ensions ran high in the world court this week as prosecutors continued what will undoubtedly be the greatest trial of the century, at least for a long time: The world vs. Kris Kringle, also known as Santa Claus, also known as Father Christmas, et al. It was a trial marked by emotional outbursts and brutal accusations of crimes against humanity.

Kringle, led into the courtroom with his ankles shackled together and a series of elaborate handcuffs binding his hands, sat quiet through most of the prosecution's presentation of evidence. For the defense was world-famous Swedish lawyer Jorgen Fiord, who successfully defended Argentine dentist Emilio Rodriguez in 1996 against charges he was the infamous "Tooth Fairy."

"This man, sitting right here—though he may appear jolly, and have the very glint of holiday joy in his eyes, is at best a worldwide fraud and perpetrator of lies," presented attorney Manfred Hauser for the prosecution. "At worst, he's the greatest terrorist in the history of mankind."

Hauser was referring to the charges levied against the alleged jolly old elf: the first, pretending to provide toys and presents to all the children of the world, when in fact they're bought and delivered by the children's parents; two, attempting to set up a non-profit "holiday" religion by infringing upon the beliefs of Christianity; three, initiating and operating international pyramid schemes of "helpers" on street corners and department stores everywhere; four, cruelty to animals, i.e. specifically the training and illegal housing of endangered reindeer; and five, violating labor laws and international laws against slavery, specifically regarding the livelihood of diminutive people.

Kringle had the entire world on the edge of their seats, awaiting how he would plea, when he finally entered a statement of "not guilty" two weeks ago.

The trial has been the focus of the entire world ever since the world-famous "Santa Claus" was taken into custody last year, Sept. 19, 2012, by Russian soldiers while leading a Chechan rebels' rebellion during his so-called "off season." Tipped off by local naughty boys, soldiers found Kringle hidden beneath a collapsed chimney that he may have been using as a home for as long as six weeks. The U.N. had planned to try Claus in October of this year, but thought given the circumstances they could postpone the event until the holiday season.

The highlight of Thursday's trial included the testimony of an anonymous elf, known only to the jury as "Sprinkles," alleging Kringle used magic powers to extend the days just so he could make his elf workforce work 28-hour shifts. The testimony took a turn for the lewd as the witness alleged, through sobs and comically high-pitched crying, Santa Claus made the workplace even more uncomfortable with the use of a device called a "mistletoe belt buckle."

"Humbug!" exclaimed Kringle, standing up and shaking a green-gloved fist at the video screen. "Complete and utter humbug! And there's no use disguising your voice—I know it's you, Butterscotch! He's a liar, your honor! Check his closet and you'll see—nothing but coal!"

Kringle denounced the trial as a sham, and tried to remind the court of the reason for the season, but was warned by Judge Avril Harkrieger he would be bound and gagged if he didn't keep quiet, and maybe would anyway, if the judge wanted it bad enough.

Each day the trial has been marred by protests outside, middle- to upper-class kids demanded Santa's release, and several children living below the poverty line demanded years worth of retroactive gifts.

ompanies are lining up around the block this year to take part in the coolest trend to hit corporate America since "creative accounting": competing to see who can co-opt the most inappropriate pop anthem for their advertising campaign.

Hip companies everywhere stood up and took notice in 2004, when Carnival Cruise Lines kicked off this latest run on large-scale irony by snatching up Iggy Pop's heroin anthem "Lust for Life" for use in ads for their overweight middle-aged vacation cruises. While Carnival claims not to discriminate against guests based on whether or not they can make it through a buffet dinner without a fix of smack, most physicians recommend against combining heroin and shuffleboard.

"Disregard for artists is back," explained corporate trend-watcher Trevor Hamilton. "In fact, it's red hot."

Hamilton followed his comment with an embarrassing "-pssssss- ow!" burnt-finger gesture that we only mention because we don't like him.

Cadillac scored a major coup when they landed the Led Zeppelin classic "Rock 'n Roll" to advertise their old fogey cars. Industry observers consider this to be an especially cool victory for GM, since aside from the disorienting clash of associating rock music with land yachts, the song's lyrics are also quite clearly about sex, something most Cadillac drivers have foregone for years in favor of golf.

Others point to the brilliance of the Gap landing AC/DC's classic "Back in Black" for their ads, a song by a metal band with incredibly awful fashion sense, even for Australians.

