Department of Book Reports: The Help

The Help, by Kathryn Stockett (Amy Einhorn Books, $24.95)
This is a beautiful novel, and the timing of it's release couldn't be more perfect.

Skeeter Phelan has returned to her family home in Jackson, but even with a degree in 1962, her mother urges her to get a teller job at the bank so she can meet a nice young man and get married.

Mrs. Charlotte Phelan's Guide to Husband Hunting, Rule Number One: a pretty, petite girl should accentuate with makeup and good posture. A tall, plain one with a trust fund.
I was five-foot-eleven but I had twenty-five thousand cotton dollars in my name and if the beauty in that was not apparent then, by God, he wasn't smart enough to be in the family anyway.

Skeeter is growing impatient with the town, her friends in the Junior League and lack of any meaningful job for a woman. She breaks with the Junior League over Miss Hilly Holbrook's championing of separate colored restrooms in private residences for hygenic reasons. Constantine, the black maid who raised her, and her sole comfort is no longer working for their house and no-one can tell Skeeter where she has gone. In her desperation she contacts a New York publisher seeking a job. When a senior editor at Harper & Collins advises her to take an entry level position at her local newspaper, the newspaper editor initially wants to brush her off, but then remembers he needs someone to write the domestic advice column. Skeeter gladly takes the job, even though she's never polished the silverware or done the laundry. To get the advice she needs to write the column, she turns to Aibileen, her friend Miss Leefolt's maid.

Miss Skeeter moves her eyes back to the window, on Miss Hilly's Buick. She shakes her head, just a little. "Aibileen, that talk in there... Hilly's talk, I mean..."
I pick up a coffee cup, start drying it real good with my cloth.
"Do you ever wish you could... change things?" she asks.
And I can't help myself. I look at her head on. Cause that's one a the stupidest questions I ever heard. She got a confused, disgusted look on her face, like she done salted her coffee instead a sugared it.
I turn back to my washing, so she don't see me rolling my eyes. "Oh no, ma'am, everthing's fine."

Aibileen hesitantly agrees to help her, and this begins their discussion of the white women and the colored women who clean their houses and raise and love their babies. Skeeter contacts the NYC editor again, who has been keeping an eye on the growing civil rights movement in the South. She agrees to read a manuscript by this persistent Southerner. Largely unnoticed by Skeeter and her crowd, but very much in the minds of the maids of Jackson, local events escalate to a boiling point.

Skeeter and Aibileen convince 12 maids to share their stories, and here is where your heart will break. They change the names of course, and the author will be listed as Anonymous, in an unnamed town, but still the confidants are worried. And justifiably so, as events escalate in town. Finally, Minny offers to include her story of her last day working for Miss Hilly's mother. She knows if she tells the story of the pie she baked that day, Miss Hilly would not tolerate the implication that the book takes place in Jackson and that she is the butt of that joke. The maids have good reason to fear for their own safety if their identities become known.

The book is published and the ensuing scramble is grand. The maids nervously watch the bookmarks in their employers' books to see if they've read "their" chapter yet. When a local television show declares the book set in Jackson, Miss Hilly must pull out all the stops in her deniability campaign.

This is a beautiful story so well told. You'll pick up bits of history in the back ground, and the author points out the liberties she's taken in an afterword (having Shake-n-Bake introduced in 1962 gives Minny a good monologue).


This Indie First Pick can be found at your favorite independent bookstore. Book orders can be placed 24 hours a day at Jackson Street Books. If you are lucky enough to be in AL,GA, LA, or CA, check the schedule and go to one of her readings. Some of the signings will feature a special appearance by actress Octavia Spencer, who will be reading the part of Minny , here's an audio link to listen to a selection.

Stimulating Packages

Unrighteous Rogering

Pastor Steven L. Anderson
Faithful Word Baptist Church

Dear Pastor Anderson,

I think I've been doing a good job defending Ted Haggard and explaining the difference between sinfully dirty same-sex love and the healthy, righteous, heterosexual expression of fraternal respect that comes from the partaking of another man's seed. I hope you and your special acolyte, Brother Stucky, have had similar success in educating your flock.

But now, new information has come out about Pastor Haggard that makes me wonder if he is truly following our Lord's commandments. I'm particularly concerned about this story from Pastor Haggards special acolyte, Brother Grant Haas (as recounted by Sister Pam):

When Haas asked about her [Haggard's wife, Gayle] knowledge of these things, Ted told him "yes, she's a freak too", they went to sex toy stores and even molded a dildo together (calling it "Ted Two"), and put it into him.

