Mad To The Max: Paul Ryan, Beyond Blunderdome

Paul Ryan Beyond Blunderdome

The barn door has closed on yet another episode of CPAC’s Wingnut Woodstock, the annual conclave of conservaschism‘s most extreme proponents. (See our archives for previous entries.)

Among the 70+ speakers were the party’s last two failed GOP Veep candidates, Rep. Paul Ryan (R- Gault’s Gulch), who couldn’t be bothered to even mention his former running mate, Mitt Romney, who was also there;  and Sarah Palin (R-Alaskan Quitter), who couldn’t resist sucking up some sugar water poison from a Big Gulp and throwing some red meat to the Birthers while attacking Karl Rove:

“If these experts who keep losin’ elections and keep gettin’ rehired and gettin’ millions — if they feel that strong about who gets to run in this party, then they should buck-up or stay in the truck.”

Rand Paul, who won the presidential straw poll beating Marco Rubio, 25%-23%, also implicitly took a shot at Rove and the establishment wing of the party, calling it “stale and moss covered,” in need of a complete do-over.  Rubio took the opposite tack, saying that the party just needed better packaging, everything else is just fine… except maybe their attitude toward immigration, a word that curiously never passed his lips.  Ted Cruz responded politely to GOP’s “grey eminence” John McCain, after McCain called him a “whackobird” for supporting Paul’s 13 hour filibuster against extra-judicial targeted killings, ala drone strikes.

All told, over 70 speeches were given.  And while Donald Trump said nothing of substance, he will be remembered for making a further investment in self-parody, talking to a room full of empty chairs after tweeting enthusiastically about how the sponsors were expecting a standing room only crowd for the pleasure of his company.

Empty chairs TrumpSquint real hard and you might see Trump holding court for a handful of starstruck suckups

Noticeable for their absence were Past GOP luminaries New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Virgina Governor Bob McDonnell weren’t invited this year because they had committed the unforgivable sin of, you know, actual governance, an activity antithetical to the overriding mission of modern conservatism— the wholesale dismantling of the US government (except as it benefits the 1%).

Which brings us to the substance of Paul Ryan’s speech, his proposed 2014 budget confabulation. The zombie eyed granny starver once again tried to disguise his Ayn Randian flavored social Darwinism as deficit reduction, framing his argument as the only rational approach to a country teetering on the edge of the apocalypse:

Unless we change course, we will have a debt crisis.  Pressed for cash, the government will take the easy way out:  It will crank up the printing presses.  The final stage of this intergenerational theft will be the debasement of our currency.  Government will cheat us of our just rewards.  Our finances will collapse.  The economy will stall.  The safety net will unravel. And the most vulnerable will suffer.

But it’s not too late.  This budget provides an exit ramp from the current mess— and an entry ramp to a better future.  Unlike the President’s last budget, which never balanced, this budget achieves balance within ten years.

Washington Post and MSNBC economic policy wonk Ezra Klein comments:

These are tremendously important paragraphs. They’re emphasized a few pages later, in the first real section of the budget, which is entitled “The Debt Crisis Ahead.”  These paragraphs matter because they serve as Ryan’s justification for his budget.  They are why we need to throw 35 million people off health insurance.  They are why we need to cut deep into education and infrastructure and food stamps and housing assistance.  They are why this budget is an act of mercy rather than cruelty — because if this future is the only alternative, then this budget is painful but necessary medicine.

But it’s not.  Ryan’s nightmare scenario isn’t likely even in the absence of new policy.  A reasonable assumption of future debt is about 112 percent of GDP come 2037 — and that’s assuming the repeal of the sequester.  That’s too high for comfort, and there’s some evidence that debt at that level could harm the economy.  But there’s no evidence that it would create the kind of Mad Max-style scenario Ryan paints.

