JOSH KRAJCIK - 1ST AUDITION THE X-FACTOR

.

Another inspiring performance I wanted to have here, for posterity. 

Just like Susan Boyle shocked everyone in her first audition on Britain's Got Talent, burrito maker Josh Krajcik surprised The X-Factor USA judges and audience during his first audition when he sang Etta James' "At Last."  

What a voice. I hope he wins or goes as far as possible. I'd buy his music. Good luck to him tomorrow.

SUSAN BOYLE INSPIRATION

.

I've watched this video of Susan Boyle's first audition on Britain's Got Talent dozens of times, and it never fails to move and amaze me like it did the first time I saw it. She sang "I Dreamed A Dreamed" from Les Miserables and shocked the pants out of everyone in that theater. Simon Cowell's face is priceless. 

I love moments like this one because they are so rare. How often are we blissfully astonished by something or someone?  A memorable moment. 

PERFECTING THE ART OF VOTING AGAINST

.
When confused about a decision, we're often asked what it is that we want. Well, if we knew that, we wouldn't be confused now, would we? Sure, sometimes all it takes is tuning into the soft voice within, but if you've ever been undecided about something, you know that rarely works. The world is too loud.


So stop. Stop trying to figure out what you want and start working on what you don't want. You may not get what you want, but at least you'll stand a better chance at not getting what you don't want.  

That's my oracular advice to you if you're among the many disenchanted souls wandering in the valley of the politically stumped. If, unlike deliriously optimistic, blissfully deluded individuals who can tell a savior from a demon you cannot imagine voting for any of the candidates vying for the coveted title of President of the U.S. of A. (we'll focus on the primaries until the general election), but you also do not want to forgo your right to vote, then you're left with only one choice: voting against one of them.  


Now, chances are your vote against options are more tempting than you vote for alternatives. Wait, don't freak out. This type of confusion is much more easily tackled than the other kind. All you need is a bit of help deciding what you don't want the most so that you know how to cast your against vote next year. For that mighty high purpose I've compiled five easy steps or exercises you can follow to hone you voting against skills. And in case you're wondering, I'm qualified to offer this advice because I have built a life on what I don't want, but that's another story...


1 - Get a large color poster of each of the candidates you're considering voting against, put them on a wall somewhere practical, and stare at each of them several times a day. Notice the thoughts and feelings that arise when you look at each of the candidates. (If you have a heart rate monitor, I recommend you use it for this exercise). Whose face angers you the most? The least? Who makes you swear like a sailor? Who gives you palpitations or raises your blood pressure? Who gives you acid reflux or colitis?  Who just gives you mild indigestion or chest pains? Who could inspire you to commit acts of violence that are beyond your character? If you could punch or slap only one of them, who would it be? 

Poster of Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry

2 - Use the posters as dartboards. Stand 8 ft to 10 ft away from the wall and throw darts, rotten food, big wads of chewing gum or giant spitballs at the posters, aiming at the face of the candidates, specifically the space between the eyes or bullseye. Children can help with the gum and spitballs, so you could turn this into a family event and spend quality time with your kids. Before throwing the darts, focus on the facial expression of each candidate and anything you've heard him/her say that pisses you off. Use the following point value to keep score: five points for the bullseye, four for the nose, three for the forehead, two for anywhere else on the face or head, one for the neck, and zero if you miss the head or neck.

Political pundits Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert

3 - Keep your eyes and ears open at all times. Pay close attention to what you see and hear in the media, especially to what political pundits and celebrities (actors, comedians, singers, etc.) say about the candidates. They know what they're talking about. That's why they're on TV. So trust them. Listen to the people around you, too--relatives, coworkers, friends, especially those you have never met or seen outside Facebook. I would add neighbors to the preceding list, but with Walmart, Walgreens and other retail chains open 24/7, who needs to borrow a cup of milk or sugar anymore? Neighbors are useless, good only for addictive "-ville" games on Facebook. Anyway, I digress. 

"When I'm president...," says Republican
presidential candidate Michele Bachmann

4 - Give extra vote-against points to candidates who continually say "when I'm president" during interviews or debates, and deduct vote-against points from those who never or rarely make this statement. Anyone who thinks that saying "when I'm president" every chance he or she gets will alter the fabric of space and time to manifest that outcome doesn't need votes to win and, therefore, is a perfect candidate for votes against.


5 - Sit or lie down somewhere comfortable, close your eyes, take deep breaths, and picture the U.S. with each of the GOP candidates at the helm. Imagine him or her on the cover of newspapers and magazines, walking in and out of the White House, waving at crowds, speaking at press conferences, the State of the Union, posing for photo-ops with fellow world leaders, shaking hands with U.S. enemies, playing golf, growing gray hair at an alarmingly accelerated rate, making laws, breaking laws, pardoning turkeys, and all things presidential. 

Meditation posture for Step 5

Use music if it helps you relax and visualize anything that isn't likely to become true. Again take note of what your body and mind do. Visceral reactions are particularly important and helpful here. You can safely assume that whichever candidate produces more nausea or flatulence in you is likely to be your best choice to vote against, especially if that candidate stood out in the other exercises.


Compile the data from all five steps, and you will discover that one of the candidates makes you angrier, meaner, sicker and crazier than the others, while another one disturbs you the least, relatively speaking. Contemplating the possibility that the first candidate could win the elections leaves you panic-stricken, while speculation of the second candidate winning just makes you anxious and depressed. The first one is the one you will vote against by voting for the second one. 


And that's democracy with a twist. May the force be with you.
.