I'm not sure what to think about this, so I'm asking you for guidance. Is this kind of thing acceptable? On the one hand, you have Mrs. Haggard strapping on a replica of the pastors little preacher and then giving him a right good rogering. That wouldn't seem to be in keeping with Eph.5:22-24 which commands wives to be submissive. But then again, if he commanded her to do it, it would be an act of submission, wouldn't it? Do you and Zsuzsanna have any experience with this kind of thing?

And, is it possible that by engaging in such an act, Pastor haggard was committing the sin of Onan? After all, he was sexually gratifying himself with his own proxy thingy. Or is being reamed by a replicate thingy acceptable? It's not really addressed in Gen.38:9-10 or anywhere else in the Bible--King James Version, anyway-- as far as I can see. They didn't have silicone to make replicas back then, so it probably never came up. And, I think giving yourself a righteous rogering using natural equipment would be impossible. I know, I've never been able to do it. How about you?

There's also the issue of a woman participating in a sacred fraternal rite for men. It just feels so wrong to allow women to do that. It's unrighteous rogering if you ask me.

Please get back to me soon. I'm not sure how I should address this with my flock, so I'll wait until I receive your response.

Heterosexually yours,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

The General's Prayer Circle

Oh God, our Eternal Father,

Please give us the strength we need to overcome the siren call of TV wrestling so we may wear this shirt.



And please forgive us if we have to take it off every few days.

And Lord, please give reader Evan a halo tip.

In the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ

Amen.

Yes, haloscan is evil.

I'm looking at other alternatives, but they may require registration.

Thingy Bobbing for Jesus

Gary Randall, President
Faith and Freedom PAC

Dear President Randall,

I'm becoming very concerned about all these scandals involving good, godly, heterosexual social conservatives who are getting caught putting some random guy's little soldier's in their mouths. Heck, just in the last year or so, we've seen such fine men as Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, and a judge you endorsed, Michael Hecht, taken down for nothing more than a a very heterosexual round of innocent butt stuckey and little soldier gobbling, When's it all going to end.

Part of the problem lies with organizations like yours who abandon these men the moment they're exposed. By doing so, you promote the perception that they are stricken with the gay rather than simply receiving the highest honor one culture warrior can bestow upon another. By failing to counter the perception that such acts are not heterosexual in nature, you make us all look like a bunch of closeted hypocrites who hate ourselves so much we spend our lives trying to destroy the very essence of our being.

It's time for you to rebuke your shame, embrace Hecht, and educate the public about the true, non-sexual nature of thingy bobbing. Perhaps you could do so as you fight against marriage equality by explaining the difference between the evil of same-sex love and the greatest of all expressions of fraternal respect, a righteous cob gobble.  I'm thinking TV ads featuring a Pastor and a young acolyte, perhaps Pastor Anderson and Brother Stucky, pelting a newly married non-heterosexual couple with tomatoes and then going home to drive their rigid spears of fraternal respect into each others holy receptacles of masculine man-mead.  And then maybe sharing a beer.

Heterosexually yours,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

Furriners ain't all bad

I'm guessing these here Mexicans are expressing their love for Der Pöpenfuhrer, but dammit, why can't they say it in English. If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us.

Packing heat for Jesus

Grant Exton
Executive Director
Arkansas Concealed Carry Assn.

Dear Mr. Exton,

By gawd, you're onto something with that guns in churches bill. There's absolutely no reason why anyone with a concealed carry permit shouldn't be able to pack a piece in a place of worship. You just don't know when some mob, all hepped up on the gay, is going to invade your chapel and violate our Jesus, but, by gawd, let them try it when everyone's sporting a heater.

And it's more than just the potential for bloodshed that makes guns and the Gospel a perfect match. It's also about the comfort one should get from attending church. You know how it is once you get a concealed carry permit. You become accustomed to having a big, long, hard, powerful piece of rigid steel stuffed down your pants. It gives a man confidence. Indeed, that's why we get the permits to begin with. That tell-tale bulge transforms accountants into warriors. I feel naked without it.

You know Our Lord and Savior will be sporting that bulge when He returns. After all, He brought a big ol' can of whoop-ass into the temple when he drove out the money-changing perps. It's too bad he didn't have an Armsel Striker "Streetsweeper" shotgun with him that day. Man, that would have been one hell of a righteous bloodfest.

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

Muslims are after me Lucky Charms

I'm very saddened by the demise of Pajamas Media. Their dedication to investigative journalism will be sorely missed. They were always my prime source of information on such important stories as the placement of secret Muslim symbols in our monuments and secret Islamic messages in Mattel's talking dolls.

Although it is a sad day, I will not mourn Pajama's Media death. Instead, I will honor them with the kind of important, hard-hitting investigative journalism that made them what they are today. So please join me as I expose Islam's breakfast jihad.

It all started as I was starting my morning in the usual way with a Twinkie, a Mountain Dew, and a big bowl of Lucky Charms. I'll never forget that moment. I was bringing a spoonful of oaty goodness to my mouth when I spotted it, a crescent, the symbol of Islam. And it wasn't just any old Muslim marshmallow crescent.This one sported a bulge in its midsection, a big bulge, a mighty package. It was if the entire Islamic world was mocking me. One billion people pointing at my rather smooth crotchal area, taunting me, questioning my manhood, and declaring the superiority of Muslim masculinity.

Sure, it is a subtle form of propaganda, but it derives its power from its subtlety. Millions of Americans view that crescent every day and the vile image of its package sears itself into their brains. There it sits as the brain subconsciously processes over the remainder of the day. Then, at bedtime, we men are overcome with feelings of inadequacy as our wives look at our little soldiers and laugh and call us names like "General Dinky-Dong" without really understanding why they are motivated to do so.


But how do we know this crescent is indeed a Muslim crescent and not simply a well-endowed moon? Well, the box gives us a clue. Take a look at the leprechaun. We're supposed to believe he's Irish, but as my analysis demonstrates, he's an Islamochaun, a homicide-bomber from Islam's evil leprechaun armies of jihad.

It's all in the wavelengths. Irish green measures 506 nanometers (nm). Islam greens range from 510 to 517 nm. After repeatedly scanning the Lucky Charms leprechaun, I determined that the green in his clothing averaged 514 nm in wavelength with certain areas exactly matching the wavelength of the Saudi flag (512 nm), the Pakistani flag (516 nm) and Muammar al-Qadhafi's Little Green Book (514 nm).


But is simply being an Islam shade of green enough? No, it could just be a coincidence. That's why I decided to take a look at how the General Mills headquarters building--General Mills produces Lucky Charms--physically lines up with Islam's most holy city, Mecca. So I consulted an Qibla calculator (Qibla is the direction Muslims face when praying) and found that Mecca is 43.74° N degrees from GM's hq.


I then mapped it out and found that the line between General Mills HQ and Mecca went directly through Norway and Sweden, foreign places where the national dish is lutefisk--a kind of jellied fish much like the Arab dish, maraq samak sana'd except it's soaked in lye rather than tomato sauce and doesn't stink as badly.

We all know that Swedes and Norwegians are a very handsome, but randy, people, and that our wives often think about them during intimate moments. This, like the mental images of the crescent bulge, affects American patriots' marital relationships, causing feelings of inadequacy in men and contempt for husbands in women. So you see, Swedes, Norwegians, and Muslims are all after our white women. That's what the Lutefisk Line is all about.

Funny funny man

Joe Lieberman:

‘We had hoped Vice President Cheney would be here tonight. I hope it’s not his back injury that’s keeping him away. Apparently, he hurt it moving some things out of his office. Personally, I had no idea that waterboards were so heavy.

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?

As we see here, Robert Catalanello's gaydar is as good as his political judgement:

French financial firm Calyon in the Americas is being sued by Ryan Pacifico who alleges that he was fired because his boss, Robert Catalanello, thought that he seemed gay because he would not eat steak and wore snug-fitting shorts during triathlons. The firm denies the allegation and says that he was fired for performance reasons.

Stimulating Liberty & Autonomy is Not a Republican Value

_{Image © Austin Cline
Click for full-sized Image}

It's been interesting watching the Republicans come up with excuses to oppose the recent economic stimulus package supported by Democrats. There might be legitimate reasons to doubt the package's likely effectiveness, but Republicans didn't offer any. What this means is that Republicans are betting that the economy won't start improving any time soon and that this will make them look better to voters.

Admitting that this is their plan wouldn't make them look good, though, because most voters would probably want them to try to help make things better even if they had legitimate doubts. So conservatives have had to come up with excuses for their opposition — excuses that sound plausible to conservative voters. The fact that they would use these excuses tells us something about them; the fact that the excuses are accepted as plausible or reasonable by conservatives tells us something about conservatives.

I think that the excuse which was given the most time and attention was the attempt to provide more funding for family planning and STD prevention. Republicans acted like it was the height of impropriety and stupidity to have such measures in a package designed to provide economic stimulus, but even a superficial look at the matter reveals that they are more than appropriate. First, and most basically, they would create jobs — expanding education about family planning and sexually transmitted diseases means more classes, more educators, and so forth.

