Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Breaking in a bike's engine - III
"OK, I've been looking into this a bit more and come up with some info as well as a bit of an explanation for why everyone seems to have such different break-in procedures.
So what should you do.... run in soft, or rag it out? Turns out a bit of both, and I'll explain why:
Apparently the first thing you want to do is the bearing break-in, ie: make sure the camshaft lobes and lifter heads get properly lubricated (there by prepping them for the REAL break-in).
To do this you want to start the engine and (while in neutral) immediately get your RPM's into the mid range, varying it up and down by ~2000rpm for about 15 minutes total. The Reason? Well the camshaft lobes and lifters get their oil from spray coming off the connecting rods. At lower (idle) rpm's they DO get enough oil to run, but not enough for break-in. Running everything faster gives you a bit more of the oil splashing action.
This honestly is something that should have been done AT THE FACTORY immediately after the engine was built. If it wasn't it's no biggy... as long as the engine hasn't been run under load for extended periods at high temps you can still do this. If it has (been run hot/hard), then you're screwed and the camshaft and lifters just won't seal properly.
After you're done you should change the oil.
This procedure pretty much accounts for the "change oil ASAP" rule that most people agree is a good idea. The main different being that you want to do this BEFORE you load the engine.... not after (as by then it's too late).
Next is the actual break-in.
First start up the bike and let it get up to normal operating temp, then find yourself some hills and ride up those suckers. We're trying to really load those rings and get the piston, cylinder, and ring to break in well. You want to really heat up the engine and work it hard as it's this heat and load that will ultimately burn the glaze off the cylinders and let everything seat well.
Please note that when I say ride it hard, I'm talking about high gear (4-6), uphill, with MODERATE rpm's, and running downhill with engine breaking (in a lower gear of course). DO NOT PEG IT! If you run the engine TOO fast all you will do is reglaze the cylinders (same thing happens with new brake discs that are over strained when new... they glaze over).
After running the engine hot like that you need to let it cool down slowly. Run it under moderate to low load, at moderate rpms, while slowly getting down into lower RPM's and finally parking it. The trick is to sustain the high engine temperature and bring down the temp as slow as possible. Aside from just being good for the engine (see: motorcycle racing, cool down lap) it also helps to further temper (strengthen) the engine and it's many components.
This will break-in the engine in a couple hundred miles or so, at which time you will want to change the oil again.
Now it seems a common misconception is that if you ride the bike hard, or ride it soft (take your pick) that it won't break-in properly. Well if by "properly" you mean "in a timely manner" then sure. Make no mistake though, no matter WHAT you do the engine will seat eventually (more or less), it's just a matter of how long it will take. The single exception to this being that an engine that is NEVER pushed may never seat fully.
OK, so why do the manufacturers tell you to go slower and ramp it up over time? Safety mostly. It's far more likely that something is going to break or fall off when it's brand freaking new, than it is at 10,000 miles. By starting off slow you gradually "shake down" the bike, increasing the strain on it over a period of time, and hopefully identifying any mechanical defects before they become a life threatening problem. This also gives you (the rider) time to acquaint yourself with the bike. Every motorcycle is different, and as such will respond differently. Anyone who has ever switched from one bike to another knows what I'm talking about. More over, breaking in a new bike isn't JUST about the engine. It's the tires, the brake discs, the rider. Lots of little bits that all need to be working together in the right way.
So, long story short... keys to a good break-in:
Proper Lubrication
Proper Warm-up
Heat+Engine Load (both acceleration & deceleration)
Proper Cool down
Oh, and if you blow up the engine... that's what warranties are for."
Breaking in a bike's engine - III
"OK, I've been looking into this a bit more and come up with some info as well as a bit of an explanation for why everyone seems to have such different break-in procedures.
So what should you do.... run in soft, or rag it out? Turns out a bit of both, and I'll explain why:
Apparently the first thing you want to do is the bearing break-in, ie: make sure the camshaft lobes and lifter heads get properly lubricated (there by prepping them for the REAL break-in).
To do this you want to start the engine and (while in neutral) immediately get your RPM's into the mid range, varying it up and down by ~2000rpm for about 15 minutes total. The Reason? Well the camshaft lobes and lifters get their oil from spray coming off the connecting rods. At lower (idle) rpm's they DO get enough oil to run, but not enough for break-in. Running everything faster gives you a bit more of the oil splashing action.
This honestly is something that should have been done AT THE FACTORY immediately after the engine was built. If it wasn't it's no biggy... as long as the engine hasn't been run under load for extended periods at high temps you can still do this. If it has (been run hot/hard), then you're screwed and the camshaft and lifters just won't seal properly.
After you're done you should change the oil.
