...over in the sidebar. It's from an article on Ex-Christian.net, about a place called Calvary Temple. The good pastor, who likes to play with racing cars and married a 20 year old virgin at 55 when his wife died, sounded a lot like the men I grew up around. Then I read this...
At 61, Scott still has the air of the West Coast college football player he once was. He dresses informally, smiles easily and delivers his judgments not by banging the lectern but by using a tone of New Age calm.
In his sermons, he tells of his exploits as a young man, the lure of sports, girls and parties. Born in Monterey, Calif., he was raised in a home where religion wasn't practiced. He was born again at 20.
For all that the blogger her is very, very Christian (any blog with "titus 2" or "Proverbs 31" in the title is very, very Christian) I think she hit a very good, secular nail on the head in this entry entitled "Why Modern Motherhood is So Much Harder than it Ought to Be". This section jumped out at me, but the rest is equally excellent:
We are handicapped by our society’s (begrudging at times) acceptance of mothers at home, but total lack of acceptance of women staying home without children. “There’s nothing to do,” the conventional wisdom goes, as if cooking, shopping, and laundry are so incidental as to fit nicely into cracks. The result of this is that, just like Jane in my story, most women don’t come home full time until they become mothers. What few of us take into account is that coming home after spending most of your life in school or at work is a MAJOR life change. We go from almost constant people contact and interaction to hours of solitude. We go from a life in which we are able to complete many tasks (like papers, and work projects) that we will not have to do again, to a world in which we will have to do most of our tasks over, and over, and over. We go from a world in which our work was evaluated by others, and our schedules were, at least to some extent, controlled by others, to a world in which we are almost totally responsible for our own time management, and in which we are only seeking to please our husbands and the Lord. This can be hugely bewildering. It was for me. I was very depressed for a long time when I first came home after graduating from college. It took me between one and two years to wean myself away from dependence on the constant feedback of school grades to confirm my worth.
Becoming a mother is also a MAJOR life change. The responsibility can be overwhelming at times. For the first time in our lives, another human being is completely dependent upon us for everything. This little person can’t even change his own position if he gets uncomfortable or bored. We have to completely adjust our schedules to take into account the baby’s needs, and often our own needs seem lost in the shuffle. Many women face difficulties learning to breastfeed, figuring out sleeping, and yes, even showering with a new baby to care for. Marriages are often in flux at this point, too, as relationships adjust to account for a third family member. On top of this, many of us face the postpartum hormonal roller coaster and the physical pain and exhaustion of recovering from the birth.
It is insane that our culture expects us to go through both changes at once. And yet, for many women, this is the norm. We’ve all heard of “stay at home moms.” “Stay at home wives” and “stay at home daughters” are oddities in most circles.
From the American Family Association, the people who want the Christmas season exclusively for themselves...
Looking for an effective way to express your Christian faith this Christmas season to honor our Lord Jesus? Now you can…. with the “Original Christmas Cross” yard decoration. Light up your front yard, porch, patio, driveway, business, organization or church this holiday season with a stunning Christmas cross. This beautiful Christmas Cross is 5.5 feet tall, with 210 individual ultra bright lights. Decorate this holiday season with the Original Christmas Cross to remind your friends, family, neighbors, and all who drive by your home, office, or church of the real meaning of Christmas.
In 1915, the same year Birth of a Nation was released, Leo Frank was lynched. Two months after his lynching, the lynchers burnt a cross. William J. Simmons, who founded the new Klan later in the same year, burned a cross at the mountaintop founding ceremony. Many of the participants in Simmons's ceremony were the same men who had helped to lynch Frank.
Many Christians consider it sacrilege to burn or otherwise destroy a cross. The Klan, however, states that it is not destroying the cross, but "lighting" it, as a symbol of the members' faith. [4]
You might want to think before you "light up" this cross on your lawn.
I have been noticing on the housefrau blogosphere, the growing meme that the economic mess was caused by the holy trifecta of ACORN, Democrats, and poor brown people. To wit, the Community Reinvestment Act, which required that banks treat poor brown people as badly as they treated poor white people, and not worse, forced banks to lower their standards, make all these subprime loans to people who didn't deserve them, and now look what happens. So we can all happily blame Carter/Reno/Obama/Clinton x2/ ACORN and whoever else we've disliked over the past 30 years.
Sadly, it's not true. The Community Reinvestment Act only said that if the banks were going to lower their standards, they had to lower them for everybody equally. Which they did, and did, and did some more. But if it was all a result of the subprime mess, well, we've allocated enough money to fix all of that already, a few times over. And yet, that's not enough and people are still losing their homes.
No, the real reason is far more complicated, and given the politics of the people involved, far more Republican. I give you, The Evolution of the Credit Default Swap in 7 easy lessons, by Devilstower:
Stage 1 (Perturbo mutans) You have just made a loan to someone, and now you're nervous that this scoundrel might not pay. What to do, what to do? Ah, but you need not worry! I happen to have assets on hand that can easily cover your petty loan. What's more, for a small monthly fee, I'll be happy to provide you with insurance of a sort. Should the person to whom you've extended a loan prove unreliable, I'll shoulder the burden -- so long as you keep up the payments. Let's call this insurance a... credit default swap.
In 1999, these credit default swaps already existed, but they were a niche product. Only a fraction of banks employed them and then only on a fraction of loans. Without some knock to the system, swaps would probably have remained a relatively small player.
Stage 2 (Perturbo furtiva) Knock, knock. In 2000 Republican economic hero, Phil Gramm, with the assistance of a small legion of lobbyists, created the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Along with ushering in the Enron disaster, this bill provided the one thing that credit default swaps needed to grow and mutate -- invisibility. Thanks to the CFMA, not only were credit default swaps unregulated, they were impossible to observe directly. Like black holes in deep space, you could only spot swaps by looking at how other things acted nearby.
So, now you've made a loan to someone, and you're worried about it. I want to offer you a credit default swap so I can collect the fee. Trouble is, I don't have the assets to cover your loan. So how can I... hold on, credit default swaps are so unregulated that no one says I actually have to be able to deliver on my promise. Hey, over here! Have I got a swap for you, and it's a bargain.
So now the CDS is a means of moving the risk, but the risk is still as high (or higher, since the original lender might have been better able to cover the loss). In fact, credit default swaps have gone from being a risk mitigator, to a risk magnifier.
Stage 3 (Peturbo veloxicresco) You have a loan you're worried about. That's good, because lots of people want to offer you swaps. After all, you don't have to have any assets to issue a swap. The investment bank of First Me and The Change I Found In the Couch Cushions can offer swaps for all the debt at Morgan Stanley, and that's okay. I get free money for issuing the swaps, and the swaps have value on the books. So both me and my pal Mr. Stanley have values that are inflating faster than a tick in a blood bank.
Now you can get a swap for any loan you want, and with all the competition, the cost of these swaps is lower, and lower, and lower. Here's an idea: why not go out and make more loans, riskier loans. Why not offer anyone you can collar on the street a loan, no matter whether or not they can pay it off, not because some 30 year old law makes you do it, but because your friend the credit swap makes it perfectly safe!
So many people are offering these things that you could give a loan to Saddam while the bombs are falling without a care in the world. You can always get a swap.
Stage 4 (Fatum casus) I have a swap. I really, really want someone to take my swap. Only even with every incentive I can offer, not enough people are loaning. Sure, there's a record amount of hypothetical money sloshing around the system thanks to me and my swaps, but it's still not enough. So what can I...
Wait a second. Swaps are unregulated. No one says I have to have enough resources to cover the swap, and even better, no one says I have to offer the swap to the person who actually made the loan! Hey buddy, see that loan over there? You may think it's iffy, but I think it'll hold up. In fact, I'm so sure it will, I'll sell you a credit default swap on it that pays off if it fails. You don't make the loan, you don't have to pay off on the loan, you don't have anything to do with the loan. You just pay me the fee. And if that guy loses his money, you collect. How sweet is that!
This mutation is enormous (see how the genera changed up there?). At this point, credit default swaps have become completely divorced from the original function. A single loan can be covered by multiple swaps. There's a complicated fiscal term for this. It's called gambling, and at this stage, that's all that remains of those little "insurance" policies. They no longer protect anyone from anything, they just offer a chance to place enormous overlapping side bets on everything.
Stage 5 (Fatum insanus) I have swaps! Get your swaps here! Want a swap on a loan you made? Okay. Want to bet that the bozo in the next cube is making bad loans? We can do that. Want to bundle up some loans and bet on those? Buddy we can do better than that. I can give you a swap on the value of other swaps. Now we're really in business.
Who owns the original loan? Don't know, don't care. Who's actually responsible for the money if that loan should fail? Ehhh, can't really say. Has anyone noticed that a single bad loan could cause a cascade of swap calls that bounce around the system like a rocket-power pinball? Shut up.
Isn't anyone worried that this is the most massive house of cards ever constructed in human history? Lookit, what part of "we took 120 billion in bonuses out of this place in the last five years" are you missing?
Stage 6 (Fatum exicelebritas) Hey, my loan went bad. Can I have my money from that swap, please?
Stage 7 (Fatum cerus) Oh sh*t.
Yes, it's a simple as that. The bankers made up money so they could gamble. They talked people into loans no one could afford so the bankers could gamble. They made everyone's life miserable by messing up the economy so bad that the only way to feel like you were at all keeping up was to max out your credit cards so the bankers could gamble.
We are all the victims here. Poor, middle-class, white and brown alike.
Come to think of it, maybe the Community Reinvestment Act is part of the problem. If it wasn't, maybe at least the poor, brown people wouldn't be in this handbasket with the rest of us.
Idaho students chant 'assassinate Obama' on school bus David Edwards and Muriel Kane Published: Wednesday November 12, 2008
Madison County, Idaho was once dubbed "the reddest place in America" by Salon, but that didn't make it any less shocking when elementary school children allegedly started chanting "assassinate Obama" on the school bus.
Matthew Whoolery told KIKD News he found out about the chanting from his second and third graders, who had no idea what the word "assassinate" meant.
"They just hadn't heard anything like this before," Whoolery stated. "I think the thing that struck us was just like, 'Where did they get the word and why would they put that word and that person together?'"
Whoolery, a psychology professor at Brigham Young University in Rexburg, is not an Obama supporter, but he was shocked that any public official would be threatened in that way. "I don't think that the majority of people in Rexburg have extreme ideas like that, but we were just surprised that it would go that far," Whoolery told KIKD.
The Madison County School District has sent out an email saying that students are to be told this sort of behavior is unacceptable.
Find more, and video, at the RawStory link above.
Children know. You can say you're tolerant, you're trying to be bipartisan, you're trying to get on with you life, but children always know what's really going on at home.
Cindy asked a question in comments. She wanted to know what an agnostic is and what I believe in. I think that's a good question to answer right up here. Hopefully I'll cover most topics.
I always like to start with a few defenitions. All from www.m-w.com, of course :
Athest:
Main Entry:
athe·ist
Pronunciation:
\ˈā-thē-ist\
Function:
noun
Date:
1551
: one who believes that there is no deity
Agnostic
Main Entry:
1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation:
\ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date:
1869
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something agnostics>
— ag·nos·ti·cism \-tə-ˌsi-zəm\ noun
Theist
Main Entry:
the·ism
Pronunciation:
\ˈthē-ˌi-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1678
: belief in the existence of a god or gods ; specifically: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
Deist
Main Entry:
de·ism
Pronunciation:
\ˈdē-ˌi-zəm, ˈdā-\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often capitalized
Date:
1682
: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe
------
I consider myself an Agnostic, simply because right now, with the tools we have, we will never know with 100% certainty that there is a deity out there. Dawkins argues in The God Delusion that any creator would have to have evolved as well, in the same way we have. I agree. He argues this is impossible I do not. I argue that it is entirely possible that at some point in the future we will develop a set of tools, be they scientific or mathematical, that will enable us to prove the existence of a deity one way or the other.
