IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Some shopping advice

December 20, 2005 | 5:23 p.m. ET

Some shopping advice (Dan Abrams)

Only a few more days until the holidays and I have another holiday shopping tip.  This one for the men out there who still haven't bought the perfect gift for that special someone.

Recent polls confirm that men are significantly more likely than women to do their holiday shopping at the last minute.  My advice -- don't give in and do the last-minute, over-the-top jewelry purchase.  A story in the Washington Times yesterday said that "the most dangerous place to be on Christmas Eve is between a desperate husband and a jewelry counter."  It doesn't have to be that way.  You don't have to choose the easy, pricy way out just because you are a champion procrastinator, although jewelry stores are counting on suckers like us showing up this Saturday.  A circular that went out to jewelers recently stated:

"Holiday shopping is stressful for men, they do it later than women, and spend much more than usual on gifts (up to 70 percent)...The last Saturday before Christmas-this year, also the day before Christmas-is the year's busiest shopping day. Stock up for last-minute shoppers. Repolish, retag, and rebox slow-moving merchandise."  

Don't be the guy who buys the repolished, retagged, and reboxed slow-moving items!

Show a little creativity.  I know, it's hard to be too creative at 3 p.m. on Christmas Eve when the stores close in an hour.  But here are some suggestions to save you from the inevitable credit card bill holiday hangover.

Tip number one? Spend some extra time on the card.  Tell her how special she is to you, even think about writing a poem or at least choose your words carefully.  Some choice words can make up for the lack of choices at the store the night before Christmas. 

As for the gift, how about a spa package? A massage, facial, manicure, whatever.  What woman will not appreciate your desire to help her relax? And it's so easy.  You just pick the services and then present her with the decorative card.  I can't tell you the number of times I have been scrambling for a last minute gift and I have been saved by the spa gift certificate.  It never disappoints.  And if you can, why not throw in a bath package from one of those fancy bath stores?  You know candles, the whole shebang.   

Or how about booking a weekend at a great hotel? Or even promising a weekend at a particular hotel?  You can deal with the details later.  If you are really strapped for time, print out the home page from the internet to give her, but make sure you characterize it as a romantic getaway, even if it's right off Route 5. 

What not to get?  The most recent "Shopping in America" survey ranked gift cards as the top last-minute holiday gift,.  Twenty percent of procrastinators choose one.  While it's practical, it's about the least romantic thing I can think of.  Also -- and this is important -- do not, I repeat do not try to buy shoes unless you know exactly what she wants.  Other types of clothing are ok but say no to shoes! If it's shoes versus jewelry this Dec. 24, then bang away at the window of the jewelry store late on Christmas Eve.

One caveat to all of this that my primarily female staff wanted me to add.  I am single and many have said that it's not by chance.


E-mail: Sidebar@msnbc.com

December 19, 20059:14 a.m. ET

Attention Kazakhstan, it's a joke! (Dan Abrams)

With Alabama's governor and the family of missing 17-year-old Natalee Holloway calling for a boycott, what could be tougher than working for Aruba's tourism department right now?

Well, I still think it would be tougher to work at Kazakhstan's tourism bureau.  Yes, the former Soviet republic is fighting what has become an absurd campaign to improve its reputation here in the United States.

It seems the nation's leaders cannot contain their anger at becoming best known in England and the United States as the home country of Borat Sagdiyev, the fictional character created by comedian Sacha Baron Cohen on HBO's "Da Ali G Show."

Borat claims to be the leading television personality in Kazakhstan who visits western countries to report back to Kazakhstan on western culture and customs.  He also educates westerners about what he claims are customs in Kazakhstan, like drinking horse urine instead of wine and the practice of having sex with relatives.  Kazakhstan has threatened to sue Cohen.  The Kazakh foreign minister said last month, "We do not rule out that Mr. Cohen is serving someone's political order designed to present Kazakhstan and its people in a derogatory way."

Borat recently announced publicly that he supports a lawsuit:  "In response to Mr. Ashykbayev comments, I like to state I have no connection with Mr. Cohen. I support my government's decision to sue this Jew."

Well on Friday, Kazakhstan tried a different route, paying for a self-promotional, four-page, mail-type insert in the New York Times where Kazakhs describe themselves as the quote "tiger economy of Central Asia" and salute their political achievements and religious tolerance.  But the ad is written with the same insecurities as are evidenced by the desire to sue Ali G. "Of course there are aspects of Kazakhstan's record that are open to criticism," the ad said. "Kazakhstan continues to suffer from corruption, the rule of law is developing tentatively, and the democratic system certainly concentrates power in the hands of the president." 

Who would have known about those problems and issues without the ad? It's as if they are concerned they are going to be outed by Borat.  As Borat said in his recent response to the government's threats:  "Since the 2003 reforms, Kazakhstan is as civilized as any country in the world. Women can now travel on inside of bus. Homosexuals have no longer to wear blue hats. And age of consent has been raised to eight years old. Please, captains of industry, I encourage you come to Kazakhstan where we have incredible natural resources, hard working labor and some of the cleanest prostitutes in whole of Central Asia."

It's a joke!  He is kidding! He is not a real character!  Kazakhstan is just making it worse.  The more you try to repair the damage, the more the rest of us will look for Borat on television.

E-mail: Sidebar@msnbc.com

December 15, 20057:23 p.m. ET

Why is Bush analyzing DeLay case? (Dan Abrams)

Imagine this introduction:  Joining us now to discuss the case is our president George W. Bush.  Sure, it is far fetched.  But it does seem the president has gotten into the legal analysis game.

During an interview with Fox News, President Bush was asked about the case filed against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.  He said he believes DeLay is innocent.  This, only a few weeks before his trial is expected to begin.

Now, if the president was a legal commentator like me who offers up opinions on all ongoing cases and is often ignored, that would be one thing.  But this is the president.  A president who has repeatedly refused to comment on any criminal investigations and cases.  Even when the president was asked about the indictment of the vice president's chief of staff Scooter Libby.  He said: "I have told you before that I am not going to discuss the investigation until it is completed."

So, why the willingness to offer up his opinion that Tom DeLay didn't launder money through his political action committee?  White House spokesman Scott McClellan said today the president was exercising quote "presidential prerogative."  What?  Look, I have said I think the DeLay case is going to be a tough case for prosecutors to prove, but I am not the president and I have not refused to comment on any other ongoing cases.  The president didn't offer any explanation for his confidence in DeLay's innocence.  He just said that he hoped to see DeLay back in the majority leader's seat because quote:

"I like him, and plus, when he's over there, we get our votes through the House."

Aha!  Well, maybe that's the reason. And even if that's not it, it sure makes it seem awfully selective for the president to speak up just for this defendant.  A case mired in politics.  So much so that four separate elected Texas judges were assigned to preside over the case before both sides were ready to move forward.  Judge after judge has been accused of being too political.

Now don't tell me this president was forced into answering the question.  When President Bush does not want to answer, he doesn't answer.  He also knows that when he speaks, people listen.  And that's why it was not a real good idea to pick a highly charged political case that is only weeks away from jury selection to begin his career as a legal analyst. Although, he is invited to be a guest on this program to discuss any subject we cover.    

E-mail: Sidebar@msnbc.com

December 15, 2005 9:53 a.m. ET

This is getting petty (Dan Abrams)

The silly debate over what to call publicly displayed Christmas or holiday trees has now been taken to a new level of absurdity.  A handful of organizations and media types looking to incite trouble are trying to encourage boycotts of stores or retail chains that use "Happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." Come on!

The instigators are trying to make this seem like some sort of war on Christmas as opposed to just a benign effort to be nice to as many people as possible. They say the vast majority are shopping for Christmas or preparing to celebrate Christmas and that stores should embrace, not shy away from it.  OK but aren't these pro-Christmas activists generally the same people who despise the commercialization of Christmas? The ones who say Christmas has become too secular? So as part of that effort they want to make sure that stores in malls are better using the religious holiday to sell clothes, electronics and jewelry? That retail stores are appropriately advertising their 30% off sales by referring to Christmas?  That is how they want to preserve the meaning of Christmas?

As one Christian shopper said to the Atlanta Journal and Constitution "I'd prefer that a corporation not cheapen my experience by profiting from the birth of my savior."
For companies and stores, it is the holiday shopping season, buoyed by robust sales. primarily for Christmas, but also for other celebrations.  Isn't it possible that Happy Holidays could also be referring to the coming new year? 

Look, stores selling items to hang on Christmas trees should call them Christmas tree ornaments.  Employees should feel free to wish those shoppers a Merry Christmas.  But trying to force these stores to use the term Christmas exclusively rather than the more general and inclusive term holidays is just petty.

I know how much some want to create a mountain out of a menorah but as I have said before, it's the Christmas season, the holiday season, whatever! Let's try to show a little more holiday spirit.

E-mail: Sidebar@msnbc.com

December 8, 2005 | 5:11 p.m. ET

Who cares what it's called? (Dan Abrams)

It's just a tree, whether it's called a Christmas tree or a holiday tree, or even if you call it a Hanukkah bush.  A few people are trying to get the rest of us riled up over what to call and where to place a festive tree decorated with colorful lights and ornaments this time of year.

From local debates over whether the trees can be displayed in public buildings to the semantic debate in Washington, D.C. over whether to call the national tree a holiday tree or a Christmas tree.  A few on both sides are trying to make a big redwood debate out of what should be a little fern.

Who cares what it's called? Some are horrified about calling it a "holiday" tree because they feel Christmas is being "censored" or secularized while others complain that just the vision of the tree or of Santa Claus makes them feel excluded because they are divisive religious symbols.