This procedure pretty much accounts for the "change oil ASAP" rule that most people agree is a good idea. The main different being that you want to do this BEFORE you load the engine.... not after (as by then it's too late).
Next is the actual break-in.
First start up the bike and let it get up to normal operating temp, then find yourself some hills and ride up those suckers. We're trying to really load those rings and get the piston, cylinder, and ring to break in well. You want to really heat up the engine and work it hard as it's this heat and load that will ultimately burn the glaze off the cylinders and let everything seat well.
Please note that when I say ride it hard, I'm talking about high gear (4-6), uphill, with MODERATE rpm's, and running downhill with engine breaking (in a lower gear of course). DO NOT PEG IT! If you run the engine TOO fast all you will do is reglaze the cylinders (same thing happens with new brake discs that are over strained when new... they glaze over).
After running the engine hot like that you need to let it cool down slowly. Run it under moderate to low load, at moderate rpms, while slowly getting down into lower RPM's and finally parking it. The trick is to sustain the high engine temperature and bring down the temp as slow as possible. Aside from just being good for the engine (see: motorcycle racing, cool down lap) it also helps to further temper (strengthen) the engine and it's many components.
This will break-in the engine in a couple hundred miles or so, at which time you will want to change the oil again.
Now it seems a common misconception is that if you ride the bike hard, or ride it soft (take your pick) that it won't break-in properly. Well if by "properly" you mean "in a timely manner" then sure. Make no mistake though, no matter WHAT you do the engine will seat eventually (more or less), it's just a matter of how long it will take. The single exception to this being that an engine that is NEVER pushed may never seat fully.
OK, so why do the manufacturers tell you to go slower and ramp it up over time? Safety mostly. It's far more likely that something is going to break or fall off when it's brand freaking new, than it is at 10,000 miles. By starting off slow you gradually "shake down" the bike, increasing the strain on it over a period of time, and hopefully identifying any mechanical defects before they become a life threatening problem. This also gives you (the rider) time to acquaint yourself with the bike. Every motorcycle is different, and as such will respond differently. Anyone who has ever switched from one bike to another knows what I'm talking about. More over, breaking in a new bike isn't JUST about the engine. It's the tires, the brake discs, the rider. Lots of little bits that all need to be working together in the right way.
So, long story short... keys to a good break-in:
Proper Lubrication
Proper Warm-up
Heat+Engine Load (both acceleration & deceleration)
Proper Cool down
Oh, and if you blow up the engine... that's what warranties are for."
Breaking in a bike's engine - I
"well i had to go through break in period with 4 bikes...2 kawi's, 1 suzuki and now 1 honda. every bike had certain rpm's that was not recomended to go above. i have always followed recomendation on rpm's and mileage. i had problems only with first bike (kawi). it's engine blew up under me in a highway on about 125 mph. it blew up not because of wrong breaking in but because it had some serial defect from the begining. first 1000 km (about 625 miles) in the engine should be non-synthetic oil (usually it is mineral oil)because non-synthetic oil is less thick and that way it allows parts to brush more into each other and break in (not break ). because non-synthetic oils are less high temperature resistant that is why you shouldn't rev it too high. if you do then you make temperature of the oil and parts go too high and oil will be less and less thick and will loose it's abilities to moisture and cool down parts. parts will brush into each other too much and you can literally kill ur engine. there are different methods of breaking in from manufacturer to manufacturer. on kawi 636 first 800 km you shouldn't go above 4.000rpms and next 800 above 6.000rpm. on gixxer 600 first 800 km you shouldn't go above 7.000 and next 800 above 12.000 (i think, i dont remember anymore). on my blade they told me not to go above 6.000 rpm's in first 1.000 km. after first service interval (and puting synthetic oil) they told me i can ride it as i like.
so there is no need to complicate breaking in period. just follow instruction from your manual or what they told you in shop. don't be afraid of loosing power if you ride it less agressive then you think you should. today's bikes are powerfull enough and on regular roads anybody here can't use 70% of that power so they are more powerful then we can handle.
and don't rev it to fast...i mean let your rpm's go smooth. don't open throttle too fast...that is in break in period"
Breaking in a bike's engine - I
"As far as i'm concerned, battering a brand new engine like that is totally insane! As with any machined surface, engine internals have very slight surface imperfections. These need to be worked against eachother to produce wear patterns. These wear patterns dictate how well the components will seat together for the rest of their service life.
People get confused with all the conflicting advice, most of which comes from a lack of knowledge.
The main problem with taking it too easy for the first 300 miles or so is, modern oil is so good now and resists friction so well that it is sometimes difficult to cause enough wear and the surface glazes, and never creates a good seal.
The trick is to give it enough revs to produce enough pressure to force the piston rings against the bores but not too much so as cause overheating- Before good wear patterns are established, high revs cause more friction in places (known as troughs and peaks) which in turn cause hot spots that will deform alloy parts/seals/piston rings etc.
Sorry to be a bore, but I work in the engineering/manufacturing industry and see the effects of so called experts abusing machinery all the time and it drives me mad!
The best cause of action for running in modern engines is to take it fairly easy for 300 miles or so, then gradually increase revs. The worst thing you can do is labour an engine or hold it at set revs for long periods. Just vary your engine speed, and build it up gradually.
Agree with you on the oil chang after 300-500 miles though."
Monday, December 29, 2008
What Wall St. can learn from Micro Finance
The big lesson for Wall Street is that lending against collateral, supposedly prudent, can blind you to the need for checking the repayment capacity of borrowers. US banks happily gave mortgages of 100% of the value of houses during the housing bubble, and suffered when house prices fell. So did august institutions buying mortgage derivatives. Some, like Lehman Brothers, borrowed massively to invest in AAA mortgage-backed securities, and went bust when value of these securities plummeted. A trillion-dollar house of cards was built on collateral. When the collateral value fell, the house of cards collapsed.
Lesson: don’t just depend on collateral, assess the cash flow of borrowers, and leave a cushion to ensure repayment. The housing bubble induced banks to give NINJA (no verification of income, job or assets) loans, secured just by house value. As house prices rose, their value exceeded the repayment capacity of borrowers. The rest is history.
Microfinance, by contrast, has no collateral at all. MFIs deliberately keep loans small, well within repayment capacity. Some MFIs give first loans of just Rs 5,000 a year. Those who repay qualify for a higher second loan, maybe Rs 7,000, and the third loan can be still higher. But MFIs set an absolute loan limit, ranging from Rs 12,000 to Rs 25,000, depending on local economic opportunities, to guard against over-borrowing. Wall Street needs similar safeguards.
By contrast, defaulting home-owners in the US are treated as victims, offered subsidies and write-offs by politicians. Some home-borrowers may have been duped by brokers, but many others over-borrowed on the assumption of ever-rising house prices. Many bought houses to re-sell at a profit. Some can afford to repay but have decided not to, since default attracts no social opprobrium.
The aim must be to enable capable but capital-starved entrepreneurs to move beyond ownership of buffalos and tea-shops. At an MFI meeting in rural Dehra Dun, I saw an enterprising village woman pleading for a loan of Rs 50,000, saying (rightly) that this was the minimum needed for a decent shop. But the MFI regretted that this was beyond its lending limit.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
In favour of Gold
Gold does not have any powerful sponsor championing its cause. In fact, the opposite prevails. Apologists for central banks as well as government toadies clamoring for continued state control of money have worked hard to discredit gold where possible, for example, by blaming it for things it was not responsible – like the Great Depression – and by denigrating gold as a fondling of speculators or a superstition better suited for primitive economies.
In short, conventional economic wisdom and monetary thinking has one aim; it is to justify and perpetuate today’s monetary system. It does not undertake a critical review of the system nor take an unbiased, unprejudiced look at alternatives such as gold.
Yet despite this hostile environment, gold continues to be valued throughout the world. Stripping away the misinformation and half-truths about gold, it is clear that gold continues to serve an important role. Why is that?
It is because gold is useful, and as a consequence, it therefore has value. And how does gold’s usefulness arise?
Here is a basic primer highlighting eight essential features of gold that everyone should know. By evaluating them, it is possible to determine whether gold’s usefulness could be of value to you, just as it already is of value to countless millions of people around the world.
1) Gold is a special, unique commodity
Gold is a special, unique commodity because it is the only commodity produced for accumulation; all other commodities are produced to be consumed. Essentially all of the gold mined throughout history still exists in aboveground stocks. Nevertheless, gold is rare.
The entire aboveground gold stock is only about 155,000 tonnes. If all this gold were put into one lump, its size would be 8,000 cubic meters, the volume of which is equal to the bottom one-fifth of the Washington Monument or 3¼ Olympic size swimming pools. It is also astonishing to note that in one day twenty-times more steel is poured than the total weight of gold mined throughout history.
2) Gold’s supply is its aboveground stock
Because it is accumulated and not consumed, gold’s supply is its aboveground stock. This fact changes everything in terms of how to analyze gold.
Gold’s price is still a function of supply and demand, but the supply that matters is not the relatively little amount mined each year, which history shows only increases the aboveground stock year after year by a relatively consistent 1.7% per annum. Rather, gold’s supply is the total weight accumulated in its aboveground stock for the simple reason that a gram of gold mined today is no different from a gram of gold mined by the Romans two-thousand years ago. In other words, gold in the aboveground stock is perfectly substitutable for newly mined gold.
In the short-term gold’s supply is relatively unchanged because new mine production cannot be meaningfully increased quickly. As a consequence, gold’s price is principally a function of demand.
While it is common to hear that gold’s price is determined by jewelry demand, that belief is misguided. Just like wet streets do not cause rain, the price of gold does not depend upon jewelry demand. The important point is not the form gold takes when it is fabricated, but rather, the use to which it is put. Most jewelry is high-karat gold acquired because of gold’s monetary characteristics, not for reasons of adornment.
Therefore, the price of gold – or more precisely because it is money – gold’s rate of exchange to national currencies depends upon monetary demand, or what some people mistakenly call its investment demand. It cannot possibly be otherwise, given that gold’s supply is its aboveground stock and that some 80% of this amount is held for monetary reasons, and not for fashion, adornment or other factors.
3) Gold is money
This observation about monetary demand means that gold is money. In other words, gold is hoarded because its greatest usefulness arises from those attributes that make it money.
Gold’s advantages as money are numerous. Perhaps most important in our present age marked by the perennial inflation of national currencies, gold is money that cannot be debased by creating it ‘out of thin air’ by government fiat.
Another important factor in gold’s favor is the mountain of debt and financial derivatives that overhang the world economy. Gold is the only money that is not contingent upon anyone’s promise, an attribute that explains why gold is called “sound money”.
4) Gold is an alternative to the US dollar
The US dollar is in trouble because it is being debased – it is being inflated by newly created dollars that are used to fund the growing federal government budget deficits and other public and private debt. This insidious inflation erodes the purchasing power of the dollar month after month. Consequently, more and more people are turning to gold as their preferred money.
It used to be that the dollar was “as good as gold”. The dollar achieved that distinction because it was formally defined as a weight of gold under the rule-based system known as the gold standard. Under that system, which ended in August 1971, gold and dollars were interchangeable and essentially the same. But no more, to the detriment of those who hold dollars. By some estimates, the dollar has lost more than 90% of its purchasing power since then.
Despite this dreadful deterioration the dollar has suffered, it continues to circulate as currency. Those same inexorable forces that create a hostile environment for gold are at the same time promoting and propagandizing the dollar to talk-up its demand. The Federal Reserve’s pro-dollar, anti-gold propaganda is aimed to maintain the illusion that the dollar is reliable money. Consequently, in contrast to their interdependent and complimentary role under the gold standard, gold and the dollar have become competitors. In fact, gold is the dollar’s only serious competitor. They compete for holders, and it is their relative demand that determines their rate of exchange, or what we call the ‘price’ of gold.
The relative demand for gold and dollars also explains the importance of dollar interest rates, which need to be raised from time to time to entice people to accept the risk of holding dollars instead of gold. But remember, only real (i.e., inflation adjusted) interest rates matter. Nominal interest rates are not important. For example, if dollar interest rates are 10% and the inflation rate is 10%, real interest rates are zero, and low or negative real interest rates are bullish for gold.
5) Gold preserves purchasing power
Gold preserves purchasing power, but there’s another way to describe this essential feature of gold. Don’t view gold’s price to be rising. Rather, recognize instead that the purchasing power of the dollar is falling. This conclusion can be made clear by looking at the price of goods and services in terms of dollars as well as gold.
For example, the above chart presents a base-100 analysis of the price of crude oil in dollars and goldgrams from December 1945. Since then crude oil prices have experienced a 64-fold price increase in dollar terms. A different picture emerges though when crude oil prices are viewed in grams of gold. A barrel of crude oil today costs about the same amount of goldgrams as it has at any other time shown on the above chart. So even though the dollar is no longer defined as a weight of gold as it was under the gold standard, this chart clearly illustrates that gold remains the most useful standard by which to measure the price of goods and services.
6) Gold’s value is determined by the market
Gold’s value comes from its usefulness, not from central banks. It is important to understand that the market gives gold its value, though central banks would have you believe otherwise. Central banks tell you what they want you to hear. They would like you to think that they control gold’s price, as that perception makes it easier for them to bolster the demand for the dollar. But the reality is quite different. The market determines gold’s price, just like it determines the price of a Picasso or a loaf of bread.
Central banks intervene in the gold market – just like they intervene in many other markets. The reason for their attempts to manage the gold price is simple. By keeping the gold price low, central banks make the dollar look better. With their interventions central banks are trying to make the dollar look worthy of being the world’s reserve currency when in fact it is not.