Ryan’s GOP budget takes a meat ax to the social safety net for the old, poor, and infirm, all the while sparing the military/medical/prison/financial industrial complex or any other corporate interest group from any sacrifice whatsoever. Ryan ignores deficit expanding tax expenditures that overwhelmingly favor the wealthy, which in 2009 cost the federal government a cool trillion; says nothing about eliminating tens of billions of dollars in direct taxpayer subsidies to hugely profitable industries like the oil companies and Big Ag, many of whom don’t even pay any income tax thanks to lobbyist provided loopholes; and lowers tax rates across the board, which again, overwhelmingly favors the rich.MORE. . .

BOSTO KET

BostoKetYes I made the sign read “Bosto ket.” I saw it at the local BM, but by the time I returned with a camera, it had already morphed to “Bos.”

So.  Fuck the “news.”

Come on. Why is it “news” when a cue ball like Bob Corker breaks lock step with John Crybaby and tells Fux Noise there is a “…chance for a deal” on a budget deal?

Who gives a shit if Karl Rove gets dissed by Sarah what’s-her-lameness?

Are you going to lose any sleep over the delay of the Cyprus Bank Levy vote?

And how is that weird stabbing pain in your gluteus maximus any different than hearing Newton Leroy Gingrich has been staring at candles and shared his “thinking” about them at CPAC?

And how did you overlook Taylor Swift‘s legs in a pair of denim “short shorts”? [sic]

Surely you’re keeping up with Prince, Paris, and Blanket Jackson, in their pursuit of $40 billion dollars from AEG?

Boba FettThis is Boba Fett.  He has nothing to do with Bosto Ket.

 Why does a sixteen year old Steubenville child need to find out via text messages from “friends”— some who apparently took photos of her at the scene of the crime— that she’s been gang raped by high school boys?  (Want to stop ALL RAPE immediately in this country?  The world?  Make the punishment for conviction of rape for any biped above the age of fifteen, DEATH— by high velocity lead penetration to the temple.  And do it within 30 days of ONE failed appeal after conviction.  I guaran-effin-tee you that rape, the homicide rate, and any other capital offense you care to add, will drop like a rock in a swimming pool.

And you know.  On and on and effin’ on with the endless, mind-numbing distractions that paralyze an increasingly obese and jaded populace.  Jennifer Lopez Flashes Bra During Day Out With Her Twins (PHOTO)  Kim Kardashian‘s Bump On Full Display At ‘Temptation’ Premiere In Atlanta (PHOTO)  Elisabeth Hasselbeck‘s Days At ‘The View’ Are Reportedly Numbered;  Princess Diana‘s Dresses Head To Auction;  Healthy Food ‘Not Our Personality,’ Says Fast Food CEO; Dead Pig Count In China’s Waters Near Shanghai Spikes (GRAPHIC PHOTOS) [The same “waters” 23 million people depend on for drinking water.]  Elderly Man Eats Roadkill—Yeah, Even The Disgusting Mangled Kind (VIDEO)  [And speaking of roadkill]:  Roadkill Couture To Unveil Bridal Gowns Featuring Dead Animals (PHOTOS) Ex-Food Exec: Food Industry ‘Puts Profits Over Public Health’;  Ex-Bailout Watchdog: JPMorgan’s Actions ‘Entirely Consistent With Fraud’;  Mr. Ann Coulter Tells Harsh Christie Joke…  and a few million more synaptic responses wasted like that.

 

America has gone all Bosto Ket.

 

 

 

 

O, The Boner, & FDR

TehBoner2 againPlan B Boner has a sad

The only thing preventing President Obama from once again becoming a pariah among progressives is the Teabagger python that squeezes the GOP harder every time it even contemplates the word “compromise.”

In the latest round of budget negotiations, Obama has broken his campaign promises to:

1. Exempt the first $250k of everyone’s income a slight rise in taxes, back tothe rates that prevailed during the go-go years of the Clinton Administration. Instead, he raised the threshold to $400k, reducing government revenues by $300 billion in the process.

2. Hold discretionary budget cuts to $1 trillion. Instead, he added another $300 billion in order to pay for the loss of revenues above.

