Bits

We watched "The Tin Man", a new 3-part mini-series on SciFi Channel this week. It's an updated version of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" by L.Frank Baum. We enjoyed it. The main elements from the original are all there, but slightly skewed and expanded. I took a quick look at L.Frank Baum's natal chart, and an on-line biography. I discovered a coincidence - or is it? Whatever it is, it has made me less cynical about fixed star Algol.

Researching for one of last week's blog posts about Leon Russell (here), it emerged that he suffered a birth injury, causing a physical disability. Natally he has Saturn conjunct Algol. L. Frank Baum was born 15 May 1856 in Chittengo, New York. His natal Sun is conjunct Algol (25 Taurus) and I discovered that he too suffered from a birth defect:See here
"A rather sickly child who was both timid and shy, he kept to himself and made up imaginary places and playmates since he had to refrain from any kind of strenuous exercise due to his faulty, weak heart. Throughout Frank's life, his health was a constant impediment, which became a looming presence and a major controlling factor. Although, it never impeded his creativity, drive and talent."

Although this is hardly conclusive evidence of Algol's potential effects, it does make one pause and think. There are probably other combinations of factors which need to be in place in any astrological chart for Algol's influence to come to the fore. No doubt many people live all their lives in Algol's shadow without as much as a headache.

**************************************

On a more antagonistic note, an article by Sam Harris annoyed me. He is author of a couple of anti-religion books, "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation". I'm no supporter of organised religion myself, but neither do I admire those who set out to make money by writing books running it down. The paragraph which really made me cross was this:

"And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion."

I find that offensive, and quite uncalled for. If Mr Harris took some time to study the basics of astrology, spoke open mindedly to some of the many well educated, highly experienced astrologers and astrology researchers, but still arrived at the same conclusion, he might be entitled to make such remarks. Until then, he'd do well to keep his own counsel on the subject.

*************************************************

Trawling through some archived pages, I asked myself which blog post had encouraged me most in those early days. One sprang immediately to mind. - The Thorne Smith/Douglas Adams Coincidence, written around this time last year. It was the single comment I received about it which has remained in my memory because, at the time, it pleased me so much.

I'd puzzled about Thorne Smith's correct date of birth, sources varied. Using a little astrology, I chose between the two birth dates available. An author who was engaged in writing Thorne Smith's biography left me a comment confirming that I had chosen the correct date. It was 50/50, of course, but even so I felt elated. I credit that early comment with motivating me to continue with this blog.