The gold price is a barometer that measures whether a national currency is being managed well (i.e., no inflation). So by trying to keep the gold price low, central banks artificially make the demand for dollars higher than it would otherwise be. Intervention is also consistent with the statist philosophy of many governments these days, namely, that they will usurp whatever power is needed to try maintaining the status quo that preserves the privileged position politicians enjoy at the expense of taxpayers.
Though central banks do not control the gold market, they can influence gold’s price. Importantly, their influence is diminishing. Central banks have been dishoarding much of the gold in their vaults, so they now hold a relatively small part of the aboveground gold stock. After the Second World War, about 68% of the aboveground gold stock was in the vaults of central banks. It’s now about 10%.
Less gold within their control means that central banks have less influence on its price, which is one of the reasons central banks are no longer the factor they once were. To learn more about central bank involvement in the gold market, you need to know what GATA knows. The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee has published the combined research of many analysts, including several articles by me, and it is all available for free at www.gata.org
7) Gold is in a bull market
Gold has been rising since 2001, and the many problems national currencies are suffering mean gold is headed higher still. How much higher?
No one of course knows because there is never any certainty when it comes to markets. But in my October 2003 interview in Barron’s I identified $8,000 as my 10-12 year target. I reaffirmed that target price and remaining 7-9 year time frame in a subsequent interview in Barron’s in May 2006. Now before you say that target is outrageous, consider the following.
It takes about $10 today to purchase what $1 purchased in the 1970s, which saw gold rise that decade from $35 to more than $800 in 1980. I expect history to repeat, achieving the same mathematical ratio in gold’s gain, but with the dollar result being 10-times greater to account for its loss of purchasing power. Thus, I expect gold will climb from $350 in 2003 to over $8000 within a decade’s time.
It is not unreasonable to expect that gold will once again command the purchasing power it once did, particularly given the ongoing inflation and debasement of the dollar. One should never underestimate the capacity of central banks to destroy the purchasing power of a currency. In other words, gold is not rising – as the above chart shows, it still purchases the same amount of crude oil it did 60 years ago. Rather, the dollar is collapsing.
8) Buy physical gold, not paper ‘gold’
It is prudent to buy gold because of the alarming problems facing the dollar and other national currencies. Gold offers a simple means to diversify and therefore hedge the risks inherent in national currencies, but make sure you buy physical metal, not paper. There is a big difference between owning metal and just a promise to pay metal to you. Sometimes the promise is not worth the paper it’s written on.
Examples of physical metal that you can own are coins, bars, high-karat jewelry and the gold offered by my company, GoldMoney, which stores the gold you own in a specialized and insured bullion vault near London, England. Examples of paper ‘gold’ are gold certificates issued by banks and mints, pool accounts, futures accounts and the NYSE listed exchange-traded fund. With these products you own a piece of paper rather than gold itself. These paper products give you exposure to the gold price, but they come with the risk of default, namely, that you won’t be able to get your metal when you need it.
Gold should be viewed as the bedrock asset in your portfolio, so do not take any risks with it. As a consequence, own physical metal instead of just someone’s paper promise.
Conclusion
One objective of this short essay is to present the rationale for buying and owning physical gold, but another aim is paramount. It is to present facts that enable one to use reason, and not emotion, in analyzing gold’s essential nature and therefore its usefulness. In our world, some things are not what they seem at first blush, a maxim that is particularly true for gold, which in recent decades has become one of the world’s most misunderstood assets.
Gold may not be for everyone, but a fresh look at the facts never hurts. The 8 facts presented here should be carefully considered to better understand gold, which is the first step in determining whether gold may be useful to you.
Copyright © 2006 by James Turk. All rights reserved.
Friday, December 19, 2008
My notes from Autobiography of Roosevelt
There are two kinds of success, or rather two kinds of ability displayed in the achievement of success. There is, first, the success either in big things or small things which comes to the man who has in him the natural power to do what no one else can do, and what no amount of training, no perseverance or will power, will enable any ordinary man to do. This success, of course, like every other kind of success, may be on a very big scale or on a small scale. The quality which the man possesses may be that which enables him to run a hundred yards in nine and three-fifths seconds, or to play ten separate games of chess at the same time blindfolded, or to add five columns of figures at once without effort, or to write the "Ode to a Grecian Urn," or to deliver the Gettysburg speech, or to show the ability of Frederick at Leuthen or Nelson at Trafalgar. No amount of training of body or mind would enable any good ordinary man to perform any one of these feats. Of course the proper performance of each implies much previous study or training, but in no one of them is success to be attained save by the altogether exceptional man who has in him the something additional which the ordinary man does not have.
This is the most striking kind of success, and it can be attained only by the man who has in him the quality which separates him in kind no less than in degree from his fellows. But much the commoner type of success in every walk of life and in every species of effort is that which comes to the man who differs from his fellows not by the kind of quality which he possesses but by the degree of development which he has given that quality. This kind of success is open to a large number of persons, if only they seriously determine to achieve it. It is the kind of success which is open to the average man of sound body and fair mind, who has no remarkable mental or physical attributes, but who gets just as much as possible in the way of work out of the aptitudes that he does possess. It is the only kind of success that is open to most of us. Yet some of the greatest successes in history have been those of this second class—when I call it second class I am not running it down in the least, I am merely pointing out that it differs in kind from the first class. To the average man it is probably more useful to study this second type of success than to study the first. From the study of the first he can learn inspiration, he can get uplift and lofty enthusiasm. From the study of the second he can, if he chooses, find out how to win a similar success himself.
I need hardly say that all the successes I have ever won have been of the second type. I never won anything without hard labor and the exercise of my best judgment and careful planning and working long in advance. Having been a rather sickly and awkward boy, I was as a young man at first both nervous and distrustful of my own prowess. I had to train myself painfully and laboriously not merely as regards my body but as regards my soul and spirit.
When a boy I read a passage in one of Marryat's books which always impressed me. In this passage the captain of some small British man-of-war is explaining to the hero how to acquire the quality of fearlessness. He says that at the outset almost every man is frightened when he goes into action, but that the course to follow is for the man to keep such a grip on himself that he can act just as if he was not frightened. After this is kept up long enough it changes from pretense to reality, and the man does in very fact become fearless by sheer dint of practicing fearlessness when he does not feel it. (I am using my own language, not Marryat's.) This was the theory upon which I went. There were all kinds of things of which I was afraid at first, ranging from grizzly bears to "mean" horses and gun-fighters; but by acting as if I was not afraid I gradually ceased to be afraid. Most men can have the same experience if they choose. They will first learn to bear themselves well in trials which they anticipate and which they school themselves in advance to meet. After a while the habit will grow on them, and they will behave well in sudden and unexpected emergencies which come upon them unawares.
It is of course much pleasanter if one is naturally fearless, and I envy and respect the men who are naturally fearless. But it is a good thing to remember that the man who does not enjoy this advantage can nevertheless stand beside the man who does, and can do his duty with the like efficiency, if he chooses to. Of course he must not let his desire take the form merely of a day-dream. Let him dream about being a fearless man, and the more he dreams the better he will be, always provided he does his best to realize the dream in practice. He can do his part honorably and well provided only he sets fearlessness before himself as an ideal, schools himself to think of danger merely as something to be faced and overcome, and regards life itself as he should regard it, not as something to be thrown away, but as a pawn to be promptly hazarded whenever the hazard is warranted by the larger interests of the great game in which we are all engaged.
Almost immediately after leaving Harvard in 1880 I began to take an interest in politics. I did not then believe, and I do not now believe, that any man should ever attempt to make politics his only career. It is a dreadful misfortune for a man to grow to feel that his whole livelihood and whole happiness depend upon his staying in office. Such a feeling prevents him from being of real service to the people while in office, and always puts him under the heaviest strain of pressure to barter his convictions for the sake of holding office. A man should have some other occupation—I had several other occupations—to which he can resort if at any time he is thrown out of office, or if at any time he finds it necessary to choose a course which will probably result in his being thrown out, unless he is willing to stay in at cost to his conscience.
-------------------------------------
Almost immediately after leaving Harvard in 1880 I began to take an interest in politics. I did not then believe, and I do not now believe, that any man should ever attempt to make politics his only career. It is a dreadful misfortune for a man to grow to feel that his whole livelihood and whole happiness depend upon his staying in office. Such a feeling prevents him from being of real service to the people while in office, and always puts him under the heaviest strain of pressure to barter his convictions for the sake of holding office. A man should have some other occupation—I had several other occupations—to which he can resort if at any time he is thrown out of office, or if at any time he finds it necessary to choose a course which will probably result in his being thrown out, unless he is willing to stay in at cost to his conscience.
---------------------------------------------------
"in the first row we had in the organization (which arose over a movement, that I backed, to stand by a non-partisan method of street-cleaning) Joe and all his friends stood stiffly with the machine, and my side, the reform side, was left with only some half-dozen votes out of three or four hundred. I had expected no other outcome and took it good-humoredly, but without changing my attitude."
My comments - This is something worthy of emulation - To stand by your beliefs and fighting knowing that you will face sure defeat. The rewards of this will all be intangible, the most important one being developing even greater moral fiber and a strong backbone.
