Whatever Gets You Through The Night

Let's get this one out of the way then.

In recent weeks I've seen, or even been involved in, a number of those predictable discussions about homosexuality. I've been in these discussions for years, and can pretty much do them in my sleep because nothing new ever comes up. Ever. It's the same old, same old selection of fear, rubbish, bigotry, and misunderstandings.

"Misunderstanding" sounds as if it were accidental, which of course it isn't. It's more "la la la la la I can't hear you". Because when you discuss this rationally, those folk who suffer (?) from fear and bigotry don't listen. They won't today either, but I'm including it all for completeness.

Bigotry. We need not dwell on this, it's a well-known mental disorder. It's the delusion that you are superior to others in some way, and that you are therefore entitled to judge them against yourself.

Fear? Yes fear. Homophobia. If you object to that word on the grounds that "it's not fear, it's hate" you are missing the point. Hate and fear are frequently the same thing, and this is a complex fear.

It manifests thusly:

1. Fear that it's contagious.
2. Fear that you may catch it.
3. Fear that if you don't deny it often enough you are more vulnerable to the above.

This is silly. You are only going to "become" homosexual if you already have latent desires. OH MY GOD! Terrifying thought.

How many times do we see exactly this. Outspoken anti-gay politicians/clerics/celebrities caught with gay lovers. I've lost count. They fear what they desire so they make people miserable by demonizing them, then off they go and do the same thing. That's not just simple hypocrisy, that's a symptom of how stupid humans are. There are many, many examples of this in other areas too. Loud, aggressive rants against all manner of behaviours that these folk are trying to repress. Maybe we should pity them. How awful to be tormented inside to that degree. No really, it's tragic.

This is not to say that everyone who is vociferously anti-gay is compensating for lustful feelings for their best friend. No. There are two other main reasons for it.

#1 is religious/cultural/political. The ideology that you trust/espouse/are surrounded by says it's WRONG. There is no room for suggestions that it might not be optional. Besides, that doesn't matter much, in the end. It must be fought. It must be denied. It must be banned. This can turn really nasty. It can lead to great harm, oppression, confinement, punishment. Death. It can begin with wimpy pronouncements like "well, it's sinful" but it gets worse. It gets dangerous. This of course is why it matters.

(While I'm here, if anyone says "Gay sex doesn't lead to children" you can fuck off my blog/friends list right now. Or ask why. I'm that nice, that I'll give you one last chance to "get it".)

#2 is the whole "it's not natural" nonsense. This is often the fallback for those with no religious conviction. The fact that homosexuality exists in species other than humans goes right over their heads. The fact that they do many unnatural things every day of their lives misses them completely. Ask them a definition of natural and I highly doubt you'll get anything reasonable, and they'll probably just repeat themselves and/or become more defensive. There's no debate. It's always a monologue.

These two often combine. They are often the basis of the idea that homosexuality is "a lifestyle choice". Some choice huh? The choice to be hated and persecuted. If it were a choice it would be a brave one.

I don't happen to believe it is a choice, and I'll explain why in just a moment, but first if I may draw your attention to this.

Being insulting, difficult, derisive, or prejudiced are all choices. If you feel you have a right to those sort of choices, you may wish to rethink your attitude. No, I sincerely doubt that you will. Apparently choice is for other people.

When I was at school, one of my closest friends was a lesbian. I didn't know that when we first became friends (and neither did she) because we were 7 years old. I think she caught on at around 13. By 16 she had a steady girlfriend. They moved in together after school.

At no time, NOT ONCE, did she ever make a pass at me. NEVER. She was intelligent enough to see that it was not my way, and it was all understood without us ever needing to discuss it. What was discussed were her crushes. She had a huge crush on one older girl at one time, and was constantly talking about her. That was how I learned what homosexuality was all about. Right there.

Because this wasn't sexual. This was puppy love, that same infatuation I had for pop stars and actors. It was all fantasy, it was all about romance and stars in your eyes. It was all about writing their names over and over, and dreaming how it would be to be "theirs". Sex never entered into it.

If these crushes had ever resulted in a real relationship, maybe then sex would become involved. Humans are sexual creatures. Even teenage girls (SURPRISE!). But that wasn't how it BEGAN, you understand. The beginning was falling in love.

It begins with love. Think about that. Romantic love. Have you ever fallen in love? I hope so. If you haven't, I am very sorry for you. But I think most people reading this have. Most of you are married, or have been at some time. Even if that relationship didn't work, it began with good intentions. When you fell in love, it was....well, lovely. Is there anything nicer?

