"If a meteor were spotted....." with Ian Lang

Let us, today, forget all about the Supreme Court, the travesties of Kavanaugh, Susan Collins, et al for a mo and imagine something else, equally horrendous - something such as this, which appeared at Quora a while back:

If a meteor was spotted heading towards Earth, one week before collision, what would happen in that one week?

Someone whose name has appeared before in these blog pages had an answer:
From Ian Lang, Leading Technician, with his kind (blanket) permission:

"Donald Trump would declare it fake news on Monday, blame the Mexicans on Wednesday, and go on a molesting rampage on Saturday.

Certain writers on Quora would blame Brexit. And then disable comments so that we couldn’t point out that it’s got nothing to do with Brexit.

By Monday afternoon somebody would accuse it of “cultural appropriation”.

The BBC would run a rolling news service devoted to it, in which the word “doom” is never uttered. ITV would do newsflashes on it, in which the word “doom” is mentioned in one in three. Sky News would have the word “DOOM!” in big flashing letters underneath the newsreader, and Radio one would have it as a ten-second briefing, after the bit about Adele.

Flat Earthers would be insufferable. They’d be going about saying “even you globeheads won’t be able to claim it’s round when that hits!”

If it was heading to hit the UK the politicos would be screaming about Brex-hit and castigating Theresa May for not doing a deal with it.

If it’s found to be heading smack for the Brazilian Rainforest every Greenie in the world will be rocking up to NASA’s doorstep demanding that they do something about it.

The average British man or woman would go down the pub. About four seconds before impact, they’d be draining the last pint.

UK Railway operators would use it as an excuse for the trains being late. Japanese railway operators would do nothing visible until it hits, and then thirty-eight seconds later (assuming total destruction of their railway system) would have the trains running again and be apologising profusely for the 8:15 being twelve seconds delayed in departing.

In North Korea, nothing unusual would happen all week, because nobody will be told anything about it.

Sales of patio heaters, umbrellas, and Spam will go through the roof.

The UK government will advise us to paint our windows white and take off our doors four minutes before the meteor hits.

We’ll all ignore this because, as I mentioned before, we’ll all be down the pub finishing our pints. And probably watching football.

Extinction Level Event? Balls to that. We’re taking our beer with us."

The Week That Was

What has been exciting the nattering classes on Twitter and the net in general this week?

The "comedian" set to replace Jon Stewart on The Daily Show had a set of Tweets from his Twitter feed emblazoned around the net, Tweets which indicate that either a) he is sexist; b) he is anti-Semitic; c) he is both and/or immature; or d) those by whom he was chosen to pick up JS's crown were seriously bad judges.

Most of today's comedians (and script writers) aren't witty enough or clever enough to be funny without being mean, cruel or outright gross, so Mr Noah's attitudes ought not to be surprising. What does puzzle me is why replacements for a couple of shows (The Daily Show and the Late Late Show on CBS vacated by Scot, Craig Ferguson) could not have been found among American comedians or presenters. Why go to English (James Corden) and South African (Trevor Noah) individuals?

The net was also excited by a legal matter - what I'm thinking of as "Son of Hobby Lobby" - for reminders about the parent see archived posts here, here and here.

This week's bout of chattering and nattering included Indiana's Religious Freedom Law

From link above:

If you’ve been following the controversy over Indiana’s new religious freedom law, you might be confused about what it really says and what it will actually do.

Some people describe the law as a “sword” that would allow discrimination against same-sex couples. Others say it’s a “shield” that would give people more freedom to follow the dictates of their faith.

Some say the law would give businesses more leeway to pick and choose which customers to serve. Others say it won’t make much difference -- that even with the law in place, virtually all businesses will end up behaving just as they would have before.

Some say the statute represents a significant change in the legal landscape, enacted at the behest of the Republican Party’s most conservative supporters. Others say it is strikingly similar to existing laws, including one that Congress passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities and that a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, happily signed more than two decades ago.
Which one of these statements is correct? All of them.

Here we go again then, on a slightly different track from Hobby Lobby, but heading in the same direction...trying to get rid of that pesky (to some) separation of church and state.

The most popular example of what Indiana's (and some other states') laws might bring about has been related to wedding arrangements for a same-sex marriage. For example, a business refusing to provide flower arrangements or wedding cake, etc. to a same sex couple on religious grounds would not be liable to legal proceedings brought on the basis of discrimination.

Never having been in the market for either wedding flowers or wedding cake, in spite of having been married twice (fluffy weddings are not my thing, marriage I can just about tackle), I can still see how insulting and hurtful it would be, at such a happy time in life, to be refused service on such grounds as sexual orientation. There'd be a rather odd, counter-productive business practice going on, on the part of the other party too! While same sex marriage pairs are free to vote with their feet and purses to go elsewhere with their business and obtain their wedding fineries from more enlightened retailers, a scar from that refusal will remain, and it'd be one that surely ought to be unthinkable to have been caused by any business person claiming to follow the paths laid out by Jesus Christ.

A comment under another Huffington Post piece struck me as worthwhile saving - it was by one Fran Moore:

These laws are clearly a promotion of religion. They provide those who profess a particular religious belief the privilege of being exempt from the law...a privilege not granted to those citizens who don't have that particular belief.

That would give ALL those found guilty of illegal discrimination either an appeal based on claiming a sincere religious belief or even the basis for claiming the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws violates their XIV amendment protections of equal protection!

It was interesting that in the Hobby Lobby case five members of the court that is supposed to determine the constitutionality of a law ignored the constitution and cited congressional legislation instead.