----------------------------------------
This conversation not only interested me, but made such an impression that I always remembered it, for it was the first glimpse I had of that combination between business and politics which I was in after years so often to oppose. In the America of that day, and especially among the people whom I knew, the successful business man was regarded by everybody as preeminently the good citizen. The orthodox books on political economy, not only in America but in England, were written for his especial glorification. The tangible rewards came to him, the admiration of his fellow-citizens of the respectable type was apt to be his, and the severe newspaper moralists who were never tired of denouncing politicians and political methods were wont to hold up "business methods" as the ideal which we were to strive to introduce into political life. Herbert Croly, in "The Promise of American Life," has set forth the reasons why our individualistic democracy—which taught that each man was to rely exclusively on himself, was in no way to be interfered with by others, and was to devote himself to his own personal welfare—necessarily produced the type of business man who sincerely believed, as did the rest of the community, that the individual who amassed a big fortune was the man who was the best and most typical American.
--------------------------------------------------------
This statement is immensely deep and beautiful:
Very often the man with the moral courage to speak in the open against labor when it is wrong is the only man anxious to do effective work for labor when labor is right.
--------------------------------------
The only kinds of courage and honesty which are permanently useful to good institutions anywhere are those shown by men who decide all cases with impartial justice on grounds of conduct and not on grounds of class. We found that in the long run the men who in public blatantly insisted that labor was never wrong were the very men who in private could not be trusted to stand for labor when it was right. We grew heartily to distrust the reformer who never denounced wickedness unless it was embodied in a rich man. Human nature does not change; and that type of "reformer" is as noxious now as he ever was. The loud-mouthed upholder of popular rights who attacks wickedness only when it is allied with wealth, and who never publicly assails any misdeed, no matter how flagrant, if committed nominally in the interest of labor, has either a warped mind or a tainted soul, and should be trusted by no honest man. It was largely the indignant and contemptuous dislike aroused in our minds by the demagogues of this class which then prevented those of us whose instincts at bottom were sound from going as far as we ought to have gone along the lines of governmental control of corporations and governmental interference on behalf of labor
Every man is responsible for himself. Unless this creed is held together by the entire society and held very very dearly, there can be no sustainable change achieved. The wealthy need to be as accountable as the poorest man on the street. The poor man is already being held accountable by the financial and policing forces of our society, while the wealthy usually are able to get away.
--------------------------------------------
This is with regards to a bill to stop manufacture of cigars in tenement houses:
The Court of Appeals declared the law unconstitutional, and in their decision the judges reprobated the law as an assault upon the "hallowed" influences of "home." It was this case which first waked me to a dim and partial understanding of the fact that the courts were not necessarily the best judges of what should be done to better social and industrial conditions. The judges who rendered this decision were well-meaning men. They knew nothing whatever of tenement-house conditions; they knew nothing whatever of the needs, or of the life and labor, of three-fourths of their fellow-citizens in great cities. They knew legalism, but not life. Their choice of the words "hallowed" and "home," as applicable to the revolting conditions attending the manufacture of cigars in tenement-houses, showed that they had no idea what it was that they were deciding. Imagine the "hallowed" associations of a "home" consisting of one room where two families, one of them with a boarder, live, eat, and work! This decision completely blocked tenement-house reform legislation in New York for a score of years, and hampers it to this day. It was one of the most serious setbacks which the cause of industrial and social progress and reform ever received.
--------------------------------------
The most important of the reform measures our committee recommended was the bill taking away from the Aldermen their power of confirmation over the Mayor's appointments. We found that it was possible to get citizens interested in the character and capacity of the head of the city, so that they would exercise some intelligent interest in his conduct and qualifications. But we found that as a matter of fact it was impossible to get them interested in the Aldermen and other subordinate officers. In actual practice the Aldermen were merely the creatures of the local ward bosses or of the big municipal bosses, and where they controlled the appointments the citizens at large had no chance whatever to make their will felt. Accordingly we fought for the principle, which I believe to be of universal application, that what is needed in our popular government is to give plenty of power to a few officials, and to make these few officials genuinely and readily responsible to the people for the exercise of that power. Taking away the confirming power of the Board of Aldermen did not give the citizens of New York good government. We knew that if they chose to elect the wrong kind of Mayor they would have bad government, no matter what the form of the law was. But we did secure to them the chance to get good government if they desired, and this was impossible as long as the old system remained. The change was fought in the way in which all similar changes always are fought. The corrupt and interested politicians were against it, and the battle-cries they used, which rallied to them most of the unthinking conservatives, were that we were changing the old constitutional system, that we were defacing the monuments of the wisdom of the founders of the government, that we were destroying that distinction between legislative and executive power which was the bulwark of our liberties, and that we were violent and unscrupulous radicals with no reverence for the past.
---------------------------------------------------------
Another gem of a statement:
Any man engaged in this particular type of militant and practical reform movement was soon made to feel that he had better not undertake to push matters home unless his own character was unassailable.