Give me a break.

I assume I am not alone when I say I just think the tree or bush or whatever you call it looks nice in many places this time of year.  Last time I checked there was no reference to the Christmas tree in any holy book.  Sure it's associated with Christmas. .It's also true that the tree has become secularized here in the United States much to the chagrin of some.  I start to think some just want to complain for the sake of complaining.  On one hand they shriek it should be called a Christmas tree and yet on the other hand they defend keeping it in public places by saying it's really not that religious? Huh?

Remember we are not talking about any aspect of the true history of the religious holiday.  This is not about crosses or nativity scenes.  In fact, the tree is a relatively recent addition to the Christian celebration of Christmas here in the U.S.  And why don't we hear these ferocious debates over the Easter Bunny? 

If you want to put up a nice looking Hanukkah menorah or Kwanzaa kinara next to it, fine. Just make sure it's not one of those ugly faded plastic menorahs where the lights don't work.  It's legitimate for Jews to complain if you have a beautiful nativity scene next to one of those decrepit menorahs.

But does it really matter what we call the tree? It's a Christmas tree, it's a holiday tree to some, it's just decorative to others its Christmas.  But let's just agree to see it our own way.  It's the holidays for all of us.  Let's try to keep up the holiday spirit.

E-mail: Sidebar@msnbc.com

December 5, 2005 | 4:58 p.m. ET

Time for more than lip service (Dan Abrams)

Why does it seem so difficult to get the government to take the fight against terrorism seriously right here in the United States?

Today, what was the bipartisan 9-11 Commission issued a final report.  And it's bleak, giving the United States more F's than A's in 41 different areas, from the sharing of intelligence by government agencies to the failure to curtail the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  The group, now working as a non-profit, says the government has failed to make the necessary changes.

In 2004 President Bush called the Commission's recommendations "constructive." Well, it's time for more than just lip service. 

The report was issued on the same day that a suicide bomber tried to attack an Israeli shopping mall. Police said the bomber blew himself up on a line of people going through a security check at the mall's entrance.  A guard spotted the bomber and as he approached him, the bomber blew himself up.  Five were killed, 35 wounded.  No question many, many more would have died if the terrorist had made it inside or targeted an American mall for that matter.  There would have been no security line, no customary security check, and likely no guard to notice someone suspicious.

What does one have to do with the other? Well Israel is a lesson in what a nation can do to combat terror.  To date, there has never been a successful breach of an Israeli shopping mall by a suicide bomber, despite more than a hundred attempts.  And while setting up security checkpoints at shopping malls was not on the 9-11 commission's list of recommendations, many more obvious and basic recommendations were, such as creating one comprehensive no-fly list to keep terror suspects off planes, as opposed to each agency keeping a separate list.  Or making sure emergency responders have radio communication capabilities...or allocating homeland security money to states based on actual risk, as opposed to how powerful a state's senators are.

Since 2002, Israel's security measures have prevented 95% of Palestinian terror attacks.  And while they have a unique issue, we've been lucky that the attacks of 9-11 have not been repeated.  Yet just about everyone agrees that it is not a matter of if but when.  Don't let it take another attack on U.S. soil to convince the administration and Congress that preventing terror at home should be priority number one.

The 9-11 Commission was bipartisan for a reason.  So people would listen without the roar of politics being heard in the background  

E-mail: Sidebar@msnbc.com

Dec. 2, 2005 |

1,000th execution calls for evaluation (Dan Abrams)

Early this morning, the 1,000th United States inmate was executed since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1977.  That is not a cause to celebrate but a reason to evaluate.

I support the death penalty but think this is a time to remember that it should be the punishment of last resort.  As I have said before, prosecutors use the death penalty too often.

It is no longer reserved for the worst of the worst and instead has become a garden variety punishment, which means more mistakes and less faith in the fairness of the sentence.  But since some prosecutors seem unwilling or unable to better choose which cases should qualify, maybe it's time to make it harder for jurors to impose it in the 38 states where the death penalty is an option.

Jurors generally have to weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and determine whether the aggravating circumstances — or reasons whether or not to execute outweigh the mitigating ones.

Maybe the standard for death should be beyond any doubt rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.  And are we really comfortable with the fact that in five states a death recommendation need not be unanimous? 

DNA has proved that a good number of people on death row were innocent, leading some states to re-evaluate all of their death row cases.  These death cases also clog the court system with appeals taking years and years.

I want to ensure the death penalty remains on the books but for serial murderers, those who torture their victims, or kill children — the most heinous of crimes.  We have to make sure that the right person is convicted and for a penalty so severe.  The criminals ought to be the type of people most reasonable people would want to execute — not the getaway driver in a botched robbery where someone else shot the gun.  For him, is life without parole really a travesty of justice?

For the death penalty to survive, it is going to have to adapt to changing times: Getting it right, but not necessarily getting it as often.