PULSE writer Harry Mok isn’t the only one annoyed with Abercrombie’s t-shirts these days. Bob Wise, the Democratic governor of West Virginia, has sent  Abercrombie executives a letter criticizing t-shirts that say “It’s all relative in West Virginia,” a statement which Wise believes unfairly stereotypes the state as a “haven for incest.” Wise has demanded that Abercromie cease selling these shirts immediately and destroy all remaining shirts so that they cannot be sold on the black market.

Abercrombie executives, of course, refuse to do so, insisting that they love all 50 states. And apparently, Abercrombie shoppers love these t-shirts, which even before the hoopla, have been selling well — for a mere $24.50 (plus tax) each.

I’m not sure which is sadder — the fact that people are willing to pay so much for Abercrombie’s t-shirts, that Wise is so outraged when his constituents must have more pressing concerns, or that this story makes the national headlines in The New York Times in the year of what many are referring to as “the most important election of your life.”

Laura Nathan-Garner

The brutal 1955 murder of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old black boy who was killed for allegedly whistling at a white woman in Mississippi, catalyzed the civil rights movement. When his mother demanded that an open coffin funeral be held to show how badly her son had been beaten, the world took notice.

While the attention received by the case ensured that the problem of racism in the South couldn’t go ignored any longer, the trial of the two white men who allegedly murdered Till illuminated the racism inherent in the justice system. Tried before an all-white jury, the defendants were, of course, acquitted.

But thanks to Keith Beauchamp, a filmmaker who set out to interview several witnesses to the murder, family members and Congressional leaders are urging the Justice Department to reopen the case 50 years later. According to witnesses, there were as many as 10 men involved in Till’s murder.

If the case does in fact return to court, will it simply reopen old wounds? Will it show how far (or how little) the U.S. justice system has come in 50 years? Or will it simply set the record straight and bring some solace to Till’s family, as proponents of reopening the case hope?

Whatever happens, I’m guessing that the Till case redux still won’t be the trial of the new millenium or gain the attention its proponents desire. After all, the plaintiffs will have to compete with Kobe and Michael, and sadly, most Americans only seem to take notice of the justice system when a celebrity’s career is at stake.

Laura Nathan-Garner

When Kerri Dunn, a visiting professor of social psychology at Claremont McKenna College, participated in a campus forum regarding hate crimes, she gave students and other school officials more than they bargained for.

Apparently, upon returning to her car after the forum, she found that her car had been vandalized. The windows were smashed in; the tires were slashed; and obscenities such as “nigger-lover” and “whore” were written in black spray paint on her vehicle.

As one might expect, Dunn reported the vandalism to the police and school officials, who cancelled classes at Claremont McKenna and six other colleges in the system. The reason? To allow students and faculty to protest the alleged hate crime.

Meanwhile, police officials responded by conducting an investigation, in which two eye-witnesses came forward and identified Dunn as the perpetrator of the crime. Yes, they claim to have seen Dunn vandalizing her own car. Though Dunn claimed to be “outraged” at such accusations, officials report that there had been inconsistencies in her story from the beginning …

All of this makes one wonder what Dunn was thinking. Was she simply crazy or seeking attention? Or was she trying to prove her point, that  the authorities would pay more attention to other issues — such as this conspiracy — rather than hate crimes that were happening on campus?

I assume that much like Kevin Spacey’s character in The Life of David Gale, Dunn was trying to prove her point. But it is unclear whether the spectacle she has created at Claremont McKenna is achieving her desired results. That is, she now stands to lose her job and has lost the respect of students and colleagues who consider her a liar. Where does the line begin and end for activists? And can sacrificing oneself for the cause ultimately undercut the cause? Or is  it the thought — the politics — that counts?

Laura Nathan-Garner

Think President Bush couldn’t provide inspiration if his life depended on it? Think again.

