the product being called an iPod may turn out to be unjustified. 'iPod' is coming to mean MP3 player, so any form of the product can fall under the name. The range now seems to be complete -- the iPod Shuffle, iPod Mini, iPod and iPod Photo. So, yes, the Shuffle counts as an iPod. It is special because of its design -- and, its price. It is worth buying, even for those of us who are already pod people. But, that does not mean it isn't a slick marketing move.

The announcement of the iPod Shuffle shared the stage with a bigger, albeit still small, brother, the Mac Mini. The three-pound computer has made history before it ships later this week. It will be one of the smallest full-service desktop computers available, and, at $499, just plain cheap by Apple standards. CNET's Ina Fried has been talking to the target audience for the Mac Mini - switchers from Windows-compatible computers.

Windows developer Alex Gorbatchev just bought his first Mac.

The Toronto resident said he has long wanted to see how the other side lives, but the iMac was "too expensive a toy."

"I've never had my hands on a Mac and I'm really curious to get my hands on one," Gorbatchev said in an e-mail.

Gorbatchev is just the kind of person Apple Computer hoped to appeal to by introducing its $499 Mac Mini. The company reasons that plenty of Windows users have been interested in a Mac but are turned off by the hefty price tag.

The Mini achieves some of its value by being 'independent' -- the end user provides her own monitor, mouse and keyboard. But, the computer's design specifications are competitive, making it a very viable entry level computer. The Mini will allow switchers to introduce themselves to an Apple computer without the higher cost of an iMac or the bulk of an eMac. Some switchers will just become dual platform, using the Mini for some tasks and their Windows-compatible computer for others. Not that switchers and Minis will necessarily turn out to be the match made in heaven. As with the iPod Shuffle, people who already own Apple products are expressing a lot of interest. Some want to use Minis as companions to their laptops. Others see the Mini as the central unit in a media center. A home for a wireless hub and, in a group, a server array, are other possibilities.

Steve Jobs has responded to his critics and raised the stakes. Now, Apple is focusing on value.

Reasonably related

You can take it with you. Sure, you can take your laptop with you in your car. But, it's an awkward situation. A company in New York has the solution: A Mac Mini custom installed in the dashboard of your vehicle.

News: Calling King 'coon' reaps results

I had hoped to find something positive to say in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day -- despite my increasing skepticism about whether there will be any more progress in race relations in the United States. I believe any further progress is stalled because of white people's intransigence. Today's news provided an episode I feel somewhat heartened by.

The Associated Press reports.

LAS VEGAS (AP) - A television weatherman was fired after referring to slain civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. as ``Martin Luther Coon King'' on the air, station officials said.

Rob Blair, of KTNV-TV, was delivering the extended forecast Saturday morning when he said: ``Martin Luther Coon King Jr. Day, gonna see some temperatures in the mid-60s.''

Jim Prather, vice president and general manager of the ABC affiliate, said Blair stumbled when he uttered the remark, but the excuse was not enough to save his job.

``This kind of incident is not acceptable under any circumstances, and I'm truly sorry that this event occurred,'' Prather said.

Blair, who worked at the station for about three months, apologized during the station's 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. newscasts Saturday.

``I in no way intended to offend anyone,'' he said in the apology. ``I'm very sorry.''

Blair's remark was not a slip of the tongue. It is the way some white people habitually refer to Martin Luther King, Jr. I've heard it said at least a dozen times and read it hundreds of times. Usually, there is no price to pay for using that slur or others. There's an unspoken agreement among many white people that abuses by other white people don't really count if they are against people of color. The attitude, an element of white privilege, extends across the political spectrum. Many, perhaps most, white liberals are no more likely to speak up against racist behavior than white conservatives are. It is much easier to say one is a progressive than it is to actually be one. The reason I feel heartened about this episode is that, for once, the offender is paying the price for bigoted behavior. Usually, people of color do. They have come to take working in hostile environments where behavior like Blair's is the norm for granted.