3. Keep Social Security off the table. Agreeing to cut cost of living increases by adopting a “chained CPI” accounting formula. As Jane Hamsher at The Lake explains, no one should be surprised by Obama’s willingness to “adjust” SS benefits, despite what he said during the campaign, given his track record on the subject.

Add to that the additional $1.5 trillions of cuts Obama agreed to in 2011, and Obama has offered to cut the budget a whopping $2.8 trillion. You’d think that the Rethugs would have jumped at the chance to reduce the size of government by the largest amount in history. Then again, they and their billionaire sponsors are far more interested in individual tax cuts than reducing the debt, as the last 20 years of Republican administrations have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Which brings us to the latest riot in the asylum known as the House of Representatives. Unable to muster any support whatsoever for Obama’s latest capitulation negotiation, Speaker of the House John Boehner instead hatched his own plan he named “Plan B.” (Plan Boner? Plan Bourbon? Plan Bust?) The Boner Plan did finally accept an increase in income taxes, but only on the uber rich, i.e. the top .2%. Blowing past the 250k and 450k thresholds, he raised it to $1 million, starving the government of revenues even more, without even mentioning off-setting budget cuts, let alone specifying which ones. [Edit/Update: ThinkProgress has a side by side comparison here.]

Boehner was under no illusion that it would ever pass the Senate, let alone survive a veto by the president. Thus it was a strictly political maneuver, probably meant to signal that he could deliver his caucus despite the caterwauling from his wingnut right. He went before the cameras, speaking confidently that he had enough votes for passage. He could thus leave town for the holidays, the ball in the president’s court.

Unfortunately for The Orange Man, he can’t count, can’t count on his own party to back his play. (Why he thought the no-tax-at-any-cost-crowd would all fall on their swords in a futile gesture is beyond me.) At the last minute, he pulled the bill from the floor, admitting that he didn’t have the votes. Hand that man an exploding ceegar…

How Washington has become so utterly paralyzed is detailed by Robert Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute) and Thomas Mann (Brookings Institute) in their book “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism.”  They continue their analysis in a recent WAPO op-ed “Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem“:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

Something that’s been obvious to progressives for decades seems to be finally seeping into the sclerotic brains of The Beltway Village People. Here’s what Ornstein and Mann say about the enabling contributions of The Fourth Estate, who have fully internalized the fallacy of false equivalency:

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

Conservative ideology itself plays a substantial role in the dysfunctionality that has turned the US government into a chaotic three ring circus that has the rest of the civilized world shaking their heads in disbelief:MORE. . .

Is It Over For Grover?

In a front page story Tuesday titled For Tax Pledge and Its Author, a Test of Time, the NY Times meditates on the prospects of Grover “Poopy Head” Grover following the decisive defeat of the GOP in the 2012 presidential elections.

The article begins thusly:

Next to the oath of office, it has been perhaps the most important commitment that Republicans in Congress can make. It is called simply “the Pledge,” and its enforcer is such a fixture in the party that he is known simply by his first name, Grover.

But the pledge and its creator, Grover Norquist, a 56-year-old conservative lobbyist, have never before faced a test as they do now. The federal deficit stands at $1 trillion. The social safety net continues to grow — and, in the case of Medicare and Social Security, remains hugely popular. And unless the two parties can agree on a fiscal plan before Jan. 1, hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases will go into effect automatically, meaning that Congress does not even need to act for taxes to rise.

The combination means that Mr. Norquist, whose long record of success is a rarity in Washington, finds himself in a tricky spot. Some top Republicans, including Speaker John A. Boehner, are saying they now agree with Democrats that the government must collect more tax revenue. Others have gone so far as to break with Mr. Norquist publicly.

By Mr. Norquist’s count, 219 House members — enough for a majority — and 39 senators have committed to the pledge. But some of those members who signed on, many of them years ago, have started to back away, apparently leaving him several votes shy of the majority he would need to block any tax increase.

The last broad-based tax increase the Rethugs supported was 22 years ago, signed into law by George H.W. Bush.  So it may be a bit early to write his political epitaph.