It was also not planned, it just happened. Love is like that. It sort of takes you by surprise. One day you are fine on your own, and then somebody comes into your life and everything changes. If you are lucky, like me, it stays that way. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT FEELING?

That my dears, is also how it is for gay couples.

And THAT is why I'm straight. I did NOT choose to be straight. Look.......forget the sex. As I've said many times before, I'm quite certain that I could enjoy sex with an alien from Planet Zarg, whose gender was meaningless and undefinable to us, if it smelled nice and and was warm and soft, and not too scaly. Sex is different.

But to fall in love? That's how you know your sexuality.

I didn't have crushes on girls at school (don't panic if you did, I'm coming back to that) and when I realised that such a thing existed, I knew that I never could fall in love with a woman. I could love them as friends, certainly, enjoy their company, share their good and bad days, discuss anything, but romance? Just wasn't there. Fair enough.

And if you can't fall in love, then well, it's not for you.

If you object to the idea that it's about love, and not sex, I can't help you. We have reached the end of the line. You are closed minded, and/or you've never been in love. Or maybe you have, and it scared you (see "fear" above). In fact if you still insist it's all about sex, then you just have a dirty mind.

On that note, let's stop and be crude here, for just a moment, without getting into X Rated words or visuals that will require an Adult Content warning on yet another blog. If you think of sex when you think of gay couples, consider this. All of the activities engaged in by same sex couples, are engaged in by "normal" couples. What does normal mean anyway? Does it mean a hole in the sheets? Some think so, you know. It's all relative. So, this is where it gets dirty. What you object to is simply SOME of the mechanics of sex, that you have selected to be taboo. Or you don't like it. Or whatever.

I raised that issue once (using the actual words) with an anti-gay man in one of these debates, and got into a lot of trouble, but I never got an answer. The objection, apparently, was that certain things are not supposed to go into certain places. So I asked "Has your wife never given you a ....?" (rhymes with snow snob) and the moderator scolded me. Why? The words? The idea? I dunno, but anyway, he didn't reply.

No, let's be honest. Sexual acts are just sexual acts. No matter what they are, or who they are done with, that's all they are. Acts. Movements. Like a dance.

Because sex is separate. Many people, due to circumstances, have sex with a same-sex partner without being gay. Prisions, the military, boarding schools, and just "experiments". These are all about sex, not love. It's about scratching an itch. Some of them, to be sure, say "HEY! I LIKE THIS!" and even after those circumstances go away, continue with the same-sex relationships. Were they "turned"? No, silly. They just discovered something that was always there.

And plenty of people have sex with both genders. They fall in love (or in lust) with the person. The gender is irrelevant, mere details. No more important than whether it'a blond or brunette. (Incidentally, I am totally brunette-oriented, I could never truly fancy a blond. That's nothing against blonds, they just don't do anything for me).

It's important to understand that in the end none of this matters. It's details. If you did, in fact, once feel something, be it passion or just a crush, for a person of the same sex, you are normal. Very few people are 100% in their sexual preferences. Stephen Fry says he's only 90% gay and almost dated the make-up artist who became Rowan Atkinson's wife. Then there's Elton John, now married to a man, and a happy little family they are too, with a child - he was once married to a woman, and had many girlfriends.

Would it horrify you to discover you weren't 100% straight? I've given that a lot of thought, and the answer is no. As a matter of fact, I don't feel any need to take an interest in the bodies of other women because I have one of my own. But I have a funny feeling, if I had been a boy, and many think I should have been (I'd have been Lawrence, by the way) I would have liked boys. Perhaps deep inside me is a gay man trying to get out, and that's why I'm so sympathetic. You never know.

But then, as you see, I have no fear, no religious issues, no cultural problems. My personality and my interest in people has brought me to a point of absolute tolerance. I'm not even sure that tolerance is even the right word, but it'll have to do. Approval, on this topic, sounds too close to encouragement, and that's not it. It's neutral. It's whatever gets you through the night, it's alright.

Habits Are Not Just For Monks

This week's theme is choices, or Whatever Floats Your Boat, and I'm going to jump right into dangerous waters here (did you see what I did there?), because this topic, oddly, is more likely to cause offence than any other. You may or may not be surprised to learn then, that in my opinion, the most controversial of these topics is smoking.

I'm choosing all my words very carefully because some of my dearest friends are smokers, and yet I know I will cause offence simply by addressing the topic. In fact the topic is not the topic, as you'll see.

So, I begin by tossing out the usual yada yada about it being bad for you. If you berate a smoker for his lifestyle choice (hold on, I'm coming back to that shortly) on the grounds that it's bad for him, you are most likely a fraud. Probably a reformed ex-smoker. Everyone knows it's not a healthy choice. But there are plenty of those. There are health risks that everyone indulges in on a regular basis, such as driving on highways, operating electrical appliances, and mixing with other human beings during winter.

No, you berate them for other reasons, so please, at least be honest about it.

I don't want my smoker friends to die prematurely either, but they may well outlive me because life is like that. The Gods throw the dice.

And if they should become sick due - absolutely, certainly, no question - to smoking, you will not hear me say anything stupid, because they are saying it to themselves, and it's of no consequence anyway. Life without risk is hardly life at all.

But to discuss it we must treat it simply as it is, because the fact is, there is no comparable habit. You'll hear smokers say "well, people eat bad food". This is not a comparison. People must eat. Their food choices can be deemed relatively good or bad, but it's 2014 folks......and experts with credentials up the wazoo are still arguing about ( = don't know) what is the best human diet. We have a rough idea, we think, but we could be way off. Maybe if we all lived on nothing but parsnips we'd all live to be 200 and have the energy of young lambs, but it's all trial and error. And I fucking hate parsnips.

It isn't food, it isn't nutrition, it isn't necessary. It's not something you take in because you couldn't afford or find the better option. It's separate. So forget that argument.

And it's not a lifestyle choice either, not for long anyway. It's an addiction. Once addicted, choices are very compromised. People try hard to quit smoking and go through hell as a result. That doesn't sound like much of a choice to me.

But plenty don't try to quit. Why? Because they love it. Despite everything, they love it. This is where it becomes absolutely none of my business. Right?

Why did I never start smoking myself? There were three reasons, pick the one most meaningful to you.

1) My father had died suddenly of a massive heart attack at the age of 34. He was a heavy smoker and this was considered to have been a contributing factor. It may not have been at all, but that was ingrained in me as a child. I was a logical child, and so it had a profound effect.

2) I hated the stink. I am hyper sensitive to smells (and therefore tastes too), for some reason, more olfactory nerves maybe, who knows, and there are many smells (and tastes) that I find so unpleasant I cannot really put it into words. It's not allergic reactions, it's disgust reactions. My foodie friends find me a complete puzzle, but, for example, the smell of mint, so pleasant to most people, will have me leaving the room. Its close cousin, wintergreen, is almost nauseating, and my poor husband cannot treat his aches and pains with that stinky rub or I'd leave him.

3) Going back to the logical child (the Smiling Spock) the idea of burning something very expensive seemed like complete madness. Like most of my friends I had a small allowance each week, and it was carefully spent on records, nail polish, earrings, Melody Maker, and Mad. There was none spare for burning.

Another reason often guessed at by others but not quite accurate is lack of rebellion. Wrong on two counts, in fact. Many kids smoke to piss off their parents. I loved my mother very much, we were great friends, and I had zero desire to piss her off, but by hell yes, I was rebellious. I chose to rebel against (dramatic chord, dun dun DUN, and then a bit of echo please) The Establishment. Being a bad consumer, ignoring the tobacco industry and its all pervasive commercials of the time, and the cultural norms that went with it, was, in fact, a terrific rebellion. But let's be honest. I was not sophisticated enough as a teen to clue in to that. It was just a happy accident. All my early attempts to piss off The Establishment were done in other ways. We won't dwell on those, because I'm not quite sure what the British statute of limitations are.

When I got married, I was given several ashtrays as gifts, despite both of us being non-smokers (OK, Martin likes an annual cigar but I throw him out of the house anyway, so he can flick his ash in the flower bed) but at the time you see, that didn't matter. You were expected, as a social nicety, to provide facilities for visiting smokers.

I hated that with every fibre of my being. Both the expectation (remember the rebellion against cultural norms?) and the actual stink. My house would take 2-3 days to lose the stink. In winter this also required throwing windows open and freezing to death for the sake of my friends. Good thing I loved them.

It didn't take me long therefore to "accidentally" break said ashtrays and offer a saucer instead. I toyed with offering the cat's old water bowl, but I never actually did. Much as I loved my friends, the entire charade pissed me off. I didn't go into their homes, make them stink, AND expect them to provide me with cut glass facilities to do so. I used to fantasize about taking a dump in their bathrooms and not flushing. Or maybe even do it in the sink. But I'm just not that crass in actuality.