Nor do I believe the station manager is necessarily free of bias himself. Why was Blair still around to apologize on two subsequent broadcasts? Prather considered keeping him on the job. When response to the incident proved strong enough to outweigh the ease of glossing over it, he decided to let Blair go. Prather didn't make his decision because it was the right thing to do, but because of fear of negative publicity -- which might impact his own career.

The Indianapolis Star has more information about Blair.

According to Blair's resume, he started a radio career at WZPL in Indianapolis before moving to Orange County, Calif., to attend Chapman University. Blair has reportedly worked as a weather broadcaster in Palm Springs, Calif., Monterey and Chico, Calif.

And, Blair will work again, probably just weeks from now. That is part of the unspoken agreement. As I write this, Blair may be at a bar lamenting 'political correctness.' "You can't say anything anymore, without the blacks, broads or gays getting their backs up," he will say. His self-serving remarks will be met with commiseration. Sympathetic persons will buy him another round. After all, his bigotry doesn't really matter. That's the way it is in America in 2005.

Law: Leader guilty in Iraqi prison case

The U.S. Army finished considering the first of the Iraqi prisoner abuse cases to be contested today. In previous cases, the defendants pled guilty. Specialist Charles A. Graner, considered the coordinator of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, maintained he was a patriotic American doing his duty. The jury disagreed, convicting Graner on most of the counts. Graner is perhaps best known as the boyfriend of the notorious Lynndie England, the enlisted woman photographed abusing inmates who became the 'face' of the scandal.

The New York Times reports.

FORT HOOD, Tex., Jan. 14 - The Army reservist accused of being the ringleader of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal was found guilty on all charges by a military jury here this evening, a year to the day after the Pentagon began an investigation into photographs that showed Iraqi detainees bound and beaten or forced into sexually humiliating positions.

The jury of 10 soldiers convicted the reservist, Specialist Charles A. Graner, after five hours of deliberation, finding him guilty on all but one count, of aggravated assault, which it reduced to battery.

Specialist Graner and his parents showed no visible reaction in the courtroom as the verdict was read.

The jury immediately began the sentencing phase of the trial tonight, hearing testimony from prosecution and defense witnesses. One side argued that Specialist Graner was a patriot and a devoted son, while the other argued that his violent actions had permanently damaged the military and the nation, as well as the lives of the Iraqis who were abused.

The defense lawyer argued that there was nothing really wrong with the humiliation and torture of detainees that he described as the day-to-day routine at Abu Ghraib. His explanation for Graner's participation was that 'to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs.' Civilian attorney Guy Womack said the real crime was not that the abuse occurred, but that information about it was leaked. The major problem with Womack's defense is that it appears the eggs were being broken to entertain Graner and the other soldiers accused -- not to serve any justifiable purpose. The abused inmates were not persons likely to have information about the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein or other sensitive matters. The impression that the abuse was done for sport was bolstered by Graner's letters and emails home, in which he bragged about humiliating and assaulting prisoners.

Graner, 36, is from Uniontown, Pennsylvania. He faces as many as 15 years in prison.

Politics: Gregoire officially governor

Democrat Christine Gregoire was officially certified as the governor today. Her inauguration is tomorrow. The denouement of the Washington governor's race, which pitted Gregoire against multimillionaire real estate tycoon Dino Rossi, has been closely watched nationally because of the closeness of the vote. Democrats hoped to grasp one more governor's seat as a consolation prize for losing the presidential election.

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Democrat Christine Gregoire was certified as the governor of Washington state on Tuesday, while outside the Capitol her supporters traded jeers with protesters across a line of state troopers.

Inside the Capitol, Republicans' attempt to delay the election certification failed after an hour of almost surreally polite debate.

Gregoire lost the first two counts in the amazingly close election, but won by just 129 votes after a hand recount of 2.9 million ballots. Next comes Gregoire's inauguration, planned for Wednesday - and then it's on to the courts. A hearing in Republican Dino Rossi's election challenge is scheduled for Friday.

"No do-over, no delay," said Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane. "Let's move on with the business of the Legislature."

Absent an extremely unlikely finding of fraud during the election by the courts, the election is over. But, Republicans continue to hold out hope that the results of the last recount will be set aside. Some GOP operatives have claimed that Gregoire received thousands of unaccounted for votes. But,, only about a thousand voters' names do not appear on county rolls after election officials have updated them. They say the number of unnamed voters may decline further, but some voters will not be identified for privacy reasons.

Columnist Anthony B. Robinson, a Rossi supporter, offered some advice to his candidate in a column at the Post-Intelligencer.

So I voted for Rossi. But we lost. And now I say to my candidate, "Give it up."

In public discussions of this particular never-ending story I find that many seem to hold the view that we have had three counts and Rossi won two of the three, so he should be governor.

No, that's not how the system works. That's not the process we signed on for before we got into this. The process in place called for an automatic machine recount in the event of a vote with as narrow a winning margin as Rossi received Nov. 2. That process further provided that a second, hand recount could be held by request of one of the parties if it were willing to foot the bill. According to this process, that third count would be the final and the deciding one. It's not the best two of three. It is No. 3. That's the one that counts.

Robinson has done a fine job of breaking down the problem with Rossi's objections to the outcome: they are results-oriented. Recounts were fine, until he lost the one that truly mattered. I suspect the courts will be unsympathetic to an effort to overturn an election that followed the applicable rules.

Internet: Phishers cast better net

Most of the time I ignore spam, including "phishing" emails. They are the ones that attempt to lure you into providing information that will allow perpetrators of fraud to break in to your bank accounts or steal your identity. With the rise of Amazon, eBay and Yahoo Auction accounts, phishers have extended their bad intentions to major online accounts. I see the attempts because it is a bad idea to set the junk mail filter to handle businesses one does use. Important email from those sources could be viewed too late or deleted. So, Friday, I received a phishing effort using a new hook. Usually, it takes maybe ten seconds to recognize an email fraud attempt. Since many of the operations are overseas, the name of the company or basic words, such as 'account' or 'deposit' will be misspelled. Or, the grammar and syntax will be off. Spammers also have difficulty getting their layouts to approximate the appearance of emails from companies they are mimicking. The email may say eBay, Paypal or Amazon, but use the wrong font or the wrong colors. Finally, one's email program can usually trace the path of the email, which will not lead back to the purported sender.

On Friday and Monday, I received two phishing efforts that I believe worth bringing readers' attention to. They are not the utterly inept norm. The first spammer attempts to get pass email readers' reflexive 'delete' or 'junk' response by painting the situation as an emergency.

Subject: Your Paypal account has been suspended

That statement alone will unnerve some users enough to have them click on the provided link, supposedly to "service@paypal.com." Actually, the link is to the perpetrators of the fraud, who will use it to capture information from unsuspecting and upset.

We regret to inform you that your PayPal account has been suspended due to concerns we have for the safety and integrity of the Paypal community.

Per the User Agrement, section 9, we may immediately issue a warning temporarily suspend, indefinitely suspend or terminate your membership and refuse to provide our services to you if we believe that your actions may cause financial loss or legal liability for you,our users or us.We may also take these actions if we are unable to verify or authenticate any information you provide to us.

The fastest and the most efficient way of becoming unsuspended is by clicking on the link below,login into your account and provide us additional information. [Link to false site.]

*Please note that any seller fees due to Paypal will immediately become due and payable. Paypal will charge any amounts you have not previously disputed to the billing method currently on file.

Give these people a 'D' for determination. In addition to the phishing for Paypal account information, the email solicits donations to what is surely a phony tsunami relief fund. Click on that link and the victims will never see a dime of the money donated.

I received a more typical phishing effort using Paypal today.

Subject: Notification of PayPal Limited Account Access

It has come to our attention that your PayPal® account information needs to be updated as part of our continuing commitment to protect your account and to reduce the instance of fraud on our website. If you could please take 5-10 minutes out of your online experience and update your personal records you will not run into any future problems with the online service.  

However, failure to update your records will result in account suspension. Please update your records on or before January 12, 2005.

Once you have updated your account records, your PayPal® session will not be interrupted and will continue as normal.

There is a link to use to 'update' your account data. The information you enter will be used to access your account at the real Paypal and remove the money from it, or, to steal your identity.

The phishing effort described first is more sophisticated than the second. Both the appearance of the email and the strategies used -- claiming an account has been suspended and faking the tsunami aid donations site information currently on many real web pages -- are heads and shoulders above most spam. Still, the most significant giveaway is present in both. The links they direct people to are unsecured. Online merchants use secure servers, recognizable by the prefix "https." Furthermore, Paypal will inform users of any problem with their accounts within the site, not by email, though email correspondence may follow.

There are several ways to protect yourself from phishers:

1. Use a separate email address not published online for your accounts with banks, eBay, Paypal, Amazon, Yahoo Auctions, etc. (The emails I described came to my blogging email address, which is different from my business email address. So, I was alerted to something fishy upon seeing them.)

2. Be careful how you enter sites where funds are stored. Instead of clicking links in emails, go directly to the site via bookmark or typing the secure address in.

3. Take time to filter phishing efforts using their real addresses. It will not eliminate the problem, but may help some.

About 65 percent of Americans are said to use the Internet regularly currently. The increase in usage provides increased opportunities for people who seek to take advantage of Internet users. Increased caution is the antidote to being taken advantage of by phishers and fraudulent sites.

Reasonably related

The Web's most effective phishing scams use eBay and have resulted in thousands of identity thefts. Snopes.com describes how it worked.

Analysis: Wealthy have gotten wealthier

I had reason to review material about income distribution and class rigidity after reading an entry at Blue Oregon, and, articles about holiday spending at the New York Times and Reuters. The blog entry cited an essay published at the Economist. The authors examine a greater trend toward income inequality.

The past couple of decades have seen a huge increase in inequality in America. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think-tank, argues that between 1979 and 2000 the real income of households in the lowest fifth (the bottom 20% of earners) grew by 6.4%, while that of households in the top fifth grew by 70%. The family income of the top 1% grew by 184%—and that of the top 0.1% or 0.01% grew even faster. Back in 1979 the average income of the top 1% was 133 times that of the bottom 20%; by 2000 the income of the top 1% had risen to 189 times that of the bottom fifth.

Thirty years ago the average real annual compensation of the top 100 chief executives was $1.3m: 39 times the pay of the average worker. Today it is $37.5m: over 1,000 times the pay of the average worker. In 2001 the top 1% of households earned 20% of all income and held 33.4% of all net worth. Not since pre-Depression days has the top 1% taken such a big whack.

. . .America is increasingly looking like imperial Britain, with dynastic ties proliferating, social circles interlocking, mechanisms of social exclusion strengthening and a gap widening between the people who make the decisions and shape the culture and the vast majority of ordinary working stiffs.

. . .Earl Wysong of Indiana University and two colleagues recently decided to update the study. They compared the incomes of 2,749 father-and-son pairs from 1979 to 1998 and found that few sons had moved up the class ladder. Nearly 70% of the sons in 1998 had remained either at the same level or were doing worse than their fathers in 1979. The biggest increase in mobility had been at the top of society, with affluent sons moving upwards more often than their fathers had. They found that only 10% of the adult men born in the bottom quarter had made it to the top quarter.