For instance, mid-term elections like the one coming up in 2014 historically favor the losers of the previous presidential election. And Citizens United will continue to pump ungodly amounts of money into GOP campaigns. Presumably, the 43 billionaires who supported Mitt Romney will know better than to naively dump all their money on political hucksters like Karl Rove and Dick Armey.

Nonetheless, exit polls from Nov. 6 show a growing majority of voters supporting tax increases on the rich to help bring the deficit under control and to preserve vital safety net programs for the poor and middle class. While I don’t believe I’ve ever before quoted John McCain clone Lindsey Graham favorably, he did state the obvious when he told the Washington Post:

The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

Hear that, Poopy Head?

Obama’s Rape Camps


Fux News continues to provide a platform for Teh Crazy

Less than three days following the GOP’s thrashing at the polls, Obama Derangement Syndrome is reaching new heights, signaling a psychotic break among reality denying Wingnuts.  Of all the lame excuses for their loss, this one takes the prize— thus far.

Buzzfeed reports:

Michael Graham, a radio host appearing on Fox News today said the Obama campaign wanted to convince voters if you were a female and vote for Romney you would be put in “rape camps.”

The only thing crazier than that would be for Karl Rove to claim the reason Romney lost was because Obama suppressed the vote.

Oh, wait

Karl Rove explained his view of why President Obama won, on Fox News, via Dylan Byers:

Rove argued that Obama won with a smaller popular vote and a smaller margin of victory than in the 2008 election against Sen. John McCain. Instead of expanding voters, Rove argued, Obama “suppressed the voteby demonizing former Gov. Mitt Romney and encouraging people not to vote.

“President Obama has become the first president in history to win a second term with a smaller percentage of the vote than he did in the first term,” Rove said.

“But he won Karl, he won!” Fox News host Megyn Kelly interjected…

Sorry, Megyn, Karl is irretrievably trapped in his own personal Phantom Zone of self-delusion. He’s so used to demonizing his opponents and stealing elections that the shock of suddenly being thrust into the reality based community he scorned has left him with nothing but soulless projection.

Big FAIL.

But life will become a burden of existence unless you learn how to fail gracefully. There is an art in defeat which noble souls always acquire; you must know how to lose cheerfully; you must be less of disappointment. Never hesitate to admit failure. Make no attempt to hide failure under deceptive smiles and beaming optimism. It sounds well always to claim success, but the end results are appalling. Such a technique leads directly to the creation of a world of unreality and to the inevitable crash of ultimate disillusionment

—The Urantia Book

 

Karl Rove’s Math Problems (Update,2)

May the pork be with you: Stephen Colbert’presents Karl Rove with an honorific bust 

Of all the satisfying results from last night’s amazing election, I count Rethug Svengali Karl Rove’s humiliation as one of the best.

A little background first. In the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections,  Rove said this to NPR about the pre-election polls, which showed the Rethugs losing:

You may end up with a different math, but you’re entitled to your math. I’m entitled to the math…[which adds] up to a Republican Senate and a Republican House.

History proved him wrong, of course, with the Dems taking control of both the Senate and the House that year.

In search of schadenfreude, after hearing CNN and MSNBC call the election for Obama, I tuned into Fux News to check out their reaction. Lo and behold there was Karl, making a fool of himself once again. He was strongly objecting  to the network’s confirmation of Obama’s victory, causing Megyn Kelly to leave her anchor chair and rush down stairs to check with Michael Barone and the rest of Fux’s number crunchers (barely getting back into her chair after the commercial break ended).

The LA Times reports:

All the networks, CNN, the Associated Press and Fox News had called the presidential race for President Obama. But one man with a big megaphone thought it was all too premature.

Fox News analyst Karl Rove threw up a spirited rebuttal argument Tuesday night as the conservative cable channel said that Republican Mitt Romney’s bid for president had failed.

Fox then proceeded with the unusual spectacle of bringing its chief data analyst on camera to discuss with Rove why the outlet said Ohio, and thus the presidency, would remain in Democratic hands…

Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly joked that there would be a “cage match” between Rove and the head of Fox’s election analysis team. But the Fox analysts explained that their call was simply about the numbers.