I couldn't retaliate with a gallon of perfume either, because it made me sneeze.

So, for the time I lived in England, I sucked it up. For the sake of friendship and peace. Looking back now, I often wonder why, but truly, some cultural norms are SO powerful that it's almost impossible to defy them, when you are the minority.

Arriving in Canada I had not only a new set of friends, so that ground rules could be set right at the start, but there was a different attitude here too. People didn't expect to be allowed to smoke in their friends' homes. Hallelujah.

But early on here, it was still OK to smoke in restaurants and bars. When that all changed, and I visited England - who banned it later - it came as such a shock. I had got got used to being able to eat out in comfort, with the enjoyment of my food not being harmed.

This reminds me actually of the situation when I was working in a bar. A customer brought me a full ashtray from his table and tore me up and down for neglecting him by not having emptied it. I could find no words that wouldn't have caused a fight (it was that kind of bar) so I said nothing, but I daresay my face was priceless. This reaction is not sensible. I happily washed their used glasses, after all. Well, maybe not happily, but without resentment. Yet there was something that niggled at me, about ME being blamed for THEM having to suffer the inconvenience of having a full ashtray of THEIR debris while they ate.

My boss, also a non-smoker, was not sympathetic. All part of the service, she said. And of course she was right. I wasn't there long.

Fast forward, and we now have the opposite situation to the one I grew up with. Now the smokers are the minority, and they get to go outside in a blizzard to smoke. This seems fair to me. I'm sure it doesn't to them, but most of them, bless their hearts, suck it up for the sake of the new cultural norms. They might grumble a bit but really, they are remarkably good about it. Not sure I would be.

WHAT? Well, you see, despite everything, I think that had I been a smoker, I'd probably not have been so nice. My attitude is usually take me as I am, or don't bother. I fear I may even have made utterly stupid arguments to defend myself, like saying "well, at least it doesn't do the harm alcohol does". I'm not sure, but I think I may have rebelled, I do tend to.

I'm really not sure, so I may be totally off here, but really the problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude towards the problem. (Did you see what I did there?) That is to say, it's one thing to choose a habit initially, pressured by peers or otherwise. It's another thing to be addicted. It's yet another thing to become a social paraiah for a habit that, when it began was as normal as wearing a hat, but it's quite another thing to get defensive about it. That is most definitely a choice.

Whatever Floats Your Boat

WARNING: Adult content.

It began with a chance posting by a friend, of this "meme"...

I happen to feel very, very strongly about this. Cross-dressing in itself is just one aspect of the whole issue, but it's the one that gets most attention so I'll come back to that.

Then, at breakfast we were joking around about fetishes (hey, I live with Martin Boxall) and I sort of went off on a tangent about not understanding some fetishes. For example I don't like pain. Ever. No, not even then. Martin pointed out that physiologically pain and pleasure are very close. So they say, anyway. I disagree. But I remarked how it's all about whatever floats your boat. None of my business. If you like that, go for it.

The problem, as with anything (oh yes, this is NOT a discussion about sex, sorry to disappoint you) is that people often aren't certain about what they like/enjoy. No really. I've posted about this before. About familiarity, cultural and peer presure, expectations, and then of course there's grooming, the darkest side of it all.

The problem (when we are talking about pleasures of the flesh) is that the line between seduction and coercion is a bit vague. So there's that.

You cannot have missed the book (and now movie) "50 Shades of Grey". Some love it, some think it's rubbish. Well. That's all a matter of taste, but having spoken to many, many women who've been through abusive relationships, they recognized it well.....

So much to discuss.

Let's back up here. As I said, whatever floats your boat. AND, if it doesn't. Either way, there's nothing wrong with you, or it. There's only the attitudes of society, and the individual opinions of others. They don't matter. Don't allow them to influence you.

Eddie wears what he pleases. Who SAYS they are women's clothes? Let's look at the skirt. Worn by Scotsmen, Romans, Polynesians, etc etc. Big strong manly men. If you tease a Scot in a kilt you'll likely discover whether or not you enjoy pain, very quickly.

High heels? Very popular for men in previous centuries.

Makeup? Worn by Vikings.

And so on.

I have to tell you the funniest thing I heard in a long time was a guy ranting on about how gay Jack Sparrow looked in his make-up, whilst being covered in brightly coloured floral tattoos.