It seems to me that any intelligent person who observes American society from academia or the workplace would reach that conclusion based on experience. People who come from low-income backgrounds are as scarce as hen's teeth at elite colleges, in professional schools and, particularly, in the managerial and executive offices of corporate America. Between 70 and 80 perecent of Americans have remained in the socioeconomic class in which they were born for the last several generations. Increasingly, those who alter their class position are downwardly mobile. It is amazing that so many Americans somehow maintain a ridiculous faith in the myth that any citizen of the United States can rise to wealth.

Those who have money must find ways to spend it. Analysts predicted an increase in purchases of luxury items by the wealthy before Christmas.

Reuters reports.

NEW YORK: Fancy a $20,000 suit of armour under the Christmas tree? Or how about a crystal-encrusted Mrs Potato Head for $8,000? Or maybe a $50,000 Ferrari go-cart?

While many US retailers are cutting prices to draw crowds and bolster holiday sales, upscale US retailers are making merry meeting strong demand for luxury gifts.

The International Council of Shopping Centres expects the luxury market to be the retail story of ‘04, with strong sales at upscale Neiman Marcus Group and Nordstrom stores, and Coach handbags being snapped up.

. . .No one was available at Neiman Marcus to comment on how many Americans would be getting a suit of armour for Christmas. Lower-end retailers aren’t having as much fun, with slow sales over the key Thanksgiving-to-Christmas period that accounts for 23% of annual US retail sales, the latest data show.

The New York Times confirms that -- surprise? --- the well-off had a very good Christmas.

America's merchants hustled for sales this holiday season, marking down a substantial part of their inventories right before Christmas to bring in enough last-minute and postholiday buyers for a decent, if unexciting, 3.1 percent gain over the previous year.

. . .The continued climb of luxury stores like Neiman Marcus was not a surprise, although Saks Fifth Avenue's 12.1 percent increase in sales in stores open at least a year exceeded analysts' predictions.

Overall Christmas sales were lackluster. Slow job growth and high oil prices may have influenced the large majority of Americans who are not wealthy to conserve any savings they have. Analysts say sales were depressed middling in all areas of retail, except luxury items and the teen market.

The article in the Economist, despite a somewhat conservative tone, is worth reading in its entirety. However, the authors do not address a dilemma the wealthy face: spending the money they have accrued. How many suits of armor does a person need?

Law: Andrea Yates' conviction reversed

A Texas appeals court has reversed the murder convictions of Andrea Yates, the former nurse who took the lives of her five children in 2001. This a surprising turn of events, considering the record of indifference and malfeasance that characterizes the Texas criminal justice system. The reversal turns on a lie told by an expert witness for the prosecution.

The CBC News reports.

HOUSTON (AP) - Andrea Yates' murder convictions for drowning three of her children in a bathtub were overturned Thursday by an appeals court, which ruled that a prosecution witness' erroneous testimony about a non-existent TV episode could have been crucial.

Yates' lawyers had argued at a hearing last month before a three-judge panel of the First Court of Appeals in Houston that psychiatrist Park Dietz was wrong when he referred to an episode of the TV show Law & Order.

He said the show involved a woman found not guilty by reason of insanity for drowning her children. After jurors found Yates guilty, lawyers in the case and jurors learned no such episode existed.

"We conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury," the court ruled. "We further conclude that Dr. Dietz's false testimony affected the substantial rights of appellant."

The appellate ruling returns the case for a new trial, although prosecutors said they hoped to reverse Thursday's ruling.

Considering the kinds of abuses that regularly pass scrutiny with the Texas courts of criminal appeals, which consists of former prosecutors, this is a remarkable decision. The effect of Dietz' testimony was to give jurors the impression that Yates had killed the children believing she could escape responsibility by pretending to be insane, based on the non-existent episode of Law & Order. However, I would not have been surprised if the judges had dismissed that effect by saying the jurors might have ignored the false testimony. I expect that to be the district attorney's argument on appeal of this decision.