One can only hope that Rove offered his donors, anonymous and otherwise, a money-back guarantee on the $300 million plus bucks they gave him to defeat Obama and to take back the Senate.

Say g’night, Karl.

UPDATE 2 (11/8 9:50am)  Jon Stewart’‘s take on Rove’s math in which he suggests a new motto for Fux News:   ‘Math You Do As A Republican To Make Yourself Feel Better.’

 

UPDATE (11/7 4:22 PM) The Atlantic has a collection of clips from Fux News documenting the Rove instigated network meltdown.

It should be noted that Fux is employing as an “analyst”the prime operative of the GOP, who also happens to be its largest fund raiser. Not like he doesn’t have skin in the game.

Maybe the reason why Karl was so upset is that calling the election for Obama interfered with a contingency plan to steal the Ohio vote at the last minute. Recall that vote totals and projections from a number of states were still outstanding, and that it was Ohio that put Obama over the top.

Would anybody believe that stealing an election is alien to Rove’s modus operandi?

 

Cognitive Dissonance & The Unskewed Polls

Limbaugh just before his head explodes in a fit of cognitive dissonance 

“Never get high on your own supply.”Notorious Big.

When the polls started turning up for Obama and the down ticket  Dems after the DNC convention, the GOPers dismissed it as a “sugar high.”  Some high octane sugar, that.  Obama now leads in all nine swing states, each outside the margin of error. Worse for Team Romney, the internals showed a double digit drop in the number of people saying the country is on the wrong track.  Obama’s favorability ratings have now risen to the crucial 50% level.  Romney’s pick of Paul “Voucherize Medicare” Ryan to be his Veep has hurt him in the crucial senior demographic.  And Obama now leads on the question of who is the better candidate to improve the economy, formerly Romney’s greatest strength.  While the post-convention bounce could have been explained away as a short term effect, the political impact of the leaked 47% vid has unmistakably bent the arc of the campaign towards Obama and the Dems,  leaving the Rethugs flailing around for a new narrative spin.

Enter one Dean Chambers, an obscure right wing blogger who claims to have scientifically “unskewed” the polls by eliminating a presumed oversampling of the number of Democratic respondents. Presto change-o —  Romney actually enjoys a substantial lead. (For an analysis of why Chambers’ methodology sucks,  see this article from TPM, featuring a critique from the former champion of GOP leaning pollsters, Scott Rassmussen himself.) Citing what is rapidly becoming known as the “Poll Truthers” movement, ThinkProgress  reports that:

Rush Limbaugh also outlined the pollster conspiracy on his radio show: “They’re all Democrats. They’re all liberals. They just have different jobs. The polls are the replacement refs. They see certain things. They don’t see other things. They don’t call certain things, and other things go by. In this case, what they’re trying to do is exactly what they’ve done in your case: frustrate you, make you pull your hair out, say, what the hell’s happening to the country? They want you thinking the country’s lost. They want you thinking your side’s lost. They want you thinking it’s over for what you believe. And that makes you stay home and not vote. That’s what they’re hoping.”

Limbaugh, while doing his best to rally his troops, is thus planting the seeds of a post-election narrative that blames the liberal media and their co-conspirators in the pollster business. Jason Linkins and Elyse Siegel over at HuffPo write that there is a longer term goal, with a clever Catch-22 hook:

So you should look at “Unskewed Polls” as less of a strategic effort to get Romney elected, and more of a long-game effort to mount a war against pollsters once the election is over.  (They will magically have a case, no matter which way the election turns out:  if Obama wins, pollsters are in the tank;  if Romney wins, pollsters are terrible and wrong about everything.)

I would offer a third possibility:  that the Rethugs  are seeding a post-election rationale to be employed after they steal the election:  “See, there was polling precedent that showed Romney was winning all along.”  I’m not ready to abandon that possibility just yet, given their track record in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.  (See, e.g., former DNC communications spokeswoman and current MSNBC political analyst Karen Finney‘s repeated warnings about same.)  But for now I am more intrigued by Billmon‘s analysis over at the Big Orange titled, “Skewed polls and the paranoid style” (the latter phrase being an homage to Douglas Hoffsteader‘s 1964 classic essay, “The Paranoid Style”).