That said I think the probability of there being a deity out there is extremely slim. However, there have been a number of cases in my life where someone with scientific training has said "This is this. According to all the evidence we have, this is this, this means this, and this is what you need to commit to right now to deal with it." Every time I have said to them "I have time, this doesn't need to be committed to today. Let's let science work on it a while and see what they come up with." the story has eventually changed, and my life has been better for not committing.
So, I don't think we have to have to commit to the question of god or no god today. Let's let science work on it for a while, see what happens.
------
I consider myself a Deist. That is, I believe that if there is a god out there, he is neither imminent not transcendent. I believe he takes no account of the day-to-day doings on this or any other planet. At best, he set off the Big Bang and walked away.
I do believe in some kind of life after death. I don't believe in heaven, or hell, except what we make ourselves, but I do believe that something carries on.
------
I don't believe the bible is the revealed word of anyone. I believe the Old Testament is a collection of ancient mythology. I believe the gospels may very well have been commissioned. I believe Paul was a misogynistic, power-hungry politician, who's writings shouldn't be allowed around small children for fear of spreading his evil.
I have read the bible, cover to cover, more than once. Didn't help. I do not read the bible on a daily basis.
------
I consider myself culturally Catholic. That is, I was raised in a Catholic home and attended Catholic school. I even boarded in a convent-based Catholic high school. Because of this I am most familiar with, and so comfortable with, the Catholic liturgical year.
The same can be said about my husband and my mother. My in-laws are devoutly Catholic. We attend mass when we visit my in-laws.
I spent a number of years participating in my father's Pagan faith, until I decided there was no Goddess either. I met my husband through our Pagan "church", and we were married by a Pagan elder.
Because of our combined Pagan/Catholic background we tend to celebrate a combination of holidays from both faiths. We happily celebrated Christmas until the AFA decided to raise a stink, now it's Krismas for us. We celebrate Easter Sunday, as well as the equinoxes and solstices. Usually by changing the decorations in the house, we don't attend any religious rituals anymore.
We both volunteer. Not through church, obviously, but with our State Defense Force which assist the National Guard, and through the hospital where he works. In the past we've volunteered with out county Search and rescue, and with the American Legion, among others.
fwiw, I have both Christian and Pagan music on my iPod. But jazz is my favorite.
------
The big question that always comes up is "What about the children?". If my husband didn't work on Sundays we would attend services at the nearby Unitarian Universalist church. I taught Sunday school there for a number of years, and still have copies of their curriculum. I plan to use these to homeschool our children in all faiths, so that they will have the background to make their own decisions as they grow.
The UU congregation upholds these seven principals:
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
Or in the children's version:
1. Each person is important. 2. Be kind in all you do. 3. We're free to learn together. 4. We search for what is true. 5. All people need a voice. 6. Build a fair and peaceful world. 7. We care for Earth's lifeboat.
Which works as a framework for the values we want to teach our children along the line. We believe children are inherently moral, not inherently depraved, and need only to learn how to apply that morality in ever increasing circles as they grow.
I believe in the concept of a home manager, not because a myth told me so, but because it's good practice. I believe it leads to healthier families, healthier people, and eventually a healthier economy. I believe the concept of a home manager can be applied to a female-run home, a male-run home, or a collective home where multiple "families" are run by one person. I've seen all of the above work, and work well.
At the moments I'm dresses only. If I ever find truly comfortable jeans this will change.
I believe homosexuals should have the right to marry. In fact I believe in most cases they make better parents than heterosexual couples.
I believe in a woman's right to choose, because I don't want government coming between me and my doctor on any decision. That said, I think abortion is wrong. I agree with former US Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders when she said that the best form of birth control would be to teach young people about masturbation. However, that was before the internet. I think if you can't figure that out on your own now you shouldn't abort just for being stupid.
I would state my opinion on most Christian doctrine concerning sex and pregnancy, but I've already done a number of blog posts on that. You can just read back.
I do believe, if you are going to be pro-life, you should be pro-all life. That means being anti-war, anti-death penalty, pro-AIDS research, and an environmentalist.
I think that the theory of Natural Selections is the best one we have, and that Creationism is a myth. I think that Global Warming is a real threat.
I voted Obama. Read down to find out what I think about Palin.
Palin says she's be honored to help Obama WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday that she would be honored to help President-elect Barack Obama in his new administration, even if he did hang around with an "unrepentant domestic terrorist."
he Alaska governor said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that she would be willing to help if Obama asked her for assistance on some of the issues she highlighted during this year's campaign, such as energy or services for special-needs children.
"It would be my honor to assist and support our new president and the new administration," said Palin, whom Sen. John McCain chose as his running mate in August.
"I speak for other Republicans and Republican governors, also," she said.
"They would be willing also to seize this opportunity that we have to progress this nation together, in a united front."
But asked moments later about some of the tough rhetoric she hurled from the stump, she said she was "still concerned" about Obama's ties to former Weather Underground member-turned-Chicago college professor William Ayers.
"If anybody still wants to talk about it, I will," she said. "Because this is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol.
"That's an association that still bothers me, and I think it's fair to still talk about it," she continued.
"However, the campaign is over. That chapter is closed. Now is the time to move on and make sure all of us are doing all that we can to progress this nation."
Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, have you not figured out BY NOW that no one gives two sh*ts about Ayers. He's OLDnd OLD NEWS, all right. We have CURRENT problems to deal with. Remember the wars we have going on? The fact that your Republican friends have a** raped our economy and are destroying any chance we have of getting off their golf buddy's oil teat? That going to the emergency room is not a cost-effective medical plan?
Woman, you are willfully ignorant, utterly hiedbound and completely out of touch.
Many more Americans are turning to the internet for campaign news this year as the web becomes a key source of election news. Television remains the dominant source, but the percent who say they get most of their campaign news from the internet has tripled since October 2004 (from 10% then to 33% now).
While use of the web has seen considerable growth, the percentage of Americans relying on TV and newspapers for campaign news has remained relatively flat since 2004. The internet now rivals newspapers as a main source for campaign news. And with so much interest in the election next week, the public's use of the internet as a campaign news source is up even since the primaries earlier this year. In March, 26% cited the internet as a main source for election news, while the percentages citing television and newspapers remain largely unchanged.
Do you really think interviewing ignorant, hidebound, losers who shopped their way through the campaign is going to help those numbers?
So the American Family Association is at it again:
It's hard to believe that there are companies and individuals who want to ban "Merry Christmas" and replace it with "Holiday Greetings" because, they say, they don't want to offend anyone.
Yes, because it would be so easy to get confused. I had an argument about this with a friend one time. She was/still is I assume an uberChristian, and swore up and down that they, the great conspiratorial they, wanted to Paganize the holiday. Mostly she, and the AFA, were/are referring to the retail sector, where, you know, displays like this just scream Yule, or Hanukkah, or Diwali.
I had to point out to her that they weren't trying to Paganize Christmas, being a devote Pagan at the time. I had yet to walk into a store and hear someone wish me a "Good Yule!" or a "Happy Hanukkah" or "Have a fun Diwali" or whatever. They were trying to commercialize and secularize the holiday season. Which might be egregious, but is not the same thing.
So with that red herring dropped, we come to the next line of the AFA press release:
Christians can take a stand and proclaim to our communities that Christmas is not just a winter holiday focused on materialism, but a "holy day" when we celebrate the birth of our Savior. We can do it in a gentle and effective way by wearing the “It’s OK to say Merry Christmas" button.
I agree that the focus shouldn't be on materialism, but does it being a "holy day" mean that the rest of us can't celebrate it too? Just hogging all the traditions and festivities for yourself, hm?
I hearby suggest that all my readers, of any non-Catholic/Christian persuasion use the appropriate greeting for the holiday. Happy Haunkkah, Good Yule, what have you. The holiday season is for everyone, the AFA and it's followers need to know that it's our country too. They have to share.
Now, as for those of us who are of the Humanist/Atheist/Agnostic persuasion, what are we supposed to do? I give you....
Krismas!
What is Krismas?