What absolute horseshit.

What you wear, how you decorate yourself, has as much to do with sexuality as it does with koi carp.

We, as humans, have been gussying ourselves up to look more interesting for half a million years. Earliest efforts were beads made of bone, and a bit of chalk or soot on the skin. Once we made clothes we wanted them in other colours. Dye was as valuable as gemstones.

So, who says this or that is right, wrong, appropriate, or for which gender? Fashion. Fashion is evil. Fashion is oppressive and dull. Men have now worn the same uniform of suit and tie for over 100 years. Lack of imagination? Fear? What?

Fashion is also fun. Use it as you wish. But for it to decide who wears what? CRAZY. In some Muslim-ruled countries you can be imprisoned for "cross-dressing". FASHION caused that. Religious fashion, sure, but fashion nevertheless.

The Amish, and Old Order Mennonites. They wear a uniform. Sure it's modest and "plain" - that's the idea. But then many other other styles are just as modest and plain. Or more so. But that was the fashion when the edict went out.

Being an anarchist I treat fashion the way I treat everything else, and I will NOT be dictated to by a bunch of wealthy European (and increasingly these days, Korean) designers. Especially since they began the anorexia epidemic. Are stick insect women attractive? Matter of opinion.

There are two ways to approach clothing, practicality and fun. Anything else is stupid.

I was out shopping not so long ago, and a rather over-zealous assistant tried to sell me a plain top. I dismissed it with a wave of my hand "too plain". She said "it goes with everything". Lack of imagination. "Goes with". What the hell does that mean anyway?

But to get back to the point, there is actually no such thing as women's clothing. There is clothing. Women wear clothes. When women wear clothes (unless they borrowed it from a man) it's women's clothing. And if you don't get that, I pity you. It means you have been got at.

THAT is the point of the blog, BTW. OK, you still don't get it. I'll continue.

Let's go back to the fetishes.

Listen, I am as weird as the next person, but some of these fetishes I don't understand at all. Foot fetishes. It's actually a running joke in my circles that I don't get that one. Feet? Feet are dirty. I don't like dirty for a start. OK, so let's assume they were clean, perfectly groomed feet. Not a callous or hangnail to be seen. Sorry, where's the appeal? In any case MOST feet are either fat or bony, precious little in between. Most women's feet are deformed - due to their fetish for high heels, ironically. I have the cutest feet you ever saw. Perfect in every way, natural shape, no weird tan lines, carefully trimmed nails, yada yada. AND? I stand on them. What else can you DO with feet? Nothing.

OK, let's be blunt, they don't FIT anywhere? RIGHT? So......what? I have no idea.

BUT.

Whatever floats your boat. It's harmless. Totally harmless. Even if I was out in public barefoot and someone stared at my feet, it does me no harm. (I might draw the line at having them licked. My dog does that and it is revolting.) Nobody gets hurt. Knock yourself out. I'll send you a pair of my socks.

Sadly, some of this stuff IS harmful. Not always in obvious ways. It's that grey area verging on grooming that concerns me. People get talked into things. Just as they talked into believing that eyeliner is only for women - an opinion I don't share incidentally, I LOVE men in eyeliner - they also believe they are supposed to enjoy this, this, or that.

Or not.

I'm not actually sure which is worse, the harm caused by getting talked into something you don't want to do, or the harm caused by the shame of wanting to do something, but society says you shouldn't. HMM. Mull that one over.

After Having Run For The Hills

There are those of you who, kindly, tell me I'm out of the loop. In fact I am so far from the loop that I need a telescope to see it.

When we gave up television some years ago, we knew we were missing out on some good drama series, of course, but it was no real sacrifice as we could always buy boxed DVD sets of anything that came highly recommended, and we have a few.

The funny thing is, we don't actually buy many. We do other things instead. What you don't have you don't miss, and the idea of plonking in front of a screen and just staring at it has just sort of...gone.

This screen? No, THIS one is interactive. Here I work, study, write, and play. Not just stare. Mattter of choice, obviously, MOST people love to sit and stare. I get bored too quickly. Even if I watch a 90 minute movie on DVD I have to have some knitting or I can't make it all the way through.

Anyway, that's not the issue. The issue is, that since I gave up TV a lot of bright new stars have arrived on the scene. Highly talented actors and actresses (and indeed, because I'm not afraid to show how shallow I am, some incredible eye candy in the actor department) and plenty of them.

So many in fact, that are "new", that I now find myself saying "WHO?" more often than not. Yesterday I read something on FB which included a friend's wish list of ideas for casting in an upcoming production, and I'd only heard of one of them.

I no longer see award shows anyway, obviously, but if I did, I would only be quite certain to recognize the "lifetime achievement" recipients.

In a way this is bad. I'm missing out on some talent, without a doubt, but it does reflect on the entire concept of celebrity. To put it bluntly, you could have an oscar AND a golden globe, and I wouldn't know who you were if you knocked on my door.

A similar thing has occurred with music. When I lived in England, I was the one you needed on your Trivial Pursuit team for the music questions. Not any more! Now, you could argue that it was because I was a lot younger, and that young people tend to be more "into" this stuff. But actually that wasn't the whole of it.

Back then if I listened to the radio, no matter whichever popular music station I chose (i.e. current as opposed to oldies or classical), it played a wide variety of music, and I listened to it most of the day, so I became familiar with everything, whether I liked it or not.

Here in Canada you chose your station by genre. This has its pros and cons, but be that as it may, I have always opted for the stations that play rock/alternative/indie, so for the last 20 years I have been OBLIVIOUS to any other music, save that of world music for which I have my own sources. I don't think it gets played on the radio anyway.

THEN, once we stopped receiving satellite TV we also lost the radio stations, and we have no other radio other than in the truck, so I only really listen to new music when out, or when my kids say "Hey Mom, listen to this, you'll love it!"

95%+ of the music I listen to is recorded, and while I have a good selection, I don't add to it that often. I do discover new stuff (I'm a huge fan of the Kings of Leon) then play it over and over, like a small boy with a Thomas the Tank Engine DVD.

So, if you name a current superstar, I frequently don't know what they sound like, and may not even know their face. An example would be Katie Price. I know the name, I don't actually live in a cave you understand. But I can't name any of her songs, I've never heard her sing, and I have no idea what she looks like. I do know what Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus look like, unfortunately, but I've never heard either of them.

And I don't give a rat's arse about it either.

Self-Employment, By Request

It's a snowy Saturday morning, I've had a toasted bacon sandwich for breakfast, and shortly I'll go to work. I won't move an inch.

I'm a great supporter of women being "traditional" if they choose to be, if finances permit, and staying at home to do domestic stuff. I did it for almost 30 years. I loved it. My kids loved it. My husband loved it. Happy home, tended garden, home cooking, and Martin was especially keen on the not having any domestic jobs to do like most modern men have to. Let's be honest, my family life is a wee bit idyllic.

However, my youngest child is now 18 years old. It became clear a few years ago that despite the entire family enjoying this idyll, it was hard to justify in a modern setting, and extra money would be nice. I had been selling stuff online for many years, but one day I just decided to think of it as a full-time business.

I invested all of $70 into it. (This is important, as you'll see in a bit.) I took it very seriously and devoted at least 8 hours a day to creating jewellery, phographing it, listing it online, and then re-investing the proceeds to purchase more beads and findings, to make more. Rinse and repeat.

About 18 months ago I noticed that when I sold beads and findings as is, they sold very fast. The profit was also higher, as I spent less time on these sales, just counting things into bags. So I also opened a supply shop on Etsy. It's doing very well. Between the higher priced jewellery sales, and the high volume supply sales, it really IS a full-time business these days. Looked at as an hourly rate for a 40 hour week (I actually work about double that!), I'm now earning more than most of my friends, and I don't have to go anywhere to do it. I'm still investing most of what I earn back into my business, but there are all sorts of treats coming out of it too.

I have expansion plans, and how. I can no longer do it all by myself, and Tom is my able assistant. If/when he pootles off to college I'll need a replacement, but Rhiannon is also heavily involved, she just needs to move closer. It's all in the plans.

The person who asked me to write this did so, because of one comment I made privately, which was "OK, I'm going to do my favourite morning thing now, see how much money I made as I was sleeping". She came right out with it and said TELL ME HOW! So here I am. Here's how.

First find something you love. LOVE. Passionately. You'll be spending an awful lot of time doing it. If it's something you MAKE, get really good at it. Study hard. Know it inside out. Practice. Be an expert. If it's something you simply buy and sell, then know your product intimately. Study its history. Find reliable and economical suppliers. Study the mail service. Learn about customs. Find good local packaging resources.

Then buy one chicken. No, don't, but follow the principle.

Buy one chicken, sell it, buy two chickens. Sell them, buy four chickens. Eat one, sell 3, buy 6 chickens. Eat one, sell 5, buy 10 chickens. And so on. That's the principle.

When I do my taxes in 2015 I have to declare my business assets. My conservative estimate in beads alone is $10,000. I'm still trying to calculate the rest. Remember, I started with $70.

Yes, of course, there has been a few hundred thrown in now and again since then that was not business income, but there's also been plenty paid out, so it waaaaaay more than covers it. It certainly cancels it out.

It didn't happen overnight, and it was a lot of work. And? Patience, diligence, and hard work never hurt anyone.

In return I have NO BOSS, my co-worker is my cherished child, my hours I pick and choose, the weather can bite me, I'm doing what I love, while multi-tasking on and offline (soup, anyone?), and listening to my choice of music. It's a dream job.

Is it secure income? HELL NO! There are many factors that could screw it up for me in an instant, but life's like that anyway. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Need more details? I'm right here, I'll share. Can you have a franchise? Not a fucking chance, LOL.

A Few Facts

1. I do not, never have, and never shall support terrorism.

2. My definition of terrorism may well be different to yours.

3. I do not believe that Muslim and Islamist have the same definition, and if you care to look it up you'll find that I'm far from alone in this view.

4. If I were a poor, young man living in the Middle East, I might just join ISIS.

I hope that last one shocks you, because it should. I hope you have enough imagination to ask yourself if you would too, but I think it's very hard for people to put their virtual feet in those shoes.

Perhaps I ask too much. We spend so much time being sure of who we are and what we do that we don't spend any time imagining what it's like to be somebody else.

We live in a very different society. When things aren't going well in our society, first we moan about it, and then (sometimes) we vote. Despite our certainty that our votes make no difference, politicians spend a fortune trying to get them. And in the end, despite the corruption, ineptitude, and inertia of our politicians, our countries rumble on. Most of us are doing OK.

The middle east is not like that. If you study its history you will find it's very different to ours. Borders were drawn up in an arbitrary manner by colonialists with not-so-secret agendas about exploiting the wealth of the area, and nationalism was foisted on people who historically had only tribal identities, if they had any at all. And after colonialism there was still poverty, and plenty of it. Poverty that we can't even imagine. Poverty that we never even noticed.

Flash forward to a world where that poverty is still endemic, affecting infrastructure at its most basic level (if the 40 year old jeep can't navigate the rocks on the mountain pass, nobody is going anywhere) and yet a new understanding of how it is elsewhere has reached these people, and a grudge develops.

Who do they blame? Well, that depends. Just like westerners, they often look backwards to a fantasy time where everything was working better. Just like westerners this fantasy time often involves very conservative ideals and the role of religion. It is normal, throughout human history for marginalized people to seek stability anywhere they can find it. Their options are often limited, when they discover that the elite don't give a crap about them. This is why local paramilitaty organizations seem appealing. Just like kids in the west with no stability at home join gangs. People naturally seek some sort of authority that promises to provide a future for them.

Before you look at politics, you have to look at human needs. What does politics mean anyway? It means governing. What does governing mean? It is both crowd control and feeding the masses. When the national government don't or can't provide, somebody else will. Anywhere. At any time. Your choices are generally the church, or some sort of rebel organization.

If those COMBINE, it's irresistible to maginalized people. It looks safe. Well, what else is there anyway?

Who else is attracted to this? Bad people. I mean actual psychopaths. Always. They seek positions of power within such organizations. They're not usually going to get power any other way, and they need it, they crave it, and they're good at it. They are born leaders but also born unethical, damaged to the core. A bad combination, but one type of human being. Catch them if you can.

Who else? Idealistic young people from "outside" who need a way to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo. Something of the organization appeals to them, and like any individual who "joins" anything, even if he only supports a small aspect of it initially, once inside he is required to take on the whole thing. He must prove himself. He must toe the line. No matter what his doubts and fears are at 2am, now he's expected to perform acts that he would never have done as a private individual. And he does it. He has no choice.

Who else? Those with a debt to repay. They say Guantanamo is full of terrorists, but it's no secret that many of them were created in there. If you were falsely imprisoned you'd come out resentful too. And if your family, or maybe your whole village was killed, you may have an axe to grind.

And who else? The desperate. You can always find recruits among the desperate. The most dangerous man is one with nothing left to lose.

Again, I say, unless you've walked in any of their shoes, you have no idea how you would respond to it. That doesn't make it right. None of this is ever right. Generational vendettas aren't right either, but they can always be explained. You want a man who is 3rd generation "victim" to ignore all of that and be a nice guy? So do I, but good luck with that. You go tell him to just get over it. I dare you.