This is something that I will truly embibe in myself. I will not EVER compromise on matters of principle and never compromise my INTEGRITY and HONOUR. I will not be a slimy businessman, interested in making his living in any manner possible.
------------------------
No wonder this man went on to become the President of the United States. He fully deserved to:
Traps were set for more than one of us, and if we had walked into these traps our public careers would have ended, at least so far as following them under the conditions which alone make it worth while to be in public life at all. A man can of course hold public office, and many a man does hold public office, and lead a public career of a sort, even if there are other men who possess secrets about him which he cannot afford to have divulged. But no man can lead a public career really worth leading, no man can act with rugged independence in serious crises, nor strike at great abuses, nor afford to make powerful and unscrupulous foes, if he is himself vulnerable in his private character. Nor will clean conduct by itself enable a man to render good service. I have always been fond of Josh Billings's remark that "it is much easier to be a harmless dove than a wise serpent." There are plenty of decent legislators, and plenty of able legislators; but the blamelessness and the fighting edge are not always combined. Both qualities are necessary for the man who is to wage active battle against the powers that prey. He must be clean of life, so that he can laugh when his public or his private record is searched; and yet being clean of life will not avail him if he is either foolish or timid. He must walk warily and fearlessly, and while he should never brawl if he can avoid it, he must be ready to hit hard if the need arises. Let him remember, by the way, that the unforgivable crime is soft hitting. Do not hit at all if it can be avoided; but never hit softly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As regards political advancement the bosses could of course do a good deal. At that time the warring Stalwart and Half-Breed factions of the Republican party were supporting respectively President Arthur and Senator Miller. Neither side cared for me. The first year in the Legislature I rose to a position of leadership, so that in the second year, when the Republicans were in a minority, I received the minority nomination for Speaker, although I was still the youngest man in the House, being twenty-four years old. The third year the Republicans carried the Legislature, and the bosses at once took a hand in the Speakership contest. I made a stout fight for the nomination, but the bosses of the two factions, the Stalwarts and the Half-Breeds, combined and I was beaten. I was much chagrined for the moment. But the fact that I had fought hard and efficiently, even though defeated, and that I had made the fight single-handed, with no machine back of me, assured my standing as floor leader. My defeat in the end materially strengthened my position, and enabled me to accomplish far more than I could have accomplished as Speaker. As so often, I found that the titular position was of no consequence; what counted was the combination of the opportunity with the ability to accomplish results. The achievement was the all-important thing; the position, whether titularly high or low, was of consequence only in so far as it widened the chance for achievement.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The men were lean, sinewy fellows, accustomed to riding half-broken horses at any speed over any country by day or by night. They wore flannel shirts, with loose handkerchiefs knotted round their necks, broad hats, high-heeled boots with jingling spurs, and sometimes leather shaps, although often they merely had their trousers tucked into the tops of their high boots. There was a good deal of rough horse-play, and, as with any other gathering of men or boys of high animal spirits, the horse-play sometimes became very rough indeed; and as the men usually carried revolvers, and as there were occasionally one or two noted gun-fighters among them, there was now and then a shooting affray. A man who was a coward or who shirked his work had a bad time, of course; a man could not afford to let himself be bullied or treated as a butt; and, on the other hand, if he was "looking for a fight," he was certain to find it. But my own experience was that if a man did not talk until his associates knew him well and liked him, and if he did his work, he never had any difficulty in getting on. In my own round-up district I speedily grew to be friends with most of the men. When I went among strangers I always had to spend twenty-four hours in living down the fact that I wore spectacles, remaining as long as I could judiciously deaf to any side remarks about "four eyes," unless it became evident that my being quiet was misconstrued and that it was better to bring matters to a head at once.
-------------------------------------------------------
As with all other forms of work, so on the round-up, a man of ordinary power, who nevertheless does not shirk things merely because they are disagreeable or irksome, soon earns his place. There were crack riders and ropers who, just because they felt such overweening pride in their own prowess, were not really very valuable men. Continually on the circles a cow or a calf would get into some thick patch of bulberry bush and refuse to come out; or when it was getting late we would pass some bad lands that would probably not contain cattle, but might; or a steer would turn fighting mad, or a calf grow tired and want to lie down. If in such a case the man steadily persists in doing the unattractive thing, and after two hours of exasperation and harassment does finally get the cow out, and keep her out, of the bulberry bushes, and drives her to the wagon, or finds some animals that have been passed by in the fourth or fifth patch of bad lands he hunts through, or gets the calf up on his saddle and takes it in anyhow, the foreman soon grows to treat him as having his uses and as being an asset of worth in the round-up, even though neither a fancy roper nor a fancy rider.
--------------------------------------------