President Bush has people singing, it seems. In a scathing new single aimed at GW, Stephan Smith sings, “You Ain’t A Cowboy.” Email members of TrueMajority.org, the activist organization founded by Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s, can download the mp3 of Smith’s song – that is, if they have 99 cents to spare. Sure, 99 cents seems miniscule to most, but the economy under the Bush administration has been less than kind to many (Bush & co. excluded). Apparently, the economy is so bad right now that a record number of Austinites have had to foreclose on their homes in the last month (428, to be exact). If Smith inspires enough people, though, there’s a chance that Bush will be “foreclosing” on the White House in the fall.

Laura Nathan-Garner

What would happen if you ate nothing but food from McDonald’s three times a day for thirty days straight? You probably don’t want to know …

Morgan Spurlock just made his first film entitled Super Size Me, which addresses this question. Intrigued by the two women who sued McDonald’s for causing their obesity, Spurlock came up with what he called ”a great bad idea.“ That is, Spurlock decided to travel around the country from McDonald’s to McDonald’s to eat their food three times a day for a month. Before he began, Spurlock visited three different doctors, who all agreed that he was in excellent health. Once he began his all-McDonald’s diet, Spurlock visited these doctors every few days. Not surprisingly, he quickly gained weight. And on day 21, he began having heart palpitations, and all of his doctors, family members, and girlfriend insisted that he had proven his point and needed to stop before something terrible happened. But he continued his all-McDonald’s diet until day 30, as planned. When all was said and done, he had gained over 25 pounds and was incredibly ill. It wasn’t until two months after he ended his ”diet“ that Spurlock returned to good health (though there were still four-and-a-half pounds that he could never get rid of).

Spurlock’s film, which is both hilarious and deeply unsettling, hasn’t been released yet. But thanks to the fanfare and attention it has gained at the Sundance, Colorado Comedy Arts, and SXSW film festivals,  Super Size Me is already having an impact on McDonald’s (though McDonald’s executives have repeatedly refused to speak with Spurlock).  Just recently, McDonald’s announced that it is phasing out super-size options by the end of 2004.

Spurlock, not surprisingly, is ecstatic about the impact that his film is having on the world’s largest fast food chain. But his battle isn’t over. When I spoke with Spurlock yesterday, he said his plan is to get his film out to educational settings so that children, who are often targeted by fast food marketing campaigns, can learn just how dangerous their fast food addictions can be. By doing so, Spurlock believes he can help put in motion the combination of personal responsibility and corporate responsibility necessary to help people worldwide battle the obesity epidemic, which is quickly becoming one of the leading causes of death  in the U.S. If you’re still skeptical of the power of film or the adverse effect fast food can have on your body, make sure you see Super Size Me when it arrives in theaters around the country in May.

Laura Nathan-Garner

In an interview appearing in the April 2004 issue of Playboy, 50 Cent made the following comment: ”I ain’t into faggots. I don’t like gay people around me, because I’m not comfortable with what their thoughts are. I’m not prejudiced. I just don’t go with gay people and kick it — we don’t have that much in common.“ — Except that you both breathe, have a pulse, take up space, have sex, and the list goes on. But I suppose those are just minor details …

Laura Nathan-Garner

Stories and images about celebrities in our culture, and few of us — even those of us who claim to be removed from pop culture — can claim our distance from the obesession with fame and stardom. Have you ever acquired an autograph or waited in line to get tickets to see a particular musician or hear a particular speaker? Case in point.

George Hickenlooper’s documentary The Mayor of Sunset Strip, which I had the privilege of viewing last night as part of the SXSW film festival, offers a brilliant psychological study of our collective obsession with fame. Using Los Angeles KROQ disc jockey Rodney Bingenheimer as a case study/metaphor for American culture’s obsession with fame, the film suggests that this obsession grew out of the culture of the 1960s and has become a means of coping with the dissolution of the nuclear family as the defining structure in our lives. As we seek love and belonging to compensate for this lack, we look toward a dream that can almost never be achieved, but which seems to offer us the prospect of taking on importance and of belonging.

Featuring interviews with a long list of big names ranging from The Rolling Stones to No Doubt to The Sex Pistols, the documentary markets itself partially though celebrity praise. But as Hickenlooper told me, he was concerned that the long list of big names featured in the film would prove counterproductive, turning viewers off from seeing the film since images and interviews with those subjects are so pervasive in our culture. But as the second most successful documentary of all time — even before widescale release — this has proven to be anything but the case. Instead, as Hickenlooper suggested, viewers and film critics have been so attracted to The Mayor of Sunset Strip because it exposes a very visceral aspect of these subjects through their connection to the man who put them on the map. By characterizing celebrities in such human terms, Hickenlooper reveals that fame isn’t all that it is cracked up to be, but that it is also something that is almost universally desirable in Western culture.

I could go on and on. But I’ll spare you. See the film for yourself when it is released in theaters across the country at the end of March and April.

Whether you see the film for the interviews with some big names or to interrogate your connection to capitalist culture and the obsession with fame that it helps produce, you are sure to be impressed. And probably a bit disturbed.

Laura Nathan-Garner

After the Berlin Wall fell, tourists, eager to hold onto the last vestiges of the Cold War, bought pieces of the Wall. And when part of the Pentagon fell on Sept. 11, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld was eager to hold onto a piece of the plane that hit it. Literally.

According to an investigative report put together by the Justice Department, Rumsfeld and a high-ranking FBI agent kept ”souvenirs“ from the crime scenes at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, respectively. Is Rumsfeld worried others will forget what happened on Sept. 11? He certainly acts that way when he shows all visitors to his office that piece of the plan as a reminder of the events of that day.  While museums do this as a business, they do so at least partially to teach younger generations what happened before their time. My guess is Rumsfeld doesn’t have too many visitors to his office who were born in the short time that has passed since that fateful day, though.

American culture has long had an obsession with ”remembering“ certain events, particularly Sept. 11 and the Holocaust. Moves like Rumsfeld’s are meant to tell us both ”always remember to remember“ and ”never forget to remember,“ two sides of the same coin that remind us that all Americans lost part of themselves that day. Suffering and loss of individuals becomes the property of those like Rumsfeld that feel they need something to remember those events by since the memories in their heads and the footage shown on CNN apparently don’t suffice.

Sure, everyone wants to possess a little piece of history, but there is something peculiar and disturbing about this method of doing so. Not only is it extremely opportunistic for these men vested with significant federal authority to feel the need to take — and then show off — souvenirs from scenes where thousands of people died; it is also juvenile.

While 9/11 may have impacted the entire nation — indeed, the entire world — taking souvenirs such as parts of the plane suggests that these men, who were only affected by virtue of their citizenship and positions of authority, thought the memory itself wasn’t enough. They needed something tangible to show as evidence that part of them had been injured that day as well. With a little something to remember 9/11 by, they seem to wipe the blood off of their own hands for tragedies in other parts of the world that have killed hundreds of people and their failure to stop the events of 9/11 before they happened. And by possessing souvenirs of that history, they also elevate that event to a special status in the nation’s collective memory, whereby other crimes and acts of terrorism get forgotten — and actual suffering and loss experienced by families involved in those tragedies as well as 9/11 get kicked to the curb.

Laura Nathan-Garner

Born and raised in Texas, I have frequently reminded people that my identity isn’t tied to the geography, that not everyone in Texas rides a horse, is as conservative as President Bush, has an accent, is white, and is slightly off-kilter. It wasn’t until I lived in Chicago and learned about Texas happenings from the national news that some of those stereotypes seemed to make sense from an outsider’s perspective.

When Andrea Yates drowned her five children, people wanted my opinion on the matter since I was, of course, from Texas and therefore must have some connection or opinion on the matter. The same was true when that woman hit a pedestrian and then drove home with him on her hood, leaving him to die. In neither situation did I feel a personal connection, and I certainly didn’t identify with either of the perpetrators. But I would always roll my eyes and say, “We’re Texas,” an incredibly trite slogan that The University of Texas paid someone over $1 million to come up with (I really wish I was being facetious), or “Don’t mess with Texas,” the slogan for a highway clean-up campaign that got co-opted by Saturday Night Live to imply that Texans are gun-lovin’, death penalty-lovin’, Bush-lovin’ folks. I loathe these stereotypes. Although they are descriptive of many Texans, I would like to think that this is not entirely attributable to their location.

