Category Archives: Self-Reliance

Articles, commentary, and information on becoming more self reliant.

Living in interesting times

Posted on by

There is a curse of uncertain origin: “May you live in interesting times.” Well, it would appear we are cursed. Within the space of a few months we’ve experienced a pandemic with its accompanying challenges, Asian murder hornets, and now civil unrest and riots. And through it all we’ve experienced a constant social media barrage as seemingly everyone feels qualified and obligated to tell us what to do, what to think, and what to feel.

It’s difficult to not just turn off the light and go back to bed, to say nothing of meeting each day with a smile. There’s few things more annoying to me when I’m already stressed than to have everyone lecturing one another and looking to find fault. I prefer to make social media my “happy place,” but lately it’s been anything but.

The things is, my life isn’t that bad. Working from home isn’t as difficult as I’d feared. I’m still getting paid. I’ve got most of my family around me, and my distant daughter is safe. My wife and son kept their jobs throughout all this. We’ve been able to hold church at home. I don’t really care that much about going places–at least places that would now be off limits. Our house is comfortable, our yard is perking up nicely, and I have plenty of cute, furry things to pet when I need a little fur-therapy.

But even with all that some days it’s just been almost too much to bear. Even without everything going on right now life can still hit you hard on an off day. Now, there are people who deal with anxiety and depression, and I by no means imply they should be able to just snap out of it, or that anything I’m about to suggest should work for them. But for the rest of us, here are a few things I’ve found helps me cope.

Exercise – I realized at one point amid my home isolation I had let my exercise program slide. Even when I was doing it I wasn’t doing it for very long. So I changed things up, getting up a little earlier to make sure I was getting longer, regular activity. I also took advantage of my being home and my shared interest with my younger son to get outside every other afternoon for some basketball. Pretty soon I noticed two improvements. I was feeling better physically from improved health, and following through on my goal was boosting my general satisfaction with myself.

To Do Lists – This probably won’t work for everyone, but in my case the less I feel I accomplish the worse I feel about myself. I actually don’t like to-do lists, but I do like the feeling I get when I check off an item or when I review my accomplishments at the end of the week. The thing that surprised me was to find that the size of the task doesn’t matter so much. If it’s something you need to remember to do, put it on there–in fact, the smaller they are, the easier it is to do them, so if you have something big that can be broken down into smaller tasks (ie. getting stuff you need, prep-work, the actual job, cleanup, etc.), do it! You’ll have concrete proof of having done something, and it really helps.

Ditch the Downers – I have a love-hate relationship with social media. When the majority of my feed is positive I feel positive. But the more negativity that creeps in the more I feel myself absorbing it. And I hate unfriending people–my problem, I know. But recently I discovered that Facebook gives you the ability to “snooze” people for 30 days rather than unfriending or hiding them. I find it much easier to hit the “smite” button and say, “I don’t want to deal with you right now.” There may be other ways, including taking a break altogether. If you’re like me and you can’t help absorbing the negative energy, it’s okay to admit you just can’t handle it. You shouldn’t have to handle it. Most people wouldn’t come over to your house to act like that, so it’s okay to avoid them online if necessary. Take a break.

It’s Okay – Related to the previous point, I can really get on myself sometimes. I keep telling myself I have no reason to be feeling the way I feel, that other people don’t feel this way, and that I should just snap out it and move on. Sometimes I can do it, but sometimes I just can’t. And I’m slowly coming to realize that’s okay! It’s okay to feel what I’m feeling. It might be good to look more closely and see what might be behind it, but ultimately…it’s okay. Also, cut other people some slack. We all deal with things differently, and things that bother me won’t necessarily bother you–and vice versa. If I’m dealing with something, chances are you’re dealing with something too. It’s okay if you don’t handle it the way I would. I don’t need to be like you in how you handle things. People get angry, get stressed, get hard to live with. Let them. Give them some distance if you can’t handle it yourself, but don’t beat yourself up over it. Own how you feel and make a plan to move forward.

Pull a Scarlet O’Hara – Years ago when I was out of work for two years I would have the occasional meltdown. My poor wife couldn’t talk any sense into me, and I most certainly couldn’t talk myself out of it. I’d get caught in circular thinking and go down in flames. Eventually I started learning that some days I’d just have to surrender and go to bed early. Almost without fail things would look better the next day. A good night’s sleep can act as a reset button, clearing out the mental garbage you couldn’t get rid of the day before. Sometimes I’ve even found the admission that I just can’t handle it to be cleansing enough to turn things around.

Get Outside – During this pandemic that option hasn’t been available to everyone, but even just getting out for a while to walk the dog can be great. A change of scenery works wonders sometimes.

Well, that’s the extent of my wisdom. Just remember, free advice is worth every penny you pay for it! But hopefully something in here may just help. Everyone struggles from time to time. We’ll get through it sooner or later, but every little tool, every strategy helps.

What are some of your favorite coping strategies? Leave a comment!

Your money or your life? It’s not that simple

Posted on by

About a month ago I began discussing an article from Wikihow.com on “4 Ways to Be Self Reliant,” by Trudi Griffin, LPC, MS. The article is more about relationships than what I would consider self-reliance, but she still makes some valid points. Today I want to look at her second point, managing money independently. She breaks money management down into six areas:

  1. Learn how to manage money
  2. Get out of debt
  3. Pay cash instead of using your credit card
  4. Keep cash on hand at all times
  5. Own a home
  6. Live within your means

To begin with Griffin warns against allowing others to manage your money. I agree with her basic premise, that you can lose your independence if you lost control of your money, but that depends on the nature of your relationship with that person. In most marriages one of the two usually assumes responsibility for managing the money. If you are good at communicating, have compatible financial goals, and trust one another it’s actually easier to have one partner take primary responsibility and keep the other informed. Her second concern is more valid: if the primary money manager is unable to continue in that role it may be very difficult for the other partner to step in. Even if you are not the money manager in your relationship, make sure you know how to access everything and are comfortable managing money yourself.

Griffin also encourages everyone to get out of debt, though what she really focuses on is keeping your debt manageable. According to her, your total long-term debt payments (mortgage, auto and school loans, and credit card debt) shouldn’t exceed 36% of your monthly income. If your debt payments exceed this level you should make every effort to get that debt load paid down as quickly as possible.

As a corollary to that, Griffin also advocates paying cash for everything, and to keep cash on hand (and in savings) at all times. This seems primarily to be to keep your credit card debt low, and I somewhat agree with this. If you have difficulty paying off your credit cards, or can’t resist charging more money on them, then by all means you should avoid using those credit cards. But if you have developed financial discipline and never miss making your payments because you’re able to set money aside to make those payments, there may be a way to make your credit cards work for you.

I recently read I Will Teach You To Be Rich, by Ramit Sethi. The man has some good ideas about acquiring, building, and managing wealth–and some ideas I’m less keen on. But one suggestion he makes is to put your regular expenses, as much as possible, on your credit cards and then set that money aside to pay the bill off quickly. If you get the right credit card you can earn travel miles or cash back rewards that amount to free money. I’m disciplined with managing my budget, and so I decided to try it. I haven’t put as much on my card as I could, but already within the past several months I’ve picked up nearly $250 of cash back rewards. It’s free money. But if you’re not so good at managing your credit card debt and paying off your account monthly, it’s best to follow Griffin’s advice and avoid credit cards altogether.

Griffin’s next suggestion is to own a home. I’m not as sure about this one as I once was. Right now interest rates are low, so you may only pay about 50% more than the cost of your house in repaying the loan. Depending on how long you live there, the value of the home may increase well beyond that. Our first house did just that. But you don’t always control how long you live somewhere these days. We had to move when I lost my job ten years ago, and the timing was terrible–the housing market had collapsed and I owed considerably more on that house than I could sell it for.

There’s also the maintenance costs and hassle of a house to consider. So far since moving into our house nine years ago we’ve replaced the roof, replaced the furnace, air conditioner, and water heater, and bought high-efficiency windows. Granted, that last purchase was voluntary, but that was easily an additional 30-40% the cost of the house we had to find within the first six years of buying it. That, on top of a myriad of other maintenance expenses through the years. If you don’t like or can’t afford doing your own maintenance, or if you can’t be sure how long you’ll be staying where you live, a house may not be the best option. Everyone needs to evaluate their priorities themselves in this area.

Last, but by no means least, we should live within our means. That usually means several things that have to happen. First, you need to know (or learn) exactly how much money you spend each month and where it goes. Second, where at all possible, and perhaps not matter what the sacrifice, you need to adjust your spending to where it is less than what you earn. Third, you need to continually monitor your spending and your justifications for spending and see how you measure up against your budget. You need to be willing and able to adjust your spending to remain below your means–and save the difference religiously.

Frankly, learning how to budget and how to stick to that budget is one of the most important skills one can develop for self-reliance. That’s pretty much the key to achieving financial independence and taking care of “future you.” Or perhaps your spouse and children after you’re gone. Usually in life there are only two choices: either your master your money or your money masters you. Money is seldom a kind master, but it can be a real friend when you learn to master it. Mastering your finances is a key step toward true self-reliance.

Free thinking – not really free

Posted on by

The problem with being a free thinker is that it just takes so much more time and effort than just accepting whatever your told. Now, of course I’m saying this tongue-in-cheek, as the cost of not questioning much of what you hear is potentially much, much higher. But in an era when information is available at much higher volumes and speed than any of us can hope to consume, it’s a considerable sacrifice to weigh everything critically.