Krismas is a secular holiday that celebrates the myth of Kris Kringle, commonly known as Santa Claus. It happens on December 25th of each year, and is also closely associated with Krismas Eve which occurs December 24th. Krismas is part of the "12 Days of Secular Celebration"
Krismas is about celebrating most of the modern mythologies surrounding Christmas, except for the mythology of the birth of Jesus as a savior.
Krismas is about giving gifts, especially those “from the heart”; it is about the magic of childhood; it is about peace on earth; and it is about goodwill towards humankind. It is about the universal truths of goodness that surround this time of year.
Who should celebrate Krismas?
Anyone who wishes to extract from Christmas all the traditions that they deem to be good, without needing to feel like they need to believe in the Jesus savior mythology might want to celebrate Krismas.
I suspect that many atheists, agnostics, neo-pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, or other non-Abraham followers may want to celebrate this holiday. Some Muslims and Jews may also wish to celebrate this holiday. There may even be a few “liberal” Christians who see the benefit of celebrating this holiday.
Why was the name "Krismas" chosen?
First and foremost, the name was chosen because it sounds nearly identical to Christmas. If someone had Trademarked the name “Christmas”, we’d probably be sued. But as far as we are aware, that name is in the public domain :-) The idea behind having a nearly identical name is that you can wish someone a Merry Krismas without needing to explain a whole new holiday, in fact the other person will probably just assume you said “Christmas”. So this holiday can blend into our current traditions very easily, without getting people who may not have the same beliefs as you all riled up. But you still don’t have to accept the part about Jesus being a savior, or even the existence of Jesus if you so choose.
Problem, solved! Keep wishing everyone a Merry Christmas Krismas, and be sure to spread the idea of Krismas far and wide.
I even give you a button: Which should be linked to http://www.krismas.org Not the best button, perhaps, but it will do for now. And if you want to get away from the commercialization of Krismas, I suggest handmade/homemade gifts and decorations. So, remember, as we ramp up to the holiday season, you share this country with people of all faiths. That means sharing the season too.
I found an interesting article over at the NY Times, Money Is Tight, and Junk Food Beckons by Tara Parker-Pope. It's about a couple who ran themselves an experiment, living on $1.00 worth of food a day in the US, for one month.
The standout quote:
One of the biggest changes was the time they had to spend in meal preparation.
“If you’re buying raw materials, you’re spending more time preparing things,” Mr. Greenslate said. “We’d come home after working 10 to 11 hours and have to roll out tortillas. If you’re already really hungry at that point, it’s tough.”
One of my favorite arguments for having someone manage at home is that it's healthier for the budget as well as the body. Having someone at home means home cooking the bulk of the time.
Think about it, most people work an 8 hour day. That doesn't count lunch, of course, or commute time, factor those in and you're gone usually 11 hours. You come in the door, and you're tired, and your hungry, and so are your kids who have been gone that much time as well, and no one wants to go cook for 30 min to an hour to get to food. And no one wants to clean up the mess afterward. How much easier to pick up drive-through on the way home, eat, and toss the mess.
With a home manager or homemaker in the family, dinner is on the table around the time you get home. If they're doing their job much of the mess should be cleaned up (no one is perfect, I usually have a mess lingering, but that is the ideal.) And at a minimum the kids have been home for a few hours and have had a chance to mellow out. Even if said kids have been pulled in every know direction, and you're eating take-out because of it, it's a conscious decision on your part to enroll them in soccer/ballet/piano/what all, no? You have the option to make healthy, home-cooked meals a priority if you want to.
According to the article the average American spends $7/day on food. The husband and I eat very well on roughly half that. That right there is a big part of my "income" as a homemaker.
I don't like to use the term "housewife" too much because some of the Religiously Righteous like to proclaim that only a woman can care for a home, and caring for a home is the only job for women. Horse hockey! A woman can do it, a man can do it, a group of people can come together collectively and have one person do it for a number of smaller families (admittedly rarer, but I've seen a couple of households run like this and they ran very well.) The point is the someone does it. Otherwise you're all just working to like the corporate pockets, spending far too much on food prep and upkeep and fuel and who knows what else, all the while trying to buy happiness. It just doesn't work.
So, reason #2 why Home Managers are a valuable part of society: They save money and help make people healthier by cooking at home.