However, few can top the catastrophically cool usage of Bob Dylan's seminal "The Times They Are A Changin'" by the Bank of Montreal in 1996, recasting a song about the dissolution of old power into an anthem for money management.

"A bank? A freaking bank?" gushed Hamilton, wetly. "That's just brilliant! That's like getting a Rage Against the Machine song to advertise duck pate."

Particularly popular this year is the use of sexually inappropriate tunes for advertising products aimed at small children. Advertising executives express their admiration for a recent spot using Salt N Pepa's raunchy sex come-on "Push It" to sell orange creamsicle push-pops, and another that featured Power Station's stiff-dick anthem "Some Like it Hot" in an effort to sell Hot Pockets.

Other upcoming salvos in the war for the most jarringly inappropriate corporate anthem include the Clash's "Lost in the Supermarket" to be used in an upcoming ad for Albertsons, a soon-to-be-released recruiting ad for the U.S. Army featuring Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A.", The Police's "Every Breath You Take" being used to hock the Apple iCam webcam, and Disney's continued misuse of the Guns n' Roses drug and prostitution saga "Welcome to the Jungle" for the DVD re-releases of Bambi, the Lion King, The Jungle Book and Tarzan.

As of press time, definitive word could not be reached as to whether or not President Bush plans to jump on the bandwagon, switching his presidential theme song from R.E.M.'s "World Leader Pretend," to something more inappropriate, like Bill Withers' 1972 hit, "Lean on Me."

One of the bigger stories of this week, indeed the new year, is the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito. The confirmation hearings have been slightly less entertaining than doing your own colonoscopy, but at least we've gotten to the root what makes Sam Alito so great.

What does this mean for the country? Alito, if confirmed, makes for the second conservative appointed to the Supreme Court. That could mean major changes to the law of the land in years to come. Prayer in school? You can do that. Abortions on demand? Say goodbye to them. Monkey fucking? We'll wait until the swing judges have their say. Swing judges? Forget it, they're out. That's right, people—everything's about to change.

The Supreme Court comprises the most important part, the bulbous head if you will, of the judicial branch of government. Why do we need a Supreme Court? Any high school senior whose had to memorize landmark cases like Plessy v. Ferguson and Roe v. Wade has asked the same thing. Like most high school teachers, we can't exactly tell you why. Only that without the Supreme Court, there would be no "daddy" for any of us to run to when things have pissed us off and we need disputes settled. It's kind of like The People's Court, for the most dramatic cases of the land. If a friend broke your automatic garage door or snapped the fan belt on your car, don't come crying to the nine justices. The Supreme Court is all 'bout the big business. That's what it says on their business cards.

Can we project the future of the United States based on the previous court decisions handed down from new Supreme Court kids John Roberts and Samuel Alito? Only if we're very haphazard in doing so.

Clones will be a thing of the past, no doubt, since more people might equal more voters, and we know the partisan Republican side of the Supreme Court doesn't want any more voters out there. Then there's the whole deal with stem cells. Stem cell research will be obliterated entirely, unless between now and the next Supreme Court case on stem cells we happen to find a new part of the Bible that says they're appropriately blessed for research. I'm certainly hoping that happens, because I'm feeling the early onset of Parkinson's this week. Though that may just be the extra cup of coffee I had.

Abortions? We'll still have them. We'll just be doing them 15-30 years after the fetus is born. Republicans approve of abortions, they just call it the death penalty when they do it. One advantage of a conservative Supreme Court is we'll be executing them younger and quicker, with fewer appeals, and even the mentally handicapped won't be excluded.

Is flag burning unconstitutional? No telling what side they'll fall on with this issue, but chances are if it's reactionary and provokes ire in poor and angry white people, they'll be all for it.

As a private citizen who tries to conceal all paper trails, I'm most worried about the constitutionality of the Patriot Act. I wouldn't count on the new and de-evolved Supreme Court standing in its way, since they know on which side their bread is buttered. Though actually, since they're elected for life, they're already permanently buttered. But I guess it doesn't mean they'll go and develop a conscience now. After all, as I've said, they've already got the job.

Perhaps when it's all said and done we'll be alright. One thing is for sure: Even the Supreme Court can't bring back disco. And in the end, that's what I fear most.

º Last Column: Brother Against Brother
º more columns