Is there really a light at the end of the tunnel for Andrea Yates? Probably not. It is foreseeable that a new trial will result in a new conviction. Texas leads the United States in both prison population and inmates on death row. Though Yates is not eligible for the death penalty, I doubt she will be treated with the mercy a person in her position deserves. My preference in situations such as this one is that people who are clearly psychotic when they commit crimes be either found not guilty by reason of insanity, or, guilty, but insane. The latter verdict would result in treatment in a secure facility for the criminally insane. However, few jurisdictions offer the option. Currently, Yates resides in a facility for mentally ill inmates, but she will likely be assigned to the general population eventually. Her life will be imperiled.

Reasonably related

• According to the Justice Policy Institute, one in 20 Texans is under some kind of criminal justice system supervision, ranging from probation to prison.

• An innocent man prosecutors in Fort Worth sent to prison is free after 12 years. The Star-Telegram has his story.

Politics: Columnist critiques Gov. Gregoire

Washington Governor-elect Christine Gregoire should never have been in a contest so close that she was the winner by only 10 votes before a court ruling. She was in that position because she ran an inept campaign, failing to capitalize on the goodwill she had earned as a very effective attorney general. Ultimately, Gregoire (pictured) prevailed by a margin of 129 votes in an election in which 2.9 million ballots were cast.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Joel Connelly holds her accountable for that electoral close call.

Gregoire has a "predisposition to insulate herself," says a senior adviser who wishes to go unnamed.

The governor-elect is a longtime public servant, but has been immersed in such complexities as the Hanford cleanup and states' lawsuit against tobacco companies.

She traveled our state last fall with what my colleague Angela Galloway wonderfully called a "political-bureaucracy-on-wheels."

Upon arrival in Kennewick, this included a campaign manager, deputy manager, spokesman, deputy spokesman, political director, two volunteers, one husband and a driver/security guard.

Gregoire was to lose Benton County (which includes Kennewick), 44,895 votes to 19,831, despite being architect of an accord that has kept more than 12,000 people employed at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

Connelly believes Gregoire squandered her political capital by failing to engage in retail politicking and not trumpeting her achievements, including how they benefitted working-class voters such as the Hanford workers. She allowed multimillionaire Dino Rossi, who supports a national sales tax, and, elimination of the minimum wage, to garner votes from thousands of people who should have been in her column. Connelly compares Gregoire to Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, who is available to squeeze the flesh or flesh out reasonable stances on political issues in exactly the way Gregoire has not been.

But not all of Connelly's column is a dressing down of the woman who is planning her attire for the inauguration. He has good advice regarding how Gregoire should conduct herself as Washington's chief executive.

A message to Gregoire as governor: Get out of Olympia, and listen to why citizens have come to view our state government as so cumbersome.

. . .Appointment of ex-state Agriculture Director Jim Jesernig as transition director did not signal new blood on the way in Olympia. Gregoire will have a complement of insiders. But our old-timey capital badly needs fresh people and ideas.

. . .Gregoire needs a top-notch political director, to boot her out of the capital and to deal with the state's deep divisions. The communications office must have a talent sorely missed in Gregoire's campaign -- the ability to use a telephone.

. . .As well, no matter where her victory margin came from, Gregoire must NOT be a pander bear to Seattle liberals. In 1993, Mike Lowry, dug his political grave by talking up new taxes early in his term. The liberals deserve a place at the table; they shouldn't get to eat the whole meal.

I suspect Connelly is telling Gregoire the things she really needs to know. Let's hope she heeds the advice of those in the know after such a humbling election.

Read the rest of Joel Connelly's column here.

Reasonably related

Is Christine Gregoire the Govenor-elect? Yes. There is a Republican effort afoot to try to challenge the election. But, absence proof of fraud, there is no legal basis for such a challenge. GOP activists are claiming the fact that all voters' names don't appear on the lists submitted by the counties means there were thousands of ghost voters. Election officials say that some voters' names are withheld to protect their privacy. People who moved recently and military personnel may also be missing from electoral rolls, though they voted. The final rolls will likely include most of the missing names.