LOOKS DON'T LIE: WHY MITT ROMNEY WILL WIN THE GOP NOMINATION

It’s quite simple, really. Mitt Romney has to win because he’s the better looking of the bunch, and Americans, of all people, have their priorities straight.

The votes he will lose for being the slick, manufactured, flip-flopping, too-liberal-for-hardcore-conservatives politician he will then recover for being…well, pretty.

What about where he stands on issues, you ask? Forget about it. Trying to choose a candidate based on the issues is akin to trying to choose a Medicare Part C plan based on the information provided by the insurance companies offering the so-called advantage plans. It can’t be done. The data we have to compare our options in both cases is convoluted at best; purposely deceiving and manipulating at worst. In both cases, it is too complex for the average American to understand, and it is delivered by people who are desperate to sell us something, so it’s designed to deceive us and trick us into believing or buying what they want us to believe or buy. Whatever serves their purpose, not ours.

Even if we could endure reading the fine print and hearing every speech—which reminds me of Tim Robbins crawling through half a mile of excrement to escape from prison in the “Shawshank Redemption”—and understand what we read or hear, once they’ve got you, politicians and insurance companies will show their true colors and do whatever they want, despite what they promised, simply because they can. So forget the issues.

This is why looks are so important in business and politics as in all areas of life. Looks don’t lie.

Republicans are desperate for a messiah to deliver them from President Obama and save the U.S. from becoming something truly deplorable—just another country and not the greatest country in the world.

The U.S. is going down in flames, and Obama is to blame. Yes, he is that powerful. One man has undone centuries of greatness. He must be a messiah of some kind…. But let’s get back to the savior that will replace him.

Who among the candidates could rescue us from the evil liberals ruining this country? How will voters recognize this supernatural creature with superpowers capable of restoring the U.S. to its former glory? How and who will they choose?

They won’t choose Ron Paul. He cannot and will not win. Why? Because he’s too short and too small and too soft spoken to be president. Period. End of story. The U.S. cannot have a president that does not look presidential. Imagine him standing next to other world leaders for those photo ops that cost millions of dollars and accomplish absolutely nothing. Visualize it. Need I say more? Next!

They won’t choose Michelle Bachmann. Why? Because she has a single facial expression for all occasions and because she sounds like an entry-level call center rep reading from a script. Bachmann is too fixated on saying whatever she thinks will get her elected—repeating lines of campaign jargon probably lifted from a How To Get Elected 101 college course at debates and interviews regardless of topics or questions asked. The result? Dumb and dull. We’re at risk of becoming just another country and lose our “Envy of all Nations” title, and an entry-level, robotic president won’t save the day. Mrs. Bachmann needs to cut down on the Botox. Next!

From left: Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann and John Huntsman at a CNN debate last month.

So Newt Gingrich is supposed to be the smartest one up there. We don’t know that for sure because we can’t see his smartness. However, what we can see is his freakishly big head. This is one time that Newt’s wits might work against him, if indeed IQ and head size go together. If only he could be as blunt about the size of his head as he is about the mainstream media’s coverage of the campaign. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s highly unlikely. Next!

Like Romney, Rick Santorum is a good-looking man. But unlike Romney, Santorum has a prominent feature that gets in the way, literally. How can we possibly hear anything the man says when his crooked nose commands more attention than his words? Enough said. Next!

John Huntsman. Who? The guy with the three naughty daughters making campaign videos without his consent. Oh, that guy. Yes, that guy. Next!

Let’s face it: Herman Cain looks good for his age. But, apparently, allegedly, reportedly, he looks a bit too good to some of the ladies, especially those not wanting to have anything to do with him. Like John Edwards before him, Cain is yet another reminder that looks can be a double edged sword. He dropped out of the race Dec. 3 amid allegations of sexual harassment and an extramarital affair. Sorry Cain. Next!

Rick Perry is the wild card of the group and not only because he’s a wild cowboy. Perry has a powerful weapon, and I’m not talking about his guns back in Texas. His looks are ordinary, but he has an extraordinary feature that takes him from average to attractive: a charming smile. That smile could persuade voters to like his face, and if they like the face, they like the man, and if they like the man, they’ll vote for him. But Perry would have to get past the “pit bull” image he acquired after barking at Romney during a debate over the hiring of illegal aliens. He would also have to get past the “dunce” sign that appeared on his forehead when he forgot the name of the third government agency he would eliminate if he became president during yet another debate, and later when he reminded a group of students turning 21 (voting age is 18) to vote on the Nov 12 elections (Election Day falls on Nov 6 next year). And let’s not forget the “crazy” label bestowed upon him when a video of Perry giving a speech seemingly drunk or high went viral. But all he has to do is keep smiling, and if Newt neglects to be blunt about his head, Perry will have a shot, no pun intended.

Mitt is taller and louder than Paul. He has more than one facial expression and more than one script, unlike Bachmann. His head is in proportion to his body and not freakish like Newt’s. His nose is relatively straight, so when he speaks, we hear what he says. He’s still in the race and won’t be dropping out because of a sexual scandal. Huntsman? Who? He’s better looking than Perry, although Perry’s smile represents a real threat to the Romney campaign, and as attractive as Obama.

Keep in mind that, although you don’t know this, I predicted Obama would not win unless someone did something about his Michelle’s face. Those thick, black, arched-to-the-moon eyebrows that made her look like an evil witch in every photo were going to cost him the election. Someone in that campaign must have heard my thoughts because soon enough Michelle showed up with thinner, lighter, less pointy eyebrows. The result? Obama won. See?