What is even more remarkable about that is the law they cited was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power.

So why did those justices decide that their "interpretation" of that law and not the Constitution had jurisdiction in that case?

They not only avoided applying the Constitution to the Hobby Lobby case, they did so by ignoring the serious constitutional problems of the law they used to justify their ruling.

As Ginsberg implied...what now see what the obvious motivation behind using the RFRA was...the five conservative Justices wanted to grant states the precedent for establishing their own RFRAs...
These ideological justices feel they have now addressed the previous ruling against the federal RFRA in 1997 without addressing the underlying constitutionality of providing exemptions to constitutional law.

RFRAs clearly violate of the establishment clause and the XIV amendment...so all the SCOTUS did in the Hobby Lobby case was to delay the inevitable ruling on the constitutionality of the federal RFRA and subsequent state enacted religious "freedom" laws.

If that comment was a bit too sober and serious, and you have a spare few minutes still, do go take a look at what blogger Jim Wright of Stonekettle Station had to say about this topic in his post headed Dear Christians: A Modest Proposal.

And FINALLY...some good news!

Though the deal will not be sealed until later this year, a framework agreement, relating to Iran's nuclear program, was announced in Switzerland on Thursday. Agreement was reached between Iran and the P5+1 (five permanent members of the UN Security Council: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the USA, plus Germany). It could be indication of better days ahead unless, of course, opponents manage to derail the agreement. Nothing is ever certain, but there is now at least room for hope. See HERE.

Sardonic Smiles

To be sane, he held, was either to be sedated by melancholy or activated by hysteria, two responses which were 'always and equally warranted for those of sound insight'. All others were irrational, merely symptoms of imaginations left idle, of memories out of work. And above these mundane responses, the only elevation allowable, the only valid transcendence, was a sardonic one: a bliss that annihilated the universe with jeers of dark joy, a mindful ecstasy. Anything else in the way of 'mysticism' was a sign of deviation or distraction, and a heresy to the obvious. (“The Medusa”)”
― Thomas Ligotti

Providing balance for a seemingly ever-growing motivation and self-help industry, one company came up, around a decade ago, with a book titled "The Art of Demotivation". There were some related products: lithographs, mugs, etc. The following illustrations, with their own captions, are from that company's website Despair Inc - there are other, similar, pictures there, in "demotivational" vein. I picked the 12 below because they whispered to me "zodiac sign keywords" (not Sun signs!) These come from an archived 2007 post by the way, they're good for a shake-out and re-airing in 2014, when a sardonic grin is probably the best we can hope to raise - and better than nothing - bearing in mind current news items.

So.....tongue firmly in cheek, of course!

 ARIES - risk taking

 

 TAURUS - unchanging

 

 GEMINI - communicating

 

 CANCER ~ clinging

 LEO - leading

 

VIRGO - perfectionist

 LIBRA - making peace

 

 SCORPIO - powerful

 

 SAGITTARIUS - optimism

 

 CAPRICORN - money-making

 

 AQUARIUS - inquiring

 

 PISCES - dreaming

 

"And prompt me, that my tongue may utter forth"

A few random prompt questions from the soon to close Plinky Prompts website. These come from last summer's prompts. I think responders are meant to write a few paragraphs, but for me, here, and any who wish to add their two penniworth in comments, just a few words or sentences will suffice.
(Quotation in title is from Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus: V, iii)


Can anything be funny, or are some things off limits?

There are some things which ought to be off limits for joke-making. Yes - I know all about the benefits, and there are many, of Free Speech. I realise that what some consider to be off limits remains material and an easy target for some comedians - that doesn't make it funny! Joking about a person with any kind of disability, for instance is unkind and obnoxious. I particularly dislike the use of the word "spazz" or spastic, which sadly is heard in that recent offering from Weird Al Yankowich, ironically titled "Word Crimes", and has put me off him completely. I found the whole thing unfunny, smug and faintly elitist.

Another prompt along the same lines:
Is political correctness a useful concept, or does it stifle honest discussion?

You might as well say "does courtesy stifle honest discussion?" At its root, political correctness is old fashioned good manners, courtesy, empathy, sensitivity to the feelings of others.


And something completely different:

Have you ever had a random encounter or fleeting moment with a stranger that stuck with you?

The wording of this prompt was a bit odd! One responder had spotted that, changed the "that" to "who".

The prompt reminded me of that lovely old film "Brief Encounter", story of a random meeting of a man and woman at a railway station, and how they fell in love against their better judgment.

Life is filled with random encounters, or fleeting moments with strangers, that or who either stick with you or disappear into the wide blue yonder within minutes. I've had many experiences of each type over the years, too many for this post, most of them pleasant enough, some even memorable. The one unpleasant random encounter with a stranger I remember well, happened when I was in my early twenties, as I walked from a bus stop to the hotel where I was working. The hotel was a re-purposed old (17th century) mansion, some 200 yards from the main road across fields, but accessible by a narrow roadway. It was around 9.30 pm in wintertime, dark. I became aware of someone walking just to my right and a little behind me. As he passed me he invited me to please "touch him" in a place he was demonstrating in the, ahem, flesh. In other words, he begged me to feel his exhibited penis. I was a little shocked, but even more annoyed, replied, "Don't be so bloody silly!!" Increasing my speed to a near-jog, I turned to approach the hotel from across the field, a much shorter distance than taking the longer roadway. The fellow was probably quite harmless - but you never can tell.

And different again:


It’s the year 2113. A major museum is running an exhibition on life and culture as it was in 2013. You’re asked to write an introduction for the show’s brochure. What will it say?

What will it say? From my vantage point in 2014, I don't know - it'll be in Chinese.

That Darned Elusive Funny Side

Re-run of a 2009 post, as apt now as then:

It's not easy to find real-life stuff to laugh at these days. Most of what's in the news frustrates, angers or saddens, rather than amuses us. Yet there's supposed to be a funny side to almost everything.

It's undeniable that infectious laughter and bright smiley faces light up life, make us feel better immediately, even in the face of dire circumstances. We are sometimes told that it'd help to be more child-like in our approach to life. Children laugh easily, I guess because they have little or no responsibility. We have to somehow strike a balance between child-like appreciation of the bright side of life with the serious responsibilities that arrive with maturity and a clearer understanding of the ways of the world.

Perhaps a person's astrological blueprint governs where their funny-bone lies, and how sturdy and resilient a bone it happens to be. A well-respected British astrologer. C.E.O. Carter wrote a little on the topic of humour in his "Encyclopedia of Pyschological Astrology". He states that:

"Each sign has its special kind of humour, but the general astrological indications of this gift are Venus and Taurus, Jupiter, Neptune, Sagittarius and Pisces, Moon Cancer and Uranus. Humour in the strict sense, I put under the Moon and Cancer.

Venus and Taurus seem to have to do with laughter and amusement generally; Moon, Neptune and their signs with whimsicality (which is also noticeable in many Virginians (I think this must refer to Virgoans rather than inhabitants of Virginia); Uranus with incongruity and unexpected effects; Jupiter and Sagittarius with fun and satire. Mercury must, of course, be prominent where the power of humourous expression is involved. Humourous persons, unlike witty ones, have not always the gift of speech.

Wit depends upon a strong Mercury, the quality of wit being determined by the chief aspecting planet. It is often found aspected by Mars, Jupiter or Uranus.

The signs which most commonly lack humour are Leo, Scorpio and Capricorn, as these often produce persons with a strong sense of personal dignity, not to say self-importance. They can seldom appreciate a joke at their own expense, as the Jupiter person can. It is probable that Saturn afflictions to the Moon tend to destroy humour, while Martian ones coarsen it, and incline to horseplay."

I dare not, and should not, argue with Mr. Carter but I do wonder about one or two things he has written, especially in the last paragraph quoted above. I've found that it really is not possible to accurately categorise people by their Sun sign, or by a planet, as in "a Jupiter person", as Mr. Carter appears to be doing, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding him, if so, I apologise profusely.

A person with Sun/ascendant and more in Leo could have all kinds of aspects pointing towards humour in their chart, which would completely overcome any over-developed sense of self dignity. In fact, a good dose of Leo is very helpful in presenting humour to an audience.

I've found people with a lot of natal Capricorn to often have well-developed dry humour, which could combine easily with any sense of self-dignity. As for Scorpio - perhaps black humor (dark in content, not skin color) which seems to be gaining popularity, might be a genre natural to a Scorpio-heavy person, or one with Pluto (ruler of Scorpio) prominent.

As far as I can see (and perhaps that's not far enough) nothing in astrology should be taken "cut and dried" for every individual. One man's hilarious joke is another man's yawn, or even obscenity. And come to think of it, isn't that word "hilarious" vastly over-used these days, at least in the USA where exaggeration seems to be the norm? I've lately heard the most inane or trivial stuff described as "hilarious", which makes me wonder if my own funny-bone is suffering from osteoporosis. When someone is poking fun at a serious situation, via cartoons, jokes, skits, I'm inclined to see good examples as clever rather than funny - but that's just me. I guess that humour has several different categories, "clever" being one of them.

Back to my original thought about seeing the funny side of things that in reality are not at all funny. It's a special talent, probably inborn and not easy to cultivate. As the wise old saying goes "if we don't laugh, we'll cry"; for sure laughter and sorrow are close together, on either side of that cusp dividing the normal from world shattering events, personal or communal. I'm going to guess that those people with Sagittarius and/or Jupiter well prominent and without blight from Mars, Saturn or Pluto are those who are most likely to be able to laugh in the face of disaster, with an ability to see through the gloom and into that elusive funny side.

A couple of very old cartoons from husband's scrapbook of favourites:

ted, Seth Macfarlane, Humour

We saw "ted", the movie, this week. Didn't enjoy it. I'd felt sure that Seth Macfarlane would have cranked up his taste meter just a notch or two for the big screen. He hadn't, the opposite in fact. I don't consider myself strait-laced or lacking in appreciation for humour. I'll guffaw with the rest when off-colour jokes are told - in the right way. Seth Macfarlane, the movie's creator isn't a stand-up comedian, of course, he finds other ways to present off-colour, offensive and juvenile lavatory humour. Throughout ted I couldn't help feeling insulted.

Macfarlane has it in him to produce something worlds better than ted. My husband, trying to be kind, thought the movie seemed as though someone had said "better go through it and add some lavatory humour, some in-jokes and bitchiness". Maybe he's right. They have to sell movies or the industry will go belly-up. What is so sad is realising what does sell, and is applauded by so many, these days in the USA.

Ah well!

Back to the thorny topic of humour in general.What's the right way to tell an off-colour joke? That's too difficult to put into words. Billy Connolly can do it. Dave Allen could do it - though he did slip on the edge of acceptable towards the end of his career when he seemed to become all bitter and twisted. Perhaps the key is that "bad" jokes need to be told with some semblance of affection for the human race, life, and its general ridiculousness. I get that from Connolly , used to get it from early Dave Allen. I can't comment on US comedians, other than to say that from the little I've seen of Lenny Bruce, he definitely doesn't get the Twilight seal of approval. He was seemingly filled with hate for people, the world, life in general. That's where my personal boundary line lies, I think. George Carlin was brilliant, he became bitter and cranky, on the edge of hating late in his career, but managed to retain the affection of his audience, myself included, because his jokes continued to tell the truth about matters important to us all. Likewise in the case of Bill Hicks.