Bad Influence

You've heard that term, I'm certain. It suggests that somebody is behaving in a way that others copy, and that it's really not something they should be copying. If you have a kid who has been hanging out with "bad kids" you may be afraid that they are a "bad influence" for example. It further suggests that your kid is unable to decide for himself how he should behave.

There is an idea that young people, generally speaking, are easily drawn to such bad influences, and perhaps some of them are. This is one reason, of course, why there is so much fear of Islamic extremists recruiting the young.

But it's not as simple as that. For a start, it's not just the young who are influenced. People of all ages are heavily influenced by those around them, by the media they read or watch, and by those who make a living "preaching", and I don't just mean priests, or even politicians. Advertising executives, for example, are some of the most powerful preachers of our time.

The next issue then, is what defines "bad", in these influences. That is often going to be a matter of opinion; it's really not always cut and dried. Going back to your teen, if the influences got him into trouble resulting in imprisonment, or bodily harm, it's easy to label it bad, but sometimes it's just an influence that leads him away from his parents' preferences. Perhaps towards a career in art instead of medicine. People with Bohemian lifestyles are frequently seen as bad influences by the more conservative.

Some years ago I was deemed a bad influence on a female friend by her husband. Having seen the far more relaxed and jolly way that I ran my home and family, she started making changes in hers, and it was noticed. Despite the fact she was personally happier, he was insecure, and concerned as to where it might lead.

The fact is, like anything else, "bad" is always relative.

But how do you know if you are being influenced? That's the tricky part! It's also worth asking, do you want to be?

Apparently people do. Go into any bookstore and look at the size of the "self-help" book section. There are THOUSANDS of books written by people who believe they know what would make other people happier. And people who want to be happier, but aren't quite sure how, part with large sums of money to be told.

But it works the other way round, mostly. Writing these books, providing you can get them published, is a very good way to get happier, in fact, if money buys happiness (it certainly doesn't hurt). They do conferences and seminars too. People pay to listen to them speak in person. It's a bloody good scam.

"Are you saying they are a bad influence Melanie?" You tell me. They are the ones fleecing you for advice easily available for free.

Whatever, they are doing well on it. Enough people are willing to pay. Wanting to read or hear it. Seeking influence.

Lately I have noticed, far too often, people repeating almost verbatim, ideas that I know have come from others. You know what it reminds me of?

I blame social media. No, I don't really. I was just waiting for somebody else to say it. Long before there was such a thing, people got "ideas" from gossiping to neighbours. That's how culture arises. Charismatic people share their views and other people pick up on them. Without any kind of authority, these ideas become cultural norms, almost as powerful as law. In some cases more powerful than law.

(I'm not going to touch how culture becomes law, as it has in traditional religion, I'll save that for another day)

Are they good ideas? Well, clearly some are, and they've stuck around. But sometimes they really are not. The funny part is how one set of people can pick up idea A, while another set, in the same location, can pick up idea B, and these ideas are mutually exclusive.

This is what leads to partisan politics of course, but I'm not going there today either.

My objective today is to try to convince you that some of your ideas are not your own. Things you "believe" were taught to you, deliberately or otherwise, by other people. You may be quite happy with these opinions, and far be it for me to sway you from them (that would make me just as bad as those who brainwashed you gently in the first place), but you will find, if you take the time to examine your views, that some of them are second-hand.

Moreover, when you "change your mind", it's usually due to outside influence.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that, especially if it comes in the form of new data. For example, until recently I shared the opposition of neonic pesticides due to the harm I believed they were causing bees. However, having researched it very carefully, I have learned that banning these pesticides is a mistake. Banning ALL pesticides would be fine. But if you take away the neonics, farmers resort to older pesticides which do MORE harm.

My mind was not changed by the mere opinion of others, but by solid, independent, scientific studies. It took time, unfortunately, as these studies do. The ban was knee-jerk, and I don't blame anyone for supporting it, as it seemed like an emergency at the time. But now we know better.

This happens a lot. You may have noticed.

Unfortunately when you are infected by the ideas of others without new (or any) data, and especially without real research, your change of mind is potentially just as bad as inertia. That's why I spend so much time teaching my kids to look carefully at everything they learn, check facts, ask questions, and dig deeper. But today I'm asking you to do the same.

Preferably before you spread the contagion further.