Politics: Powell offers selfish reason for tsunami aid

Colin Powell, speaking on behalf of the Bush administration, came up with a reason for providing more aid to the Asian and African countries devastated by tsunamis last week. His remarks came during a visit to the area, and, of course, after President George W. Bush was embarrassed into increasing the funds and material assistance committed to the recovery effort. Powell says that enhancing the image of the United States makes contributing more aid worthwhile.

The Associated Press reports.

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) - Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday the outpouring of American aid and humanitarian help in the region devastated by the tsunami may also help Muslim nations see the United States in a better light.

``What it does in the Muslim world, the rest of the world is giving an opportunity to see American generosity, American values in action,'' Powell said after meeting with Hassan Wirayuda, his Indonesian counterpart.

``America is not an anti-Islamic, anti-Muslim nation. America is a diverse society. We respect all religions,'' he said

Powell said he hopes Muslim countries see the wide range of U.S. aid and involvement around the world, of which the disaster relief is only the latest example. U.S. involvement and cooperation ``is in the best interest of those countries and it's in our best interest,'' he said.

Perhaps contributing more to the ravaged nations will cause their inhabitants to look more favorably on America. But, that should not be the main reason for increasing the paltry commitment the U.S. initially made. America should contribute generously to the effort because that is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, many Americans are so selfish that they must have a stake in any act to be motivated to carry it out. Powell has done a fine job of expressing that perspective.

Despite the increased commitment, to $350 million, the United States still plans to spend only as much on the relief effort as it does on the occupation of Iraq in three days. So, Powell's self-congratulation may be premature. Reasonable people will doubtlessly realize that the war against a Muslim country has a higher priority with the Bush administration than ending the suffering in the tsunami zone. Goodwill may not be bought as cheaply as he thinks.

Reasonably related

Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist David Horsey expresses the reality of the Bush administration's increased pledge to the countries damaged by this natural disaster of historical proportions. Don't miss his cartoon.

Media: Article favors Christian felon

There is a reason reporters need to maintain journalistic objectivity -- focusing on the facts of a situation instead of allowing their own beliefs to color what they are observing. Succumbing to such influences results in stories that do not accurately reflect what has occurred. I was reminded of that while reading a recent article about the Edwin Baxter case. Baxter is the man recently sentenced to prison after a conviction for cutting his eight-year-old son's penis with a hunting knife. He says God wanted him to circumcise the boy and his four other sons.

The Columbian reports.

Baxter and his 30-year-old wife have nine children in their two-bedroom home. His wife, Tammy, is pregnant and due in February.

. . .On Sept. 3, Baxter called his son into the bathroom and had him lay in what witnesses described as a dirty bathtub. Baxter used a hunting knife to slice into his son's foreskin. He called 911 when his son began bleeding profusely.

[Superior Court Judge James] Rulli said Baxter inflicted not only physical damage to his son, who received stitches, but probably also psychological damage.

On Dec. 7, a jury convicted Baxter of assault of a child in the second degree.

The Baxters previously resided in a survivalist compound in Idaho. They reject contemporary expectations in regard to the roles of men, women and children. Tammy Baxter has given birth to most of her children at home. The youngsters have rarely been allowed to attend school. Girls are required to wear dresses, boys trousers. Edwin Baxter had earlier encounters with child welfare workers and legal officials in regard to the children's chronic truancy and domestic abuse of his wife. The eleven-person clan lived in a two-bedroom rental cottage in rural Washington. They may have relocated to Washington to avoid authorities in Idaho. The wife again went on the run with the children to prevent child welfare and medical personnel from examining the boy injured in the assault. They have since returned to Ridgefield.