Sadly Seth Macfarlane is going the right way to being on the wrong side of my boundary. I realise he'd not care less, and laughs all the way to the bank. In his case though I feel it's such a shame. He's a brilliant voice/accent mimic; his Family Guy, in its early days, was fun - very good without going too far. We stopped watching it later on when it began to feel more hate-filled, bitchy simply unpleasant under the surface "fun"....no doubt chasing ratings and advertisers. It's always money - all the time.

I posted on Seth Macfarlane's natal chart, back in 2009 - here's a copy of that post:

Seth MacFarlane appeared as a guest on Bill Maher's "Real Time" on Friday night. He's an animator, composer, writer, producer, actor and voice actor, best known for creating the animated sitcoms "Family Guy" and "American Dad", for which he also voices many of the characters: Peter Griffin, Stewie Griffin, Brian Griffin, Glenn Quagmire and many additional characters.

Multi-talented? I guess so!

We watch "Family Guy" repeats quite often, The series has now come to an end, but repeats go on for ever in the USA. Stewie's Rex-Harrison-type English accent is a hoot. The humor and satire in the episodes often hovers around the border of acceptable and not acceptable, this is just part of its charm. Later seasons of the show seem to get more and more risque, certainly not fare for faint-hearted, strait-laced religiously oriented mortals.






When Seth MacFarlane appeared recently in a TV commercial, for HULU, and lapsed into the Stewie accent, I was completely taken aback. I'd felt convinced that some retired English actor from the West End stage was responsible for Stewie's lines.

Astrologically, I'd been expecting to see versatile Gemini (often a great mimic) featuring strongly in Seth MacFarlane's natal chart. I was wrong - unless Gemini is his rising sign (which can't be established without a time of birth). The chart below is set for 12 noon on his birth date: 26 October, 1973, Kent, Connecticut.





Just as MacFarlane has a surprising combination of talents, this chart has a surprising combination of Yods, aka Fingers of Fate. (A Yod is a planetary configuration made up of two planets in sextile aspect (60*), both linked to another planet via quincunx (150*), forming a sharp arrow-like shape.

Astrologers consider that these formations are reflected in the personality by the characteristics of the sextiled and harmonious planets blending and being channelled through the planet at the apex, via its own characteristics. A complex concept!






There are three Yods in this chart (as shown). That's fairly rare, I'd say. The Yods are themselves linked too, by Neptune forming part of each one.

Saturn/Mars~apex at Neptune = work/career/energy channelled via imagination and creativity.
Neptune/Jupiter ~ apex at Saturn = Imagination/exaggeration channelled via career and work (almost the mirror image of the previous Yod).
Neptune/Pluto ~ apex at Mars = Imagination/Passion/Darkness channelled via enthusiasm and energy.
The planets involved are exactly right for describing what Seth's career has turned out to be.

MacFarlane needed lots of energy and strong work ethic to get his projects off the ground and accepted by a primetime TV channel. These attributes comes via Saturn and Mars in the Yod configurations. His oddball characters are product of his Neptune links with a splash of Jupiter's excess. Pluto's appearance in one Yod, sextiling Neptune reflects the occasional satirical darkness of some of his storylines.


In general, apart from the trio of Yods, He's a Scorpio/Sagittarius type - intense yet with an outgoing enthusiasm for life and fun. I think he looks Sagittarian.


There are close square (90*) aspects in his chart: Sun to Jupiter to Mars, linked by the resulting opposition Sun to Mars which makes up yet another triangular configuration known as the T-Square. In this case the configuration links his core self (Sun) and two other planets in Fixed signs, bringing in an element of stubbornness and determination to add to the tension indicated by a T-square formation. But this formation does provide a special kind of dynamic tension - that which is is so often a pre-requsite for success.

In a lengthy and interesting interview at IGN.com (here) Seth MacFarlane admits that he was stubborn and determined about keeping to his initial vision when Family Guy first came to the TV screen. He was unwilling to delegate much to his team at first, but said that he later eased into trusting his team and loosening the reins. This connects to his Fixed and controlling Scorpio planets easing under the influence of his Mutable Sagittarius planets (Venus and Neptune).

MACFARLANE: When Family Guy started as a series, I was very, very controlling....... out of sheer paranoia, because all of our writers had come off of live-action sitcoms. My first thought was, "Oh God, these people have never written for animation before." And really, by the end of the series, I could not have come to a more opposite viewpoint. It got to the point where you just rely on these people. Really, what I found was that good writers are good writers.

Humour/Humor ~ Astrology

Huffington Post yesterday published a slideshow of "Our Favourite UK Comedians"....."Our" presumably meaning USA-ans.

There were omissions, some rectified by commenters. I got to thinking that many of those comedians pictured and named owe a debt of gratitude to forerunners from a preceding generation, about whom people in the USA are completely oblivious. Some such names are already disappearing into the mists of time, even in the UK: - Arthur Askey, Tommy Handley, Ted Ray, Tony Hancock, Frankie Howerd, Beryl Reid, Kenneth Horne, Hattie Jacques, Kenneth Williams -- and, by the way I didn't see Ken Dodd's name even among the comments....and I think he's still with us.

Humour. It's good to see the gap between British and USA humour narrowing. It was often said in the past that Brits didn't "get" US humour and vice versa. TV, the internet and internetional travel have gone a long way towards closing that gap.

Humour defies definition, like beauty it's in the eye or ear of the beholder. Astrologers have tried to isolate it in natal charts. 20th century British astrologer C.E.O. Carter had this to say about humour in his "Encyclopedia of Psychological Astrology":

HUMOUR

"Each sign has its special kind, but the general astrological indications of this gift are Venus and Taurus, Jupiter, Neptune, Sagittarius and Pisces; Moon, Cancer and Uranus. Humour in the strict sense, I put under the Moon and Cancer.

Venus and Taurus seem to have to do with laughter and amusement generally; Moon, Neptune and their signs with whimsicality (which is also noticeable in many Virginians (I think we usually call 'em Virgoans these days!), Uranus with incongruity and unexpected effects; Jupiter and Sagittarius with fun and satire. Mercury must, of course, be prominent where the power of humorous expression is involved. Humourous persons, unlike witty ones, have not always the gift of speech.

Wit depends upon a strong Mercury, the quality of wit being determined by the chief aspecting planet........ The signs which most commonly lack humour are Leo, Scorpio and Capricorn, as these often produce persons with a strong case of personal dignity, not to say self importance. They can seldom appreciate a joke at their own expense, as the Jupiter person can. It is probable that Saturn afflictions to the Moon tend to destroy humour, while Martian ones coarsen it, and incline to horseplay."

I don't agree with everything Mr. Carter wrote there. He appears to separate wit from humour, so perhaps that's where I find conflict. I see wit and humour as indivisible, part and parcel of the same thing, and I don't get the link to Cancer at all.

I certainly don't see Capricorn as lacking in humour. Strong Capricorn in a natal chart can bring forth very dry wit, a droll turn of phrase, and while they may not be into a roll-on-floor-laughing type of humour, they're in no way devoid of fun. His listing of Leo as lacking in this respect is rather odd. Leo's draw to entertain others, love of the limelight will quite often go along with a fine sense of the ridiculous and good comic timing - possibly not the most sophisticated of humourous styles, but certainly not lacking - unless the natal chart has much strong in conflict with Leo planets.

Our natal charts are webs of connections, mixtures, blends and conflicts, it is no straightforward matter to see humour, or lack of it, there.

Monday Mirthmaker ~ Catherine Tate ("Am I bovvered?")

Much has changed in the UK since 2004 when I jumped ship - emigrated to the USA. I wasn't aware of the name Catherine Tate until news filtered through in the USA that she, an English comedic actor, was one of several being considered to take over the lead in the US version of The Office after Steve Carell's departure. A little light research revealed that I knew her face, if not her name. She was one of Dr. Who's (David Tennant-style) companions.





I wasn't aware, though, that in the UK she had had a very successful TV series of her own, The Catherine Tate Show. Curious to sample, I sent for DVDs of seasons 1 and 2. Catherine Tate now has two new fans in deepest Oklahoma. The shows are a series of zany sketches with Ms Tate taking on the guise of several stereotypical characters whose attitudes will be all too familiar to folks in the UK, though not easily recognised by viewers elsewhere. One of her most successful characters has been a teenage girl, "Lauren Cooper". Lauren spawned a catchphrase - "Am I bovvered?" - an extension of that surly ubiquitous throwaway beloved of teens..... "Whatever!!" My husband, a native of the US, laughed almost as much as I did at her characterisations and sketches - though he needed a little help with translation at times.

Tracy Ullman, another English funnywoman whose work has no doubt inspired Catherine Tate, managed to cross the transatlantic humour barrier quite successfully. I feel sure Ms Tate could do the same, with shrewd observations of the ridiculous side of human nature on THIS side of the Atlantic. She'd need to obtain an initial foothold. A chance to play The Office's new manager could be exactly that.

Most recently Catherine has been seen on the big screen, playing Queen Isabelle in the 2010 movie Gulliver's Travels.




Catherine Tate was born on 12 May 1968 in London. No time of birth is available so a 12 noon chart is shown here.




Yes. There simply had to be some strong Gemini going on! Mercury's in its own sign, Gemini conjunct dynamic Mars.

Sun in Taurus, and Venus, planet of the arts also in Taurus (its sign of rulership) reflect a steadying of that potentially wild and woolly Gemini Mercury/Mars. As I type, Jupiter is just beginning its year-long transit of Taurus - good news for Ms Tate, as it'll conjoin her Sun and Venus soon, with benefits likely to follow on several fronts.

From a Guardian profile:

"She has described herself as a lazy control freak. But when the time comes to do it, she changes. Her brain moves incredibly fast when she's performing, she's completely focused."

Not sure where, or if, the control freak or lazy bits can be identified in the chart. Pluto conjunct Uranus in Virgo is in harmonious trine to her Taurus Sun.... Virgo's insistence on perfection, Uranus's eccentricity and Pluto lending a certain secretiveness which might come across as laziness?

Gemini is key here though, no doubt about it.

Video clips from The Catherine Tate Show and a superb one from Comic Relief (an annual TV charity event) with Tony Blair co-starring ~~

Lenny - An Un-Libran Libran

Some people born with Sun in Libra are not all that a Libra-type is cracked up to be. Here's a re-airing of a post from Fall 2008, along with highlights from comments received back then. The featured comedian seems to have had all the traits Libra-types are NOT supposed to display. This doesn't "disprove" astrology, however, actually it underlines the fact I keep nattering about each month: you cannot judge a guy or a gal by their Sun signs, you absolutely must look deeper.

LENNY BRUCE

I'm one of very few people this side of the Atlantic who doesn't think Lenny Bruce was iconic, wonderful, great, funny. Maybe it's one of those situations where "you had to be there", you had to know how it was before him, then how things changed after him. Perhaps, in context, his input to the world of comedy has some value in the history of entertainment and communication. "Saviour of the First Amendment", some call him - for the uninitiated, this relates to freedom of speech. I don't get it! The mildest of profanity, or rude word is routinely blanked out during TV shows on most channels. Someone says "fuck" and not only is the sound eliminated, but the pixels surrounding the speaker's mouth disintegrate, so the delicate sensitivities of the audience are not upset by a little lip-reading. So what did Lenny Bruce achieve?

There's a vein of prudery in America which doesn't exist in Britain to anywhere near the same extent. Perhaps that's why I see Lenny Bruce as a pain in the arse (been there, seen that, didn't want the T-shirt) while many Americans idolise him as some kind of revolutionary icon.

Here's Lenny Bruce's natal chart. Born 13 October 1925, Mineola NY, at 11.24 am.



DANG! Another triple Libran who goes against the grain (Nazi horror-monger Irma Grese struck me this way too - I blogged about her here. A few more charts like these and I shall start doubting traditional interpretations of Libra as the most diplomatic, tactful, indecisive sign of the zodiac. The dark underbelly of Libra is definitely not pretty. The thought led me to a little more research and this is what I discovered:

Lenny Bruce's natal Mars at 9 Libra is conjunct Fixed Star Vindemiatrix designated unfortunate or malefic by ancient astrologers. His natal Saturn is within minutes of arc of Fixed Star South Scale in Scorpio - another malefic, very unfortunate star.

Irma Grese was born with Sun conjunct Algorab ("One who is destructive, malevolent, fiendish and lying")

There are several websites with information on Fixed Stars, I used this one.

Lesson learned: it's worth checking whether Fixed Stars are close to personal planets if things seem discordant with accepted astrological interpretation, especially in the case of Libra Sun people who are supposed to be, in the main, mild mannered, sweet, ruled by Venus.

Something else springs to mind too - Via Combusta, The Burning Road, spans 15 Libra to 15 Scorpio, which takes in Bruce's Sun, Mercury and Saturn. I puzzled over Via Combusta here. .......... Curiouser and curiouser.

Astrologer Bob Marks points out a Funnel Pattern in Bruce's chart, with eccentric Uranus at the business end - see here.

Uranus is also at the business end of a Yod (Finger of Fate) - 2 quincinx aspects linked by a sextile. Sun/Mercury and Neptune form the sextile - so this Yod can be translated as this comedian's personal communication style(Sun/Mercury) linking to Neptune's creativity, and potential for addiction being blended and channelled through eccentric, revolutionary Uranus. It's a similar "feel" to Bob Marks' description of Uranus as the "singleton".

One more thing to point out: Pluto, Saturn and Uranus form a Grand Trine in Water signs - those 3 planets are hard-core, no warm fuzzies there! They link the emotional element (Water) in the chart, providing a kind of circuit of deadly emotional, electric shocks. Not a comfortable Grand Trine by any means.

Lenny Bruce's natal Moon in Virgo reflects a deeply critical inner self. It's a pity he hadn't turned critical focus onto his own shortcomings rather than hurling abuse at all and sundry, he might then still be among us, instead of dying of a drug overdose at age 40.

COMMENTS RECEIVED IN 2008 - I enjoyed reading through these once more, even though they are not astrological in content - perhaps newer passers-by will be interested too:

The Next President of The United States said...
I appreciate your assessment of Lenny Bruce, and agree in part. In 2008, his free speech rants seem dated. Also agree whole-heartedly with your identifying the American bent toward prudery. There's a reason Europeans chased out the Pilgrims and Puritans - they were booorrrrring, anal retentive folks!

But my take on Lenny is historic timing. He was fighting the suppression of words in 1950s and early '60s America, when June and Ward Cleavor and Ozzie and Harriet Nelson were role models, and the entire society was projecting an illusion of morality superiority. Which, of course, didn't really exist. That's why the Lennys and Sahls and Carlins and Pryors and Dick Gregorys were needed.

At least, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

Twilight said...
Hello TNPOTUS (throwing yer hat into the ring for 2012 then?) ;-)
I appreciate your input, as one who lived through the period in question in the USA, as I didn't. You see see a slightly different and more accurate picture.

After you mentioned Bruce and Sahl to me a while ago I made a point of watching a DVD of "Lenny", and listening to some of Mort Sahl's recordings from the husband's LPs. I truly remained unimpressed. But Carlin and to a lesser extent, Pryor, I do "get" - or, sadly, "got".

Sahl seemed terribly boring to this ear, topical at the time, no doubt, but quite irrelevant now.

"Lenny" is probably a good representation, in a nutshell, of how Bruce came across. I took an instant dislike to him (or at least the man Dustin Hoffman so brilliantly portrayed).

There was an inbuilt unpleasantness to Lenny Bruce which, for me drowns out any message he was trying to promote,
whereas George Carlin especially had an inbuilt niceness (in spite of his rather more cranky offerings as he aged).

Another ascerbic comedian, long gone, Bill Hicks, probably took influence from Lenny Bruce. He managed to remain appealing due to a much softer side to his character which shone through always, at least I thought so.
Wish he was still around!

anyjazz said...

As you know, my preference is to Jack Benny. I find the self deprecation humor the best.
Ellen Degeneres and Tim Allen and Pete Barbutti come to mind. Though the edgy comedians are at the bottom of the list for me, they do have their place.

The slant here is not if they were funny or not, it was if they made a historical mark or not. Did they change something in the world? I suppose Lenny Bruce did that. So did Mort Sahl and some others. So Bruce “opened the way” for uncensored language and fresh ideas? So what has that done as a benefit for mankind? Has it amplified our sense of humor? Has it broadened our language, our communicative skills?

For me, the issue is not at all whether it qualified as humor or historical mark.

Whatever they accomplished for their time, the pendulum probably swings too far now. Many of the so called comedians (or rappers, for that matter) of today still think street language has humor and impact because of the shock value. It doesn’t. It’s tiresome.

One or two historically off-color and well-worn words can now be inserted as substitutes for a long list of nouns, verbs and adjectives. It is lazy. No fresh ideas there. The vocabulary of the descendants of Bruce (and others) has been reduced in size to a point where dictionaries may as well go out of print. A few hundred words with multiple meanings and uses are all we will need. And cell phone texting isn’t helping.

Language started somewhere as a few grunts and gestures. Is that where we are going?

Twilight said...
Hi Anyjazz

I know comedy is next closest to your heart, after jazz - not counting moi and family - of course. I grinned as I noted that two of your named preferences (Benny, DeGeneres) are Sun Aquarians (as am I).
See how this stuff works? ;-)

My take on this, generally, is that comedians who are happy "in their own skins" do not resort to being mean, profane or generally filthy mouthed. They simply see the gloriously funny side of this crazy world and show it to us. Those with inner angst, from whatever source, tend to want to take it all out on their audience, perhaps via what they pretend has a purpose - opening things up in Bruce's case. Things can be opened up in a far more creative and more lasting way. Lenny Bruce was born with that inner angst.

I'm not in favour of censorship in any way, I'm in favour of raising the bar, that's all, to match a new, more enlightened era we are supposed to be entering, far from Lenny Bruce's time. I know - "pie in the sky"!

The Next President of The United States said...
Here in the 21st century, Mort Sahl seems tedious to me as well and Lenny, like so many crusaders, got lost in his message and passion. Still, both had their moments and a place in the grand scheme.

Right on, to you, anyjazz, on "the pendulum swings too far." But isn't that part of being American? We always go to extremes and once in a while find our way back to the middle.

And, yes, I've already announced my candidacy for 2012 and am taking campaign contributions!!

Wisewebwoman said...
I'm with you on old potty-mouth Lenny, a very angry man, finally turning the anger inside himself. Me no like.
I'm with you on the self-deprecating type of humour, I'm an enormous fan of the late great Dave Allen, I adore John Cleese, Billy Connolly. I was turned off by Carlin at a show in Toronto having been a lifelong fan prior to then.
Stephen Colbert I find falling down funny at times. A comedic genius.
I did love Jack Benny too and Roseanne Barr before she got famous.
And Margaret Cho.
And actually Sarah Silverman before she got famous.
What is it about the fame thing? Fill up your pockets and the wit dribbles out...;^)
H'mmmmm, you always get me thinking, T.

anthonynorth said...
As a side issue to this, there's just been a flaming row over here in the UK after Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand made lewd telephone calls to Andrew Sachs during a radio show.
Insensitive and wrong, apologies should have been enough - they were just two grown ups acting as stupid kids. But it has turned into a battle between how far entertainment should go regarding language, etc.
As it stands at the moment, Brand has resigned from the BBC, Ross has been suspended for three months, and the Controller of Radio 2 has 'reluctantly' resigned.

Twilight said...
TNPOTUS ~ Glad to hear you're already planning you political future - my contribution? I'll trawl around town and pick up any defunct McCain/Palin yard signs, and refurbish them with the colors of your GEMINI PARTY. :-)

Twilight said...
WWW - I enjoy the work of those you've listed too. Loved dear Dave Allen - though towards the end of his time he did go a wee bit over the top and spoiled himself, same with George Carlin. It seemed almost as though they knew their time was coming to an end, so they got everything they could off their chests.

The fame thing sometimes gets in the way of quality, yes, it does seem that way, especially among comedians for some reason. :-)

Twilight said...
AN ~~~Hi. Yes, I've been reading about Ross and Brand. Two who fell in love with themselves at an early age and never got over it, in my opinion! Ross always irritated me, don't know Brand too well, but he appeared on Letterman's Late Show here last night. No bad language, just projecting his forced zany-ness.
I don't find much to recommend either of them.

These battles over language come up regularly. We had one here not long ago involving a radio presenter using a racial slur, probably unintentially, but it sparked a lot of controversy, and he went into radio wilderness for some time.

I suppose eventually language reaches its own level of acceptance in any era, people like Lenny Bruce push one way, and a portion of the public pushes back,
with fall-out continuing over a long period. I wonder where the next big push will

POLISH (AND OTHER) JOKES ARE VANISHING

GUEST POST BY GIAN PAUL

The intention here is not to speak specifically about "Polish Jokes", but about this type of phenomena. There are excellent Polish Jokes in New York, or Italian jokes in Switzerland, or Irish jokes in England etc. There are sad ones too. To the point where the Polish-American Journal (published in Boston) printed the following in 2009: "Polish jokes started to decline in the USA when Polish Americans put aside their good nature and aggressively spoke out against this Anti-Polish hatred" etc... Admittedly the Polish Americans have some reasons to object to what historically had never been considerate behavior towards them, mostly by the Nazis and the Soviets in the past and the usual stuff immigrants have to hear anywhere, particularly in rough-going New York.