Take for example the reporting on a recent Gallup poll. I first learned of this poll via an article on a news and opinion site that trends conservative. The headline read thusly:

Gallup Poll Shows That No One Thinks the Media Is Doing a Good Job During the Pandemic

Rick Moran – PJMedia.com

The article cites another article from the Washington Examiner also reporting on the same Gallup Poll, so I went to read the Examiner article. Their headline?

Media botched the virus crisis and made it ‘worse’: Poll

Paul Bedard – WashingtonExaminer.com

And then I got a novel idea: Let’s go look at the poll itself! There were links, so…why not? Note we are now heading three layers deep. And how do they title the results of their poll?

Public Sees Harm in Exaggerating, Downplaying COVID-19 Threat

Jeffrey M. Jones and Zacc Ritter – Gallup.com

Following this trail of headlines just by themselves we see the effect of ye olde “Telephone Game.” We somehow went from “over- or under-playing the threat both believed to cause harm” to “The media is doing a poor job.”

But wait, we still haven’t even looked at the actual text of the articles yet. I’m going to ignore the first two and focus in on just the article written around the presentation of the data itself. Here’s their lede:

Media bias is a great concern for Americans, and the implications of such bias for society are magnified when the nation is in crisis, such as the current coronavirus pandemic. A new Gallup/Knight Foundation survey finds that a majority of Americans are concerned about biased news coverage of the coronavirus situation, including reporting that downplays the threat but also reporting that exaggerates it.

Democrats and Republicans diverge on whether exaggerating or downplaying the coronavirus threat is the greater risk. However, they generally agree that the crisis is worse than it needed to be, and that the news media should not wait for the crisis to ease before reporting on official actions that exacerbated the coronavirus situation.

It seems like a pretty good summary. Let’s look at the questions asked and the data obtained and tabulated:

This is as far as the first two articles really get. They focus in on the Republicans vs. Democrats angle, and also on the fact that the majority of all Americans find both exaggeration and down-playing to be harmful. But outside of the data itself, notice something a bit off? They’re asking what they essentially treat as inverse questions, but they word them slightly differently each time. When asking about down-playing they ask if it threatens public health. When they ask about exaggeration, they ask if it causes unnecessary harm to individuals and the country.

Why would they ask them differently? Wouldn’t it make the most sense to ask either “Any news organization that attempts to [down-play/exaggerate] the threat of the Coronavirus causes puts the health of the public in jeopardy” or “Any news organization that attempts to [down-play/exaggerate] the threat of the Coronavirus causes causes unnecessary harm to individuals and the country”? Wouldn’t that make the two questions equally weighted and inverse?

This may be displaying some of my own bias here, but it seems to me that framing the harm in terms of “public health” would tend to grab the interest of Democrats, while framing it in terms of individuals and the country would resonate more with Republicans. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that those groups do tend to rate the harm higher accordingly. Independents, predictably, seem to walk the middle of the road. Could it be this poll was designed to elicit a desired result outside of the stated objective?

But let’s look at the remaining questions and results:

The third question is fairly straightforward: Was the pandemic more harmful to the US than it needed to be? Interestingly here the independents agree most, but pretty much everyone agrees that it was. But what I don’t see here is any particular assignation of blame. We also don’t see any attempt to define “harm.” Was the harm in terms of public health, or to individuals and the country? Do people believe the unnecessary harm was caused by media reporting, let alone exaggeration or down-playing? That’s not part of the question. What about a lack of solid information, down-played or exaggerated? Also not addressed. One might infer the Democrats think the harm came from downplaying, while Republicans think it was from exaggeration, but causation was never addressed in this question. People simply think more harm was done than should have been.

The last question is just kinda of weird. It asks how people want the actions of public officials and the effects of their decisions to be reported on. Not surprisingly, as Donald Trump seems to be the main central figure under the microscope much of the time, a very high number of Democrats want them covered now. But also a high number of Republicans want coverage now, as well. But really, what value do we derive from this question? Evidently pretty much everyone wants the media to cover the actions of public officials and the results of those actions. There’s nothing at all here about whether or not we trust the media to cover it fairly, or even if we want it covered fairly. There’s really nothing here to support the Washington Examiner’s supposition that we believe the media botched their coverage. Same for PJ Media’s claim that the poll shows the media is not performing well in the crisis.

Okay, thanks for sticking with me this far. The bottom line here is regardless of what I think of the validity of the poll, the pollsters themselves did not attempt to read anything into the data that wasn’t supported by the data. They did a decent job. Less admirable was the news media’s interpretation thereof. Both headlines and articles try to get more out of the data than is really there. I’m not entirely sure about the Examiner’s leanings, but a quick online search suggests they lean right. And the right tends to be convinced that the media is biased left and/or doing a poor job of unbiased reporting. While it’s amusing that we have media claiming the media is doing a poor job, it seems evident they’re claiming it with very little substance to go on here.

But if we weren’t aware of their bias beforehand it would be easy to assume that the PJ Media article’s assessment is correct because it echoes the Washington Examiner’s assessment. And since PJ Media quotes from the the Examiner, they invite us to not look any further, not even to read the Examiner’s article. We have to dig down two levels to find that both media outlets are creating something out of nothing.

As much as I hate to say it, because I’m basically a lazy man, to be a true free thinker we have to do our homework. To do otherwise is to be misled. And the world needs more true free thinkers.

Refinancing – Crunching the numbers

Posted on by

Interest rates are really low right now–which is one of the reasons I lost my job at the beginning of the year. But my loss may also be my gain. Mortgage rates are also pretty low right now. I have about 24 years left on a 30 year mortgage, and the fact that I’ll be 74 when that’s paid off doesn’t sit well. Yes, I have other plans to deal with that, but I wouldn’t mind also doing something now. So I set out to find out if rates are low enough that I might actually benefit.

First of all I tried one of those internet loan sites. I didn’t get far before I quit. RocketMortgage wanted every bit of information needed to apply for a loan before I could even find out what terms I could get. I refuse to give out that much information until I know they’re really going to need it. Bye-bye, RocketMortgage. I went back to the brick-n-mortar reliables. Kinda.

My current mortgage servicing company has been after me for a while now to see about refinancing (and adding on a home equity loan if they could talk me into it), so I decided to hear what they had to say. I wasn’t impressed. They could do a 20-year loan that would cost me about $300 more a month.

Then I called the local broker I went with the two previous times. He actually had access to a 20-year loan for a lower rate than most 15-years. The net increase would be about $17 a month. Now THAT could be doable. But…should I? Was I forgetting something? After all, there would be fees, which they would try to get me to build into the loan. Would it be worth it to cut only six years off my loan? Time to crunch the numbers!

Armed with my current rate, number of payments left, and my current principal and interest payments, was able to calculate the total interest over the remaining life of the loan. That came to just under $100,000. I then calculated the total interest I’d pay on the proposed 20-year loan (figuring in financing the refi-fees, which I likely won’t do). That came to just over $56,000. Not a trivial difference! But I’ve heard that it can sometimes work to your advantage to pay extra principal on your loan to get it paid off sooner. I decided to look into that, even though at this point I’m not sure I would really want to take that money from other projects to do so.

I played with several different models. I first tried applying $100 per month toward principal and discarded that option. It barely moved the needle. Increasing the pay-down, I found that if I paid an extra $400 a month toward principal for first 120 months I could get the total outlay on my current loan down to about $23000 more than I’d pay with the 20-year, and pay it off 42 months earlier–in just over 16 years instead of 20. And if I paid $400 a month for 173 months I’d have it paid off entirely–in around 14 years. That would be right before I hit retirement age–good timing!

But wait. Assuming that’s even $400 I have, I’ve also had people tell me it would be better to put that money into an investment that earns higher interest instead, have it build up faster, and use that to pay the mortgage off early. In any case, in my MBA program they taught us that when looking at any project you should compare what they called the “opportunity cost,” or what you might lose with this option over some other bench-mark option, such as a long-term fixed-return investment. You might do well with this option, but what if you did something else with it instead?

My financial advisor usually tosses around 6% as a fairly safe rate of return on long-term investment-i.e. bond funds with little to no risk, so I used that to calculate how much I would have if I invested the same $400 a month for the same length of time. In the 198-month scenario, where I put in $400 a month for 120 months I would have $64,827. In the 173-month scenario, investing $400 a month for 173 months, I’d have $108,648. Compared to my proposed refinance, by paying down my mortgage I’d be losing the additional principle I paid, but also losing the gains I might have realized by investing it. It’s something of a double-whammy.

But wait again. In both those scenarios I would be done making mortgage payments earlier than if I went with the 240-month refinance. Being done sooner would mean I could turn that $1007 monthly payment toward investments. What about the opportunity cost of that money? More quick calculations, and under the 198-month scenario, investing my monthly payments for those 42 fewer months, it would come to $46,943, and in the 173-month scenario, investing for 67 months, it would be $78,527. If we put that back into the picture we end up with a significantly smaller gap from the $241,336 total paid out on the 240-month refinance; about $19,000 to $28,000.

Of course these two scenarios really do depend on the availability of the $400 a month to apply toward principle. The opportunity cost is real, as the only prospect for finding that money would be to take from what I’m currently saving each month to invest. The savings in interest doesn’t keep up with the amount put in to pay down the principle, let alone with the interest earned on investing it.

Bottom line: My 20-year refinance would save me about $40,000 over paying out the rest of my 30-year mortgage, and about $19,000 to $28,000 over money-to-principle scenarios. The value of investing that proposed extra principal payment early on (i.e. over a longer period) is hard to beat, even versus a shorter term but larger amount later. Slow and steady wins the race, but more money up front gets you there even faster.

While the over-all benefits aren’t as high as I had hoped, in this case, the value of refinancing is pretty clear. I save four years and about $40,000, plus I get to take that proposed added principal payment (I still don’t now if I could swing that), and invest it at at least twice the rate of what I pay on my loan. I’d have to say it’s worth it to refinance.

Of course I’m no financial adviser, I haven’t given you all my details here, and I don’t know your circumstances. This isn’t really meant to tell you whether or not you might benefit. This is primarily an exercise to help you evaluate for yourself. Just remember to look at all angles, not just the most immediate. I probably missed something here, too, but I’m going into this much more sure of what I’m doing than if I had simply thought, “Four fewer years is always a good thing, right?”

Take care of your future self

Posted on by

Ashley over at YouNeedABudget.com brought up an interesting motivational concept in her recent video. Citing someone else’s comic, she talks about doing things for our future self such as, if you know you need to do a video shoot in the morning, making sure your camera batteries are charged and your memory cards are wiped the night before so that’s one less thing to have to deal with in the morning. Take a look (no prior knowledge of YNAB required):

As I watched the video it occurred to me that this idea of taking care of your future self is at the heart of self-reliance. Building up some food storage and your savings is a terrific gift to your future self who is out of work for a few months, or laid up on temporary disability. Taking a few extra online classes in your field or exploring a related field may be just the thing to help future you really nail an opportunity at work. Always taking the time to make sure you keep your car’s tank at least half-filled will be greatly appreciated later when something comes up on the day you usually fill up and you have to go another day or two before you get another chance.

The essence of self-reliance is making sure your future self has very little to worry about. It can even start with the smaller things that Ashley mentions, but dealing with things now instead of later will definitely make future you want to thank you!

Is it worth it?

Posted on by

Ken Jorgustin at Modern Survival Blog takes up the question of whether it’s worth it to invest in self-reliance. He looks at various types of home production, such as raising your own chickens, growing your own garden, or even switching to solar energy all cost money, and often those same products can be obtained commercially for less.

During the process of building their palace, I’ve thought about the money it took to get this done. As well as the ongoing costs of maintaining the small flock, and feeding them. Let me put it this way. You might get depressed to realize the ultimate cost per dozen eggs output compared to the money input!

Ken Jorgustin

I’ve noticed that with gardening. In both places we’ve lived our irrigation and gardening water comes from the same water as our culinary and hygienic water, and the cost can more than double during the summer months. Whatever money we save by growing our own vegetables is more than eaten up in the water, seeds, tools, and fertilizer needed to grow them. We ultimately decided it simply wasn’t worthwhile to try to grow our own potatoes in Idaho.

We also looked at solar power ourselves a few years ago and realized that in spite of what the salesman told us, the system would never pay for itself, even if the power company paid for any excess electricity we generated–which they stopped doing within a few years. While we would like to have been able to do more to reduce pollution and our own energy dependence we just couldn’t justify the expense.

It can all be enough to make you step back and wonder if it’s really worthwhile to take a different path. But, as Jorgustin explains, the answer will be different for everyone. For some people cost is the only consideration, and they’ll likely not bother with many self-reliance measures. For my wife and I, we find home-grown food is usually healthier and better tasting. What’s more, there may be rough times ahead–times when the stores won’t be able to get the stock they usually get. We may very well need to supplement our food supply from our own yard. In the middle of the crisis is not the time to be learning what grows and what doesn’t, or how to lay out your garden, your watering, etc. And as we’ve seen, the price of things can increase quickly when it’s in short supply.

A considerable part of self-reliance, and especially emergency preparedness, is not just having the things you need when things go wrong, but knowing what to do with them. Maybe not everything we can do we should do, but it is worthwhile to consider what things you want to be able to do. And sometimes it just feels good to do it.

Experiments in document destruction

Posted on by

I am hard on paper shredders. I’ve destroyed two of them in the past year. I like to think it’s just because those diamond-cut shredders are flimsy, but I suspect it’s really because I push the limits a little too often. In any case, I recently cleaned out the shed and found I had three boxes full of old financial docs, dating back twenty years. That’s way longer than I need, and is perhaps even becoming a liability. But…I don’t have a shredder.

My wife suggested I look up other ways of destroying documents, so I did. I don’t think a burn-barrel would go over too well these days, but a soak barrel sounded interesting. The idea is to get a bucket of water and dump your documents in there, let them soak, then stir them well to break them up and turn them to pulp. Then you pour the pulp out somewhere and let the water drain/soak/evaporate out of it until it hardens up. You can then pick it up and put it in the garbage, and no one will really be able to get any info out of the mess.

So I tried it. I immediately got it wrong. I started by filling two five gallon buckets with papers. Then I filled them with water.

Do you ever cook spaghetti only to have the noodles all clump together tightly and not want to separate? Paper is much, much worse. I should have separated them more, or better yet filled the bucket with water first, then put the documents in, page by page until it was maybe half full. The first time I went to stir them they all stuck together in a single mass that wouldn’t budge, let alone break up. Even my hand tiller tool, used for breaking up garden soil, wouldn’t work.

It became a battle of wills. I’d go outside once or twice every day, replace any evaporated or soaked-in water, and stir/till each bucket, slowly scraping bits and pieces of paper from the clumps. Over about a week it began to look more promising.

Finally I could wait no longer, and dumped out the two buckets on a tarp I set up and spread the pulp out to dry. That didn’t go quickly, either, as we have very few sunny places in our yard. It probably took another week of drying.

Eventually it dried enough to make an interesting piece of art. My wife joked about using them for floor mats, or table placemats, or finding a way to roll it out thinner and making our own recycled paper. Frankly, I don’t think there’s much worth doing with it other than throwing it away.

I really don’t see much to recommend this particular approach to document destruction. At this rate I’ll have my documents destroyed around about….October. It’s cheap, and it may even be less labor-intensive than sitting there for hours feeding a few pages at a time through a shredder. It’s certainly cheaper than a new shredder. What I really ought to do is get a good document scanner and a good shredder, scan the documents as soon as I get them and shred them on the spot. But I’m a cheapskate, so that probably won’t happen. But I also won’t pay to have the local UPS Store dispose of them for me, either, so who knows. Maybe the pulp-pots will remain in business?

I’ll probably try another batch with an entirely different approach and see how that goes, but at least by the time I’ve done that it should be easier to justify shelling out more for a good, industrial-strength shredder.

Take good care of yourself, you belong to…you!

Posted on by

I went to post a link to yesterday’s column on Facebook and suddenly realized I’d gotten sidetracked when I wrote it. The post title had nothing to do with what I ended up writing about! So here I am, back again, hoping to get it right this time!

As I began yesterday, the article “7 Tips For Increasing Self-Reliance” lists some of the usual things and some less-than-usual. One that perhaps doesn’t get the attention it deserves is their point on looking after your body:

While you shouldn’t expect yourself to be your own doctor and should always seek medical advice if you are concerned about your health, try to look after your body to minimize the need for treatment and medication.

While you shouldn’t expect yourself to be your own doctor and should always seek medical advice if you are concerned about your health, try to look after your body to minimize the need for treatment and medication.

Work out on a regular basis and eat healthy food most of the time. Try to stay informed about specific diseases that you may be at risk of developing (whether genetic or environmental reasons). All of these actions will make you more confident about relying on your body. It will have the side-effect of making you feel more comfortable with the idea of self-reliance in general.

I’ve always taken my health for granted. Somehow I bucked the family genetic trend and was born with a high metabolism, I’ve been on the skinny side most of my life. While never all that physically active, I was certainly more so than most teens today. And in college I was in great shape; slinging a vacuum around a department store for four hours every morning, followed by frequent, high speed walks back and forth from upper campus to lower. I never considered my body; it always did what I needed it to do.

Then I graduated and got a desk job. And I got married. In a short amount of time I put on thirty pounds. My doctor got on my case about that, and with little modification I took those pounds back off. Then I found that fat had been masking something else. I had a heart murmur. We quickly discovered I have two leaky heart valves. Fortunately, it was nothing serious yet, so we continued to monitor it. My lifestyle still didn’t change much.

When we moved to Utah I didn’t even continue monitoring it for a while. And when I finally did, things seemed normal. Then suddenly, one year, they weren’t. My heart is getting worse. Though getting in better shape can’t fix that, the doctor agreed it certainly wouldn’t hurt. So I’ve been making a more concerted effort to get in better shape.

Mind you, I still find exercise an inconvenience. There are other things I’d much rather do than spend an hour a day (on average) exercising. But I will grudgingly admit to noticing a difference when I do. I’m not as tired. I don’t give out as quickly. I can pretty much do whatever I need to do around the house

Part of the trick for me is to either find something I enjoy doing, or find ways to make what I’m doing enjoyable. I ride a stationary bike every morning for 25-30 minutes. I listen to speakers or audio books during that time so that I pay less attention to the clock. Every other day I practice basketball, either playing with my son or working on my shot on my own. Since my objective is completely separate from the exercise I don’t focus on the fact that I’m exercising.

I’ll never been one of those guys who measures his exercise in miles our hours. Spending six hours on a Saturday biking 50 miles just doesn’t sound fun to me. For me the primary motivation comes down to this: I’ve got a heart condition that could significantly limit my life span. My best chance of beating that is by being as healthy as I can. Life is only getting more interesting the older I get. I don’t want to miss anything.

It’s the little things that count

Posted on by

I always get a little excited when I see the concept of self-reliance brought up in unexpected places or referring to aspects outside the usual “prepper” mindset. After all, my philosophy of self-reliance is much broader, and should be more applicable to everyday life by everyday people. So it caught my attention when I found “7 Tips for Increasing Self-Reliance” on The Law of Attraction.com.

Some of their seven points are somewhat familiar, such as “Accept Responsibility” and “Make Your Own Decisions,” but others are are a little less obvious–or at least less practiced these days.

Take Point #3: Learn More Practical Skills:

The more practical skills you have in your toolkit, the fewer chances there will be for you to feel helpless or need other people to come to your rescue. While you should feel free to call out experts to help you with complicated household problems and mechanical difficulties, it’s great if you can at least do the basics for yourself. Get some books or join some classes.

Try to get a better grasp of everything from plumbing to IT, electronics and cooking.

A few (dozen) years ago I spent two years in Australia as a missionary for my church. Before we travel to our assigned locations we spend anywhere from three to eight weeks learning teaching skills and, where necessary, a new language. From the beginning we are paired up with another missionary, who we will be with 24/7.

My companion was a really pleasant fellow from solid farm stock (Central Utah turkey farmers), but I was soon quite surprised to find he had no idea how to do his own laundry! Nor did he know what to do when he spilled dinner on his tie. Now, I won’t claim to have been anything but a burden on my mother up until that point in time, but she had at least taught me how to do laundry, how to cook, how to sew on buttons and mend pants. I gladly dispensed my wisdom to my companion, and I have definitive proof he was able to survive the entire two years.

A few years later while I was in college I went to an activity with a bunch of other college students. We decided to go get some ice cream or something afterward at a place several blocks away. While I was driving through campus I realized my tire had gone flat. I pulled over into a parking lot and started pulling out my equipment to change it for my spare.

Before long about a handful of young women from our group had pulled over to see if everything was okay. When I explained what the problem was and that I’d be okay, they all insisted on staying to watch. No one had taught them how to change a tire! I was only too happy to demonstrate for them, of course.

Whether it’s hanging a picture, or strengthening a wobbly chair, or reattaching things that come loose, there are a lot of simple tasks in life we can easily take for granted and forget to either learn or pass on. There’s no reason we should be helpless when it comes to using basic tools to perform simple maintenance tasks. Fixing a leaky faucet–or outright replacing one–isn’t difficult, but if you have no idea how to go about it you might be tempted to spend a decent chunk of money on something that shouldn’t take very long.

Learning some basic skills will pay off in spades sooner or later. And it might just help you get the girls! (Okay, not really. They were all impressed, but that’s about as far as it went.)

Who do we trust our lives to?

Posted on by

I had a brief discussion with a friend on Facebook the other day in which it became apparent we have differing opinions on the role of government. I don’t think either of us will change the other’s mind any time soon, but he said something that stuck with me. It was essentially, “We trust the government with our lives, so why not to distribute wealth?”

I had to stop and think about that. Do we trust the government with our lives? Should we?

Ultimately I suppose we do trust the government with our lives to some extent. I rely on my local city government to provide me safe drinking water–something they failed at not so long ago. I’ve since taken steps to lessen that risk, but truth be told, if there’s something dangerously wrong with my water I may not know it in time unless the government warns me. I have to trust that they’re doing their best.

I also trust the national government to maintain an army sufficient to deter any other country from coming in and killing me. As we’ve seen in recent years they’re not entirely successful in that responsibility, but they’re keeping the risk acceptably low. And they’re also doing a decent job at deterring those who might take shortcuts or act irresponsibly with our food supply. Incidents still happen, but still, the risk is still quite low.

There are, however, many more ways in which to die. In most of those cases the government acts more as a deterrent than a protection. They can’t keep some idiot driver from cutting across four lanes of traffic to make their exit and plowing into me instead. They can’t guarantee my neighbor’s tree isn’t going to fall on my house as I sleep and crush me. They can’t guarantee the airplane I get on isn’t going to crash, nor can they promise me I won’t die during heart surgery at some future point.

All they can do (or perhaps more accurately, are willing to do at present) is tell people what they should or shouldn’t do, and then affix punishments for noncompliance. And for the most part that is enough. Most people don’t act irresponsibly or seek to do deliberate harm, and they wouldn’t, even without those laws. And many more also don’t because they find the potential punishment sufficiently unpleasant.

And yet 90 people per day are killed in car accidents in America. Several million every year are injured, many permanently. Is the government failing or succeeding? If their responsibility is to protect our lives, I’d say they’re failing. We’ve lost over 80,000 Americans to the Coronavirus this year in spite of all the protections government can provide, including some fairly dramatic precautions. At the same time, those measures have cost lives as well, to say nothing of the jobs at least temporarily lost. The long-term impact on lives may not be fully understood for years yet.

So I guess one question to ask ourselves is whether or not any government can guarantee us our lives. Can a government eliminate all risk? And would we like it if they did? What would our lives be like? I see plenty of examples all around right now of people starting to push back against government control over their lives as the governmental restrictions put in place to save lives from COVID-19 continue in effect well into the second or third months. I live in a state that imposed less strict restrictions and perhaps coincidentally, perhaps in correlation with other factors, has the fourth lowest death rate in the country. I’ve pretty much willingly complied with those restrictions.

But when I hear of some of the other states’ more extensive efforts to control the virus by controlling people I am particularly grateful to live where I live. I fully understand why those states are facing popular backlash. Clearly, even if a government could keep us all from dying, most people feel those all-controlling restrictions would make life no longer worth living, especially when there is no end in sight.

In fact, history seems to prove that a restrictive government, even in the name of protecting life, tends to fall sooner or later. Human nature tends to lead governments to go too far, and usually for decreasingly benign reasons. They may start out well-meaning, but soon grab more and more power simply for the sake of hanging onto that power.

But then let’s look at the alternative. A total lack of government tends not to work very well, either. While I don’t entirely subscribe to the “Lord of the Flies” theory of humanity, a complete lack of common law–or the enforcement thereof–tends toward disaster. People will usually work out some sort of pact, a set of rules for maintaining peace, property, and ensuring basic rights. But as demonstrated by certain parts of our current world, the rule of “might makes right” is more common than we’d like to think.

Humanity needs government. It’s even part of my religion’s basic tenets. Governments that ensure basic rights and basic rules governing human interaction are essential to maximize productivity, cooperation, and peace. But in all cases it falls upon the governed to govern themselves to some degree. The value of traffic laws to a victim is not in the enforcement of those laws, but in the threat of enforcement. It does me precious little good if I’m dead knowing the idiot that decided to continue through the red light at 50 miles an hour to broadside my car will be heavily fined and potentially jailed. The hope is that, knowing he could be heavily fined and jailed, the person will choose not to speed and run red lights in the first place.

And yet we still lose around 40,000 Americans to car accidents every year. If we apply the same logic to cars I’ve been hearing about the coronavirus, we should all be voluntarily getting rid of our cars or agreeing to cap our speed at ten miles an hour. We’re not, and we won’t. Deep down even the strongest proponents of government protection in all area of life seem to accept that communal rights must be tempered by individual rights. We’re willing to accept responsibility for protecting ourselves in order to avoid our own inconvenience.

In fact, as a society in America, we still retain far more personal responsibility for our own protection, prosperity, and happiness than we surrender to government. There is constant pressure from some to push more and more of that control to government, but much of it seems to be due to some mistaken belief that such power could never be abused, or that the other party who we distrust/hate so dearly will never actually hold power, giving them the opportunity to abuse the power we want to hand the government when under our side’s control.

That’s why I tend to believe that we need to be self-reliant rather than government-reliant, especially when it comes to protection. The deterrent power of government is important, but they can’t (and probably shouldn’t) be everywhere. As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Ultimately we can’t completely avoid all danger in life. But we can take responsibility for our own safety.

Hopefully every one of us who has taken formal drivers education has been taught to be aware of what’s going on around us in order to anticipate threats. Hopefully none of us, seeing that idiot in the far left lane who suddenly realizes they should be in the far right lane, just continues on at the same speed, staring straight ahead, trusting entirely in the law to protect us. We slow down. We start looking for room for evasive action. We do our best to make sure we are not in their path.

Most anyone who is looking after their financial future recognizes the inadequacy in America of the government safety net to support the retired. Even assuming Social Security will survive all the political wrangling around it, most retirement plans include coming up with funds well above and beyond what we can count on from the government. Similarly, during the two years I spent on unemployment, had I needed to rely on that alone my family would have really struggled.

We can’t anticipate everything, but we can take reasonable precautions in much of what we do. We can take steps to reduce negative impacts on those we love. We can act morally and responsibly in our interactions with others. We can think before we act.

I think, whether we like it or not, so long as we choose to live within society, within the bounds of modern infrastructure we’re going to have to trust government at some essential level. If we don’t trust in our social structures to at least some degree we will spend the majority of our time and resources trying to eliminate any and all dependence on government and other people, effectively pushing us to the lowest level of Maslow’s Hierarchy, and that’s not where we should be. We need to be able to trust that a vast majority of the time when we turn on our faucet, when we flip the light switch, when we set out to drive to work we’re going to have a predictable, quality experience.

At the same time, where the absence of that predictable result threatens our lives, we need to be prepared to shoulder that burden ourselves, if only for a short time. I’ll drink tap water, but I’ll make sure I’ve got a reserve supply in case I can no longer trust that water. I’ll enjoy all the daily benefits of electricity, but have other options available in case it fails. I’ll do my best to assume every moment I’m in my car that other drivers may not abide by the law. Government is very good and beneficial for many things. But over-dependence on them can be deadly. Our own safety and happiness must always be our responsibility.