The situation seems clear. Baxter, who a mental health professional described as "mildy delusional," believed he could obtain God's approval by circumcising his sons. Pragmatic considerations such as his lack of medical training, the absence of a sterile environment and implements, and, the ages of the boys, were not considered. Baxter assaulted one of the children. The intent required for the crime -- mens rea -- is that he intend to cause bodily harm. It is not necessary that he subjectively believe his act to be harmful. Baxter's rationalization, that he was acting under orders from God, does not absolve him of responsibility. Indeed, if such a 'defense' were acceptable, it would give any defendant who claimed his religion moved him to commit an offense carte blanche.

Wendy Owen, writing for the Oregonian, doesn't get it. She visited the Baxter family and spoke with some of their relatives and friends. The result is a sympathetic portrayal that misses the point of the prosecution.

During his trial, Baxter, 33, said he was simply following Scripture through a God-commanded ritual performed innumerable times in history. But in the courtroom and among some public opinion, he has been branded a reckless fanatic, and spiritual leaders say his behavior follows a pattern of those who consider their acts to be in accordance with God's law -- despite being outside of the state's law.

. . .During his sentencing, Baxter acknowledged making a mistake, but at his trial he told the judge he was following God's laws.

"I felt it was an act of obedience that was spoken from the mouth of the self-existent creator," he said. "It breaks my heart to think . . . this state thinks it's child abuse when I was doing what other godly men . . . did."

Baxter was referring to Abraham and Joshua, who in the Old Testament were directed to ensure all males were circumcised.

Paragraphs of Owen's article are devoted to 'from the mouths of babes' support for Baxter.

Tammy Baxter said the boy has been checked by a doctor and is doing well, and the 8-year-old said he isn't mad at his father.

"I like him," he said shyly. Cuddled against his mother for support, he added, "I want him to come back home."

She intends to have all the boys circumcised by a doctor.

Meanwhile, the family misses their father.

His 9-year-old daughter summed up their feelings with a colorful crayon drawing. It depicts her, her siblings and her mother standing in row next to their house with tears rolling down their faces, watching police lead their father to a black-and-white squad car.

"We whant daddy and my daddy whants us," she wrote in red, purple and blue letters.

I find myself thinking about previous sympathetic portrayals of persons of the far Right who come into conflict with the law. Readers in the Pacific Northwest will recall the McGuckins and the Christines. Nationally, Randy Weaver's defiance of the federal government at Ruby Ridge is a well-known example. Despite having instigated the conflict and slain a federal officer during the episode, Weaver, a ne'er-do-well white supremacist, eventually won a sizable legal settlement from a favorable jury. I suspect that people like Baxter and Weaver are portrayed positively by some reporters because they are seen as holding the 'traditional' values those reporters can relate to. Furthermore, they are not the Other -- foreign, nonwhite or non-Christian.

Perhaps Wendy Owen does not realize that bias crept into her portrayal of the Baxters. If she shares their fundamentalist beliefs to an extent, that is understandable, though not forgiveable. But, she does have a duty to be accurate. She failed in stating both the findings in regard to Baxter's mental health, and, in presenting a coherent account of why he was convicted. Her article is an example of the kinds of mistakes made when reporters surrender their journalistic objectivity.

Reasonably related

Brian and Ruth Christine recently lost appeals of their prison sentences. They say religious motivations led them to take their children from state custody at gunpoint. Their convictions are for robbery, custodial interference and auto theft. The Mail-Tribune has the story.

ROSEBURG — A judge has refused to reduce the prison sentence of a woman serving seven-and-a-half years in prison for helping her husband take their children at gunpoint from state child welfare workers at a freeway rest stop and flee to Montana.

Douglas County Circuit Judge William Lasswell ruled Wednesday there was no legal basis to reduce the sentence of Ruth Christine, who was convicted in 2002 of six counts of robbery, custodial interference and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.

The judge came to the same conclusion last month on a motion from Christine’s husband, Brian, who was convicted on the same counts and is serving twelve-and-a-half years because he was the one who used the gun.

Read the rest.