Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts

Friday, March 02, 2018

Arty Farty Friday ~ Portraiture



Portraiture - Dictionary definition: the art of creating portraits. Graphic and detailed description, especially of a person.

Styles of portrait painting have changed over the centuries and decades, as evidenced in the video below:




A couple of links to portrait artists from my own archives:

Pietro Annigoni

Augustus and Gwen John

And...
Bringing us right up to date:

Kehinde Wiley's recent portrait of Barack Obama and Amy Sherald's of Michelle Obama.


Saturday, January 07, 2017

Saturday & Sundries


 Cartoon by James Thurber






What grade to give for Obama's presidency?

I'd give him a "C" (could've done better).





Husband found this in an old newspaper during his researches of 19th/early 20th century photographers.

My husband says:





Staying on a vintage track, I found these thoughts on musical tastes and astrology, submitted to The National Astrological Journal in 1934 by one Edward Forsythe of Providence, R.I. -

The type pf music that appeals to a person can be found by noting the aspects of Venus in his horoscope.
Venus and Sun - stately pompous pieces
Venus and Moon - simple, novel things
Venus and Mercury - quick, light music
Venus and Mars - marches, military and descriptive war songs
Venus and Jupiter - church hymns or slow, stately marches
Venus and Saturn - old songs and solemn tunes
Venus and Uranus - uncommon, futuristic music, such as Rhapsody in Blue by Gershwin
Venus and Neptune - dreamy, quiet, romantic and mystical music.

The good aspects to Venus give preference to the slower form of each type of music; the afflictions tend toward the faster and wilder form of each, as signified by the different planets.

Hmmm - in my case, with Venus trine Moon and Venus square Neptune I'm supposed to prefer - musically - the simple and novel (slower version); and romantic, mystical, dreamy (faster wilder version). Do I? Yes - but lots of other stuff also.




Adam Lambert with "Time for Miracles".....ain't it just?!






Thursday, July 21, 2016

Female Trailblazers, Unbeaten Paths.

During Seth Myers' Late Late Show monologue recently he presented a video clip which reminded me of another old post of mine, about special or famous women. This is the clip Mr Myers played when commenting on gun control issues:

Gun control is a deadly serious issue these days, in Annie Oakley's day things were a tad different.

Anyway here's the content of that old post of which I was reminded:

Women trailblazers come in many guises, they are/were not necessarily in politics breaking glass ceilings, or doers of heroic deeds, some did what they did simply in order to provide for their families. Occasionally this came about in ways not "nice" for a female, ways considered scandalous. Women sometimes discovered they possessed skills normally reserved for males of their times, and put them to good use. Stepping out of the norm for one's era is, in my book, the basic factor in a trailblazer's blueprint. Here are two such women.

These two ladies didn't comply with the norm for women of their times, but each in their own way overcame male domination, without the backing of feminist groups or public opinion. Their determination arose from an inner driving force. One had a cluster of planets in Aquarius, the other a cluster in Leo. One had a clever mind, quick enough to out-think her male opponents, the other a steady hand, a good eye, and a talent for show-biz.


Annie Oakley (real name Phoebe Ann Mosey )

Annie possessed a talent unusual in women of her era - sharpshooting. Using a .22 caliber rifle at 90 feet (27 m), she was said to be able split a playing card edge-on and put five or six more holes in it before it touched the ground.

Her skill propelled her to super-stardom in the USA. She took part in touring Wild West shows, exhibitions and set many records, continuing into her 60s. She also engaged in extensive, albeit quiet, philanthropy for women's rights and other causes, including the support of specific young women that she knew. After her death, at age 66, it was discovered that her entire fortune had been spent on her family and her charities.




Born 13 August 1860 (time given by Astrotheme 12.01pm) in Willowdale, Ohio.
she had four personal planets in show-bizzy Leo, with Venus in Cancer opposing Mars in Capricorn. Venus opposing Mars symbolises feminine versus masculine - her femininity and diminutive size (just 5 ft tall) taking on what was then a very masculine occupation, via show business.

In a stage musical and movie based on Annie's story there's a song, directed at her male companion, appropriate for all superwomen, through the ages. The opening lines:

"Anything you can do, I can do better
I can do anything better than you.........."





Poker Alice, a female gambling legend of old frontier days in America.

There's confusion about Alice's year of birth (1851 or 1853) and place of birth -England or Virginia USA, to Irish parents. From whichever side of the Atlantic she originated, it appears that Alice Ivers accompanied her family at some point in early life to Colorado where she later married a mining engineer, Frank Duffield, from whom she learned to play poker. She was an intelligent lass and soon got the hang of things, probably good looking enough to turn the heads of male poker players too! Frank was killed in a mining accident, and Alice took up a career on the poker and faro tables of the west. In New Mexico, she broke the bank at one of the saloons, and the dealer was forced to close the game. She became a local legend. Alice's winnings at the table are fabled to have reached as much as $6,000 in one night. Alice once claimed that she had won more than $250,000 gambling over the years and that she never once cheated. Both of these claims are probably true. Poker Alice didn't have to cheat. She knew how to count cards.

Alice re-married, had 7 children but was left a widow again in 1910, and she marrried yet again. Her third husband died after just three years of marriage. She went on to open a brothel, and during a skirmish there accidentally killed a man with a stray rifle shot. She was arrested but later released. Many arrests for drunkenness and keeping a disorderly house followed in subsequent years. Her days of glamour and success waned in later life. She died following a gall bladder operation on 27 February 1930.
Story in more detail


For a brief look at Alice's natal chart, to acertain position of planets in signs, the year of birth is more important than the exact place of birth. 1851 or 1853? Whichever date is correct the constant factors are Sun, Mercury, Mars and possibly Venus, all in Aquarius. Quirky, independent Aquarius is the key. How different Alice was from most of her contemporaries, what a rebel from the norm! What a novel way she found to use her quick, incisive Aquarian mind! There's no doubt at all that Alice "followed a different drummer".

After looking at various aspects in the different charts (more detail in my earlier post about her here) I'd bet that Poker Alice was born in Virginia 17 February 1853, and that she decided to spread tales of her English origins in an attempt to intrigue others at the poker tables. A bit of early PR work!
Photograph courtesy of South Dakota State Historical Society.

Women everywhere, other than those of the super variety, have really only ever wanted the opportunity to compete on equal terms with their male counterparts. Some women might prove to be better in their chosen field, others might not - opportunity is all !

Saturday, August 01, 2015

Fixed Stars in Leo - a few noticed in natal charts.

On I go, with a series of monthly posts on Fixed Stars in each tropical zodiac sign.

Data for Leo from Astroweb (HERE), showing star positions in 1900 in the left-hand column and in 2000 on the right.



All I can dredge up from my own natal chart is the first star in this list, Talitha, known to ancient astrologers as "daughter of the assembly". Talitha was a little more than a degree away from natal Pluto when I was born, in first, or maybe second house, depending on exact time of birth and house system used. The star is located on the front foot of the Great Bear star formation, Ursa Major.

Most interpretations of Talitha are variations on this one from Librarising HERE
Quiet, prudent, suspicious, mistrustful, self-controlled, great anger when roused; control of wild animals.
I like this one though, from an article at Lunarplanner about a couple of dwarf planets:
Haumea's North Node primarily conjoins Talitha, Iota of Ursa Major, and Kappa,which mark the forefoot of the Great Bear. I dub Talitha to be the protectress, guardian, and nurturer of humanity. This duo is also the Chinese "High Dignitary." Although minor stars, they should not be taken lightly, as they hold a principal office within the Bear. Of the Great Bear they are associated with the global scene and world powers. They inspire us to become a caring and nurturing force for each other, an enabling force that responsibly supports our emