Recharge Your Batteries to Avoid Burnout

It’s common for those immersed in self-development to want to “hustle” 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I certainly tried to at one point.

Key words are “tried to.”

I once thought I could be an Übermensch by operating on six-and-a-half hours of sleep and shunning guilty pleasures in the name of “productivity.” It didn’t take me very long to burn out. I began sleeping 10 hours a night, constantly watched reruns of “Whose Line Is It Anyway?” or “High Stakes Poker,” aimlessly surfed the web, had trouble reading books, skimped on my journaling, and quit working out.

The key to a productive, happy life is to not hustle all the time. You need to find time each day to relax and recharge.

Enter Mike Whitfield:

Imagine a flashlight with a dying, but rechargeable battery. Its dim light is almost worthless, yet you continue to use it. All it needs is an hour to recharge the battery and then it would shine brighter than ever.

I can now recognize the warning signs of burnout quicker than I used to. If I ever notice a dip in my energy levels or overall willingness to do things I normally like doing, I make sure to recharge my batteries as soon as possible.

Read the rest of Whitfield’s article here.

How to Be a Cleaner

Jon Anthony at Masculine Development is one of my favorite self-development bloggers. He tells it like it is in no uncertain terms. I even consider him a mentor of mine.

Jon recently published a three-part series on how to be a “cleaner,” which describes someone who’s unstoppable in his pursuit of success and greatness.

Part one here, part two here, and part three here. Thirteen rules in toto. Read, absorb, and take action.

Invest in Yourself

Warren Buffett once said that “the most important investment you can make is in yourself.” Who can disagree with that?

I spent ~$100 today on books and workout equipment. I don’t consider this an accumulation of assets, but rather an investment in my intellectual and physical health.

Ryan Holiday once wrote the following about reading: “I promised myself a long time ago that if I saw a book that interested me I’d never let time or money or anything else prevent me from having it.” This also applies to other investments in yourself like a heavier set of weights, a nice leather journal, a good planner, a gym membership, a self-development course, whatever.

Don’t see the purchase of such things as “spending money.” See them as investments in your health, wealth, and wisdom. Never let time, money, etc., stop you. You are your most valuable asset.

On Tomi Lahren’s Pro-Choice Controversy

I know I’m late on this. In any case, I still want to get my two cents in.

Tomi Lahren is a 24-year-old political commentator for TheBlaze. Her popularity has skyrocketed since 2016; not only does her attractiveness help, but she’s much edgier than essentially every conservative commentator. She regularly eviscerates liberals, has called #BlackLivesMatter “the new KKK,” and even once referred to refugees as “rapeugees.”

Last week, Tomi strolled into the lions’ den of hostile female liberals known as “The View.” She emerged, however, with praise from the left and disapproval from the right. How?

She emphatically declared her pro-choice views, saying “I can’t sit here and be a hypocrite and say ‘I’m for limited government but I think the government should decide what women do with their bodies’.” Video:

The fallout? She’s been temporarily suspended from The Blaze.

Interestingly, Tomi lambasted Lena Dunham for her sick abortion comments just three short months ago, using language like “murdered a fetus,” “kill your child,” and “baby-killers” in her segment. So, did Tomi foolishly flip-flop on abortion? Or did she sincerely undergo a change of heart? Or has she always been pro-choice but simply said what her target audience wants to hear?

I think Tomi is sincere in her pro-choice convictions because she framed them in terms of a core political philosophy—namely, that the government shouldn’t interfere with a woman’s “right to have an abortion.”* She genuinely believes in small government at the expense of being pro-life.

This illuminates the difficulty (impossibility?) in balancing traditionalism and liberalism. A more traditionalist conservative is staunchly pro-life; but if that’s the case, you must necessarily believe that the act of abortion murders a defenseless human life, and to murder a defenseless human life is something that can’t go unpenalized, right? Well, if it can’t, doesn’t that betray your commitment to “small government”?** Tomi’s comments fall in line with this interpretation.

On the other hand, a more “liberal” conservative may believe the act of abortion takes a human life, but that the government ought not to get involved because 1) “it’s not their role to do so,” 2) “it violates women’s rights,” 3) both 1 and 2, or 4) some other reason. Tomi clearly belongs to this camp, and it’s a befuddling one no matter how you slice it. If human beings possess inherent rights and human life begins at conception, then to permit abortion is to permit the denying of its inherent rights. How can the willful denying of someone else’s rights, even if he’s a fetus in his mother’s womb, possibly go unpenalized either? I ask such questions because abortion is not merely a political issue, but a fundamentally philosophical issue.

Along with Tomi’s ostensible sincerity in being pro-choice, it also seems that she was capitalizing on a chance to further enhance her starpower and appeal. What a misguided attempt. Liberals will still dislike her because she criticizes them in no uncertain terms, and now numerous conservatives will dislike her because she’s not pro-life. By trying to become liked by everyone, you become liked by no one.

Tomi’s rise was characterized, to some extent, by her willingness to be edgy and attack everything liberals stand for. But then she decided to publicly go muh freedom on the abortion question. In doing so, Tomi hurt herself when she thought she was helping herself. Oops.

*This is not a direct quote from Tomi. This is what her stance implies.

**I think it does—unless you, like I do, refuse to frame political issues in terms of “big government” versus “small government.”