But leaving history aside, who does not like to have a good laugh? Some manage to make others laugh by poking fun at themselves (these are often the best jokes), others need to somehow degrade someone else, preferably when in an audience with similar intent. That's mostly the case with Polish or Italian jokes etc. Anytime a neighbor nation is involved or an immigrant.

In Brazil, many funny jokes are told about the Portuguese, the former colonials here. They are infallibly depicted as inept, not really intelligent or simply old-fashioned. It's an anti-colonial thing. And living in Brazil, the Portuguese one can meet here, one can see, have not always an easy time. Brazilians adore having fun. But they do not laugh so much when an Argentinian tells a joke about Brazilians...

The Jewish jokes I have come across in various countries, often told by Jews themselves, are sometimes of a different nature. The best ones show how clever Jews can be, usually compared to some other religious person or someone of the country where they live. One could say for these jokes that they are an instrument of self-defense. Using humor for that is a very popular thing in the Middle East.

One of the most notorious jokers there is a Turk, known in many other countries as the Hodjia or Mullah Nasreddin. A pendant to the Till Eulenspiegel of the Nordic people and the Dutch. The literature for whom likes this type of reading is quite ample and available in most languages.

What exactly humor is, psychologically, is an interesting subject: To laugh, is a release of energy and at the same time can appear to be a re-charging of energy. Only people with some spare energy can laugh. An exhausted person, even if there is something funny happening, will say "and I did not even have the strength to laugh..."

A "good laugh" is when one expends a considerable amount of energy. And despite this expense, the fact that there is some re-equilibration of energies going on, makes one feel well. The fact of public comics (the Lettermans, Lenos etc.) having success is mostly due to the timing of their presentations. People watching themon TV are usually tired, at the end of their day and welcome a change of mind which, because even if only slightly funny (more often the case than not), it helps them to re-equilibrate their humor (from the Latin, humidity, the state of lubrication of one's psychological machine).

No doubt also there are bigger than just daily cycles between morning and evening involved in humor being appreciated (and produced). It's tempting to think that the "Air du Temps", the flavor of the times plays a role. And if that is the case one might find an astrological link to that. It's quite easy to find a person's horoscope who is often inclined to laugh or gifted to tell funny stories, true ones or jokes he/she picked up somewhere. There are also characters who by simply being what they are, without doing much for that on purpose, are funny.

As a very general observation I found that sun-sign Aquarius is often funny, or fun to be with. A friend of mine, French, ex-captain with the air-born troops in French Africa, then turned banker and a very likable Aquarian has in his horoscope Sun/Jupiter conjunct in Aquarius and an exact trine between Mercury (in Capricorn) and Uranus (in Taurus). He is truly fun to be with. And knowing it, he has made it kind of a standard procedure in his behavior to entertain whomever is in his company. To the point where he had a rich client who accompanied him (on his own expense of course) on many of his professional displacements, just for the fun of being in the Aquarian's company.

Another quite entertaining Aquarian, overtly gay, is a German born in Brazil whose map I made. His natal Uranus (in Taurus) trines his Mercury (in Capricorn), as for the previous person. This leads me to wonder whether a well aspected Mercury in an earth-sign is not bringing about a light element, but also a well "earthed" ability of understanding whatever situation arises. "Funny" is often an observation which is "to the point". There is the unexpected, for whom did not see it by himself, which is being pointed out by the witty person that makes the other one laugh.

What's going on with Aquarians? The fact that they are opposite to the sign of Leo may give an explanation of why they easily can poke fun of themselves, in a light way. Contrary to a Leo, exactly. And that gives them a detached way of dealing with what comes across their path as well. As about themselves. But one better specifies that not all Aquarians are funny or likeable people. Some even show to the outside world the "worst sides of Leo, their opposite sign", i.e. the shadow...

To be more complete, but it's limited to my personal observations as I never came across any astrological take on humor, the map of a young Pisces I made (who is very good at telling stories), has the following characteristics which appear to give him such abilities: Mercury right on his Ascendant in Pisces, enforced by a precise trine from Saturn in Scorpio. His Piscean sensitivity and Mercurial wit is stabilized by a sarcastic Saturn. A way one can interpret his map.

A look at some slow planets and their transits in various signs permits a tentative conclusion which I hope some readers may be able to confirm or even amplify. There were in my experience 2 periods over the last 50 years with more humor and probably jokes being produced and told then other at other times:

The first period strikes me to have been in the late '50s and early '60s. This from what I remember was a period when satirical journals were en vogue: Le Canard Enchainé in France e.g. had a ball making fun of all-important De Gaulle. Playboy was at its peak, all over the world, and often man would buy the magazine because of the jokes, they said. Uranus then was transiting Leo. And - I freely interpret, Uranus being in his opposite sign of were he belongs, was loosening up what needed to be, in fixed and often stubborn or grandiose Leo.

The second period was in the mid-'80s. Then it probably was Jupiter who was transiting Capricorn, loosening up "Saturnian things". Possibly that Neptune then in his turn, as he was entering Capricorn, gave a hand as well.

Right now, with Pluto in Capricorn, I have the impression that in general the penchant for jokes and similar light stuff is receding. And the economic shock the world experienced lately has to do with that as well. The idea to investigate at first about "Polish Jokes", and then the rest came from my personal perception that at this moment there is very little joke-telling going on. A local illustration for that: when Lula was running for president here in Brazil 8 years ago, the place was full of jokes. Now it's very quiet. Almost colorless. And from what appears in the French and American press, it's the case there as well. Who thinks that e.g. The New-Yorker is still funny these days?