But I’ll admit that even I have begun thinking in these terms, and I’m not quite sure how to break free from them. For instance, when I saw the headline ”Some Texans boycott Girl Scout cookies“ on the Netscape homepage, all I could do was roll my eyes and say, ”We’re Texas.“

After all, Girl Scout cookies are seemingly innocuous, and come on, who doesn’t love a Thin Mint every now and then?  Apparently just about every Girl Scout and her mother in Crawford, Texas (home of the Bush ranch).  One Girl Scout troop is down to two members; one Brownie troop is now defunct.

Albeit not shocking in the midst of the culture war being waged on U.S. soil, the dissolution of Girl Scout troops in Crawford and the refusal to deliver cookies the girls already sold can be traced back to sex.

Apparently, the local Girl Scout organization gave a ”woman of distinction“ award to a Planned Parenthood executive and endorses a Planned Parenthood sex education program, which gives girls and boys information on homosexuality, masturbation and condoms.

I suppose that this act of protest is a great way for these women to show their support for their homeboy GW and his abstinence-promotion policy. And maybe Crawford mothers know best. Maybe unsafe sex promotion makes more sense than safe sex promotion (because let’s be honest, people are going to have sex regardless of the machinations of Girl Scout moms and GW).

But it makes me want eat more than my fair share of Girl Scout cookies. And it makes me forget why I even bother trying to defend the Lone Star State’s reputation, particularly when it seems to be the breeding ground for the new dangerous wave of conservatism that is desperately seeking to take hold of the nation. Yep, we’re Texas.

Laura Nathan-Garner

In a recent episode of Friends, soon-to-be newlyweds Phoebe (Lisa Kudrow) and Mike (Paul Rudd) briefly flirted with the idea of giving the money that they would spend on a wedding to a children’s hospital. But when their friends balked at the idea of giving up a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have a big, fancy wedding, they asked for their money back and eventually began planning their big day. There were moments of guilt and anguish regarding the final decision, but ultimately, in typical Friends fashion, the two decided to put themselves before the less fortunate, at least with regard to their wedding.

But other people are finding a way to both help the less fortunate and have the wedding of their dreams simultaneously. And they don’t have to donate their wedding gifts to do so.

Apparently, an increasing number of programs are training homeless or formerly homeless people in the culinary arts so that they can earn money by helping cater weddings, Bar Mitzvahs and other events. As  Danna Harman writes:

Under the auspices of Community Family Life Services, New Course takes homeless people, former inmates, and recovering addicts through a 16-week culinary course. During that time they get a $60-a-week stipend and on-the-job training in a cafeteria (New Course runs the US Tax Courts cafeteria), in a popular downtown restaurant (”3rd and Eats“), and with the catering operation itself.

More than 300 students have graduated from this training program since its launch 12 years ago, and about 80 percent have found jobs in the culinary field. The catering business, which started seven years ago, is earning $200,000 a year and is beginning to make its mark in the competitive and crowded Washington catering field, taking on everything from 500-person weddings to small ”power breakfasts.“

But the skills learned here go beyond the kitchen, says Jeannine Sanford, director of New Course’s classroom training and employment. Students take classes on self-esteem, time management, work ethics, and team building.

”They are learning how to respect themselves and others,“ says Ms. Sanford, ”… and this will stand them in good stead no matter what they do.“

As a prerequisite to joining this program (and also Fresh Start), enrollees must be sober, have stable living conditions, and be ready to make a commitment to helping themselves. About half of each class drops out before the end of the training, unable to meet these demands, says Mr. Doscher.

Laura Nathan-Garner

What’s the best way to rehabilitate juvenile defenders? a. boot camp, b. flogging, c. psychotropic drugs, or d. none of the above?

Workers at a Russian juvenile penal colony (their term, likely borrowed from Kafka) surmise that the answer is d. none of the above — and a dose of Dostoyevsky. Yes, Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

In the next couple of weeks, young men in the juvenile penal colony will be performing scenes from Dostoyevsky’s Notes from the House of the Dead.

Charged for offenses ranging from petty theft to rape and murder, the 20 youths involved in this experiment with literary therapy range from ages 14 to 19. Prior to testing their hand at acting out scenes from Dostoyevsky’s novel, none of them had read any of the Russian scholar’s work. In fact, many were illiterate.

Yet, by pushing a group of young men who are ambivalent about literature, theater and, in many instances, their own lives, director Yevgeny Zimin seeks to reinvigorate troubled youth by enabling them to  act out roles with which they closely can identify. In the process, he hopes, they can regain a sense of their own humanity.

Certain scenes involving violence and alcoholism were edited out of the show, however, in order to prevent the youth from acting out roles that might send them back down the road to crime.

Can literary therapy empower those whom the education system seems to have failed, or does this sort of performance art risk making a spectacle of the lives and acting skills of the young men on the stage? Only time will tell, seeing as these youth haven’t performed before an audience or been set free from the penal colony yet.

But the rule of law seems to be failing in Russia like there’s no tomorrow, so it cannot hurt to try this innovative solution. And given that those in U.S. prisons tend to be treated like animals — regardless of their age — perhaps the U.S. should follow suit.

After all, if crime is punishable because it is considered a violation of others’ humanity (or property), then retributive justice’s attempt to restore humanity by denying humanity seems doomed to fail at achieving its intended goal. Finding a better solution, as the Russians have discovered, demands spicing things up. And as my English teachers taught me, Dostoyevsky tends to do just that.

Laura Nathan-Garner

My mother is a terrorist. Or she would be if she was still teaching public school.

Last week, Secretary of Education Rod Paige referred to the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union, as ”a terrorist organization“ during a private meeting with governors.

Yes, it seems we are getting to the point where the number of people deemed prospective ”terrorists“ (a.k.a. enemies of the Bush administration) exceeds the number of Americans (since terrorism, we are told, is anti-American).

The rationale for equating teachers with terrorists goes something like this: Bush hails himself as a staunch advocate of education reform a la his (sparsely funded) No Child Left Behind legislation, but many of the 2.7 million members of the NEA have vocalized their opposition to the law, which penalizes schools and teachers if, for instance, test scores don’t improve in the course of a year … hence the teachers must be anti-American/terrorists.

Is Bush the only one immune from the ”terrorism“ label (along with Joseph McCarthy’s ghost)? Has Senator Joseph McCarthy come back from the dead to play puppeteer for the Bush administration?  

Previously, Paige has compared opponents of Bush’s education law to segregationist Southerners who stood in schoolhouse doors to prevent black students from attending desegregated schools. But is that what teachers opposing Bush’s law are doing?

Keep in mind that the teachers voicing their opposition probably aren’t the ones in wealthier suburban schools (since those teachers probably don’t fear losing funding given that achievement rates tend to remain above average). No, the teachers that Paige is demonizing are those who are most intimately impacted by No Child Left Behind. They are the ones who know how difficult it can be to raise test scores, to get parents involved, to get students to attend school and do their homework on a daily basis even though many have to work full-time to support their families. And they also know that Bush’s intiative doesn’t provide the funding necessary to meet the goals put forth by the law. But these teachers, whom have a much better sense of the barriers to education reform than representatives in Washington, D.C., are treated as the new enemy of the state because — gasp! — they aren’t afraid to voice their opinions.

Is it possible that the state has become the enemy of the education system as it siphons off money from teachers’ salaries and education programs to support national security? Or is this poorly funded education initiative merely a means of securing the nation against the latest enemy — teachers — along with the naive belief that the government is actually doing something about the public education crisis?

Laura Nathan-Garner