Second, both (though especially STD prevention) qualify as preventative medicine which reduces health care costs in the long run, never mind the costs in lost worker productivity. It's cheaper to help people avoid getting an STD than to treat one later. It's cheaper to help people have children only when they want a child and are ready for it than to help them raise children they weren't ready for — especially if they weren't financially ready. Given the current economic situation, the last thing we need is for more families dealing with unwanted pregnancies.

So we have some obvious, straightforward, and solid arguments in favor of such programs generally and as part of economic stimulus in particular, but what about arguments against? There aren't any good ones, and when conservative pretend to have an argument they look especially foolish. Chris Matthews hit what was probably the lowest level possible when he argued that increased availability of contraceptives is the same as forced contraception and abortion in China, but other conservatives weren't much better when they offered little more than "abstinence is the best policy."

The rest of the time, conservatives weren't even trying to make a case for why such provisions are a bad idea. Instead, they did things like claim the Democrats are trying to fund poor people having sex, or how Nancy Pelosi's picture would make good birth control. Even when Republicans might have legitimate political or social policy arguments, they often don't hesitate to use such misogynistic and anti-sex rhetoric, but sometimes it's all they have.

It's fair to argue that Republican's opposition here is all about sex, or rather about their fear/hatred of sex. It's also fair to argue that Republican opposition here is really all about their misogyny and their desire to prevent women from establishing fully equal, autonomous positions in society. While I think it is true that fear of sex and misogyny lie behind their opposition to these measures, I think that there is something else that lies behind them as well: a basic authoritarian attitude towards the governance of society.

I know that so much of this ultimately falls on the backs of women, which is what makes it so misogynistic, but to a certain extent these people are driven not so much by hatred of women in particular, but hatred freedom in general. They want people's behavior to be controlled, which means they don't want people to have the ability to act freely and autonomously.

Sex, which occurs behind closed doors, can be the ultimate in autonomous behavior because it's beyond the direct control of authority figures. This means that control must be internalized through religious codes (i.e., making you feel "dirty" or immoral for having the wrong sort of sex in the wrong way). Since internalized controls don't always work, other measures must be brought into play, all of which depend upon the existence of negative consequences to sex. From the perspective of authoritarians, pregnancy and STDs are important consequences of sex because:

1. They are a form of punishment for wrong sex.
2. The reveal to the world that you violated rules about sex.
3. The help prevent you from having more wrong sex.
4. They are a warning to others to not have wrong sex.

Preventing pregnancy and STDs also prevents any of the above from occurring, which means that there is little or no harm from the failure of internalized controls. If they can fail with little or no harm, the power of the authority figures who promote those controls is undermined and this throws the entire structure of authoritarian control into question. There's a reason why every authoritarian state or system also strictly controls sexual activity.

Finally, I have to point out that all of the indignant responses to Republicans' stupidity here tend to concede the Republicans' basic premise — and I have to reluctantly include my own article! That premise is: there's something wrong with sex or encouraging sex in the first place. Look at the progression of ideas:

Conservative Misogynist: You're just funding consequence-free sex!
Sensible Adult: No, no! We're just promoting health and planning!
Conservative Misogynist: So, you agree that consequence-free sex is bad!
Sensible Adult: Uh, what were we talking about again?

So what if Democrats wanted to fund people, especially poor people, having sex? In tough economic times the range of entertainment and leisure options can become severely constrained, but sex with willing partner(s) is free. I'd much rather the government make it easier for people to connect with one another through sex than to fund mass spectacle, bread & circuses, or the like. Which would be better for individuals and society in general: watching another round of American Idol or turning off the TV for a bit of sweaty sex?

Barack Obama caved in to childish Republicans by pulling the above measures from the stimulus package but promised to restore them to another bill later on. I say that they should not only be included, but expanded greatly. In addition to funds for family planning and STD prevention, there should be funds for general sex education as well: not just what people should have learned in school (and maybe didn't because Republicans controlled the local school board) but also how to have better sex, how to communicate with their partners, how to make better use of sex toys, etc.

In fact, maybe we should have a provision for underwriting sex toys for all Americans. If we can have a program providing coupons for people to buy digital TV signal converters, why not a program providing coupons for people to buy vibrators, dildos, edible body paint, and more? That will be a great economic stimulus for the sex toy industry and will surely lead to happier couples at home. I know this will outrage Republicans, but they will be outraged over funds for mere STD prevention.

Then we can "compromise" by instead just providing subsidies for contraception for all Americans. That should have broad public support, but people will still have gotten the idea that maybe buying sex toys is a good idea after all. It's a win-win situation, especially given the entertainment provided by all those Republican heads exploding. C'mon, who wouldn't want to see if Rush Limbaugh has an aneurism on-air while sputtering about this? Can you imagine how they would even begin to talk about it while trying to avoid all the words and ideas which make them feel icky?