The most striking feature of the current right-wing obsession with “skewed polls” is that it combines two of modern conservatism’s most pronounced tendencies:  A complete rejection of empirical reality, and a deep conviction that said reality is in fact a conspiratorial plot by the enemies of America (a.k.a. the liberals) to poison public opinion— to win through deception what they cannot achieve openly.  Memories of the right’s insistence that all was going well with the bloody occupation of Iraq are hard to avoid— likewise the manufactured “debate” over the causes and consequences of global climate change, the imaginary role of ACORN and the Community Reinvestment Act in the subprime mortgage meltdown, and just about every other instance in which conservative ideology has had to come face to face with the cold, hard facts of life.  In each case, the knee-jerk conservative response to inconvenient (and unfriendly) truths has been to mimic Adam Savage’s line from Mythbusters:  “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”  Except Adam was being ironic.  They are not.

The “complete rejection of empirical” reality and substituting a different one was, of course, enshrined in the political universe when a Bushian political operative, widely believed to be Karl Rove, told author Ron Suskind:

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.  And while you’re studying that reality— judiciously, as you will— we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”[2]

Writer and blogger Julian Sanchez describes this cognitive mindset as “epistemic closure”:

One of the more striking features of the contemporary conservative movement is the extent to which it has been moving toward epistemic closure. Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, Fox News. Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted. (How do you know they’re liberal?  Well, they disagree with the conservative media!)  This epistemic closure can be a source of solidarity and energy, but it also renders the conservative media ecosystem fragile. Think of the complete panic China’s rulers feel about any breaks in their Internet firewall:  The more successfully external sources of information have been excluded to date, the more unpredictable the effects of a breach become.  Internal criticism is then especially problematic, because it threatens the hermetic seal.  It’s not just that any particular criticism might have to be taken seriously coming from a fellow conservative.  Rather, it’s that anything that breaks down the tacit equivalence between “critic of conservatives and “wicked liberal smear artist” undermines the effectiveness of the entire information filter.  If disagreement is not in itself evidence of malign intent or moral degeneracy, people start feeling an obligation to engage it sincerely— maybe even when it comes from the New York Times.  And there is nothing more potentially fatal to the momentum of an insurgency fueled by anger than a conversation.  A more intellectually secure conservatism would welcome this, because it wouldn’t need to define itself primarily in terms of its rejection of an alien enemy.

h/t Chris Hayes.

Billmon again:

There simply is no getting around the fact that the mentality of the modern grassroots conservative movement is in almost all particulars the spitting image of a 20th century totalitarian political party— an “epistemically closed” loop of self-reference and self-delusion.  In other words:  a cult.  The upshot is that one of America’s two main political parties has managed to turn itself into the proverbial insane asylum run by the inmates. . .  But for most sane (or at least semi-sane) people, there comes a point where you realize you’ve lost the thread and have to back up a bit— and maybe enter rehab.  But epistemic cults have no such corrective mechanisms.  They never go in reverse, never question their own assumptions, and most of all never ever admit error.  Their belief systems are too fragile.  Break the gestalt, even in one place, and the entire edifice may come crashing down.  Which may explain why totalitarian cults that actually achieve unchallenged state power usually end up astonishing the world not just with their barbarity, but with the sheer zaniness of their thinking.  They can’t stop themselves from taking their obsessions to the ultimate extreme.

Or as The Urantia Book might put it:

But life will become a burden of existence unless you learn how to fail gracefully.  There is an art in defeat which noble souls always acquire;  you must know how to lose cheerfully;  you must be fearless of disappointment.  Never hesitate to admit failure. Make no attempt to hide failure under deceptive smiles and beaming optimism. It sounds well always to claim success, but the end results are appalling.  Such a technique leads directly to the creation of a world of unreality and to the inevitable crash of ultimate disillusionment.