Saturday, March 31, 2012

ET CETERA......other thoughts I've thunk this week (a bit of astrology, Obama, Mad Men, L' Aguilera)

Caveat emptor

Could there be a better illustration of what I've thought and written, in this blog and elsewhere in comment form, during the last few years: that President Obama is drenched in Neptune's illusion? On the book's jacket: "Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion".

This book has not yet hit the stores, but at Amazon, a book description:
“Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank have skillfully smoked out the real Barack Obama . . . the technofascist military strategist disguised as a Nobel Peace Laureate, but owned, operated, and controlled by Wall Street, Corporate America, and the Pentagon.”—Thomas H. Naylor, co-author of Affluenza, Downsizing the USA
Classic Neptune, and it's there - in his natal chart! See any of several articles by professional astrologers, a good one, from 2008, is at Astrobarry:
Who is He? Obama's Sun-Neptune Square

a posteriori

Many words have been written this week about Mad Men's return to the TV screen; I even wrote a few myself, last weekend.

I've read half a dozen or so articles, written from several different slants - each writer trying to find a slant not yet tried. My conclusion: Mad Men is being seriously over-thought! Heck! It's a glorified soap opera not a documentary history of the 1960s! If there's a communal ability to over think matters, let more of the same people start overthinking the current political situation in the USA for goodness sake!

Something to keep in mind, too about Mad Men: it is written for viewers with 21st century sensibilities by someone who was not around the advertising world in the period he's writing about. A few who were, say the portrayal is reasonably accurate, while others beg to differ. I've been mentally comparing Mad Men with fiction such as The Forsyte Saga. Now that was by an author (John Galsworthy) who was alive, and in the know about the exact state of things, in the period about which he wrote so engagingly.

In spite of the over-thinking and over-analysing that sometimes happens regarding a popular show, TV series remain one of the few areas (sport may be another) where people in the USA can hold reasonably friendly conversations on a topic - "around the water-cooler" is the way they put it, I think. The USA is so vast, TV channels are so many, such widely popular topics do not come along very often in this country. In the UK, a country only the size of an American state, such as Wisconsin, with less choice of viewing material for most people, topics of common interest were easier to come by. Almost anyone could and would share views on Coronation Street, Eastenders and any number of mini-series and weekly shows. I used to find this phenomenon endearing, this easily shared interest and chat, even when the relevant topic wasn't always my favourite cup of tea.

Mad Men is one of few US TV shows with that rather sweet "communal" ingredient. Intellectuals can intellectualise and analyse it, while the average viewer, slumped on the sofa, drink in hand, will take it at face value as soap-opera-like fiction, a piece set in an era long gone with love, sex, betrayal, success and failure coming in equal measure. Everyone's happy!

Ad absurdum

If you've got 'em, flaunt 'em ? I don't have enough of 'em to flaunt, so can't possibly know what I'd do if I did. It does seem, though, that gals who have 'em are flaunting more of 'em more often these days. On the red carpet, at awards shows, I guess it's to be expected. Showing-off is part of that game; one "celeb" aims to out-boob another.

But context is everything, in some contexts less really is more. In TV's The Voice, for instance. The one female judge/mentor, Christina Aguilera, tends to let 'em have more air than is entirely necessary in the circumstances. The camera regularly moves in close and we get an uncomfortably full view, when she leans forward, of something we really don't need. The show is not about Ms Aguilera, it's about the hopeful singers competing for a chance to get where she is, professionally. It'd be courteous for the judge to cover up a wee bit, and allow all attention to go where the show purports to focus.
A look at her natal chart (Astrodatabank)revealed something I should have suspected: Sun, Mercury, Venus and Neptune all in Sagittarius - the sign known for exaggeration - "over-doing things".


Anonymous said...

GP: I wonder (and would not be at all surprised) if this Neptue/Sun square Obama carries with him (and being your President, all of you up there with him), will not turn into something much denser than just the last 3 foggy years...

Juno said...

Hi Twilight - Well, I watched MM finally and I felt a tad disappointed. It seems to have lost its momentum - I hope I am wrong. Some of the dialogue seemed hamfisted (esp. the opening scene) and Don's new wife bugs me. I miss Betty. She could be such a diva, like in the Scarlett O'Hara vein. And yes, it is a glorified soap opera, but a well-written one.

Juno said...

And as for Obama - great title for that book. The reality of his term has been to depressing to bear sometimes...

Juno said...


Twilight said...

Anonymous/Gian Paul ~~ Hmmm- yes, it will if he's re-elected. If not, or after another 4 years of fog for us, he can go make his millions/billions on the lecture circuits or involved with some of the corporations who are backing him to the hilt. Let them have the fog for a change! ;-)

Twilight said...

Juno ~~ I was disappointed, too, in the 2 hour episode last week.
Perhaps we were expecting too much because it was a 2 hr slice I expected big drama of some kind. Agreed, Betty was missed. We'll see how it goes tonight.

Matthew Weiner was on Bill Maher's Real time on Friday night. He seems like an okay guy, different from how I expected him to be.

Re Obama - agreed - all just too depressing, and unbelievably so after hopes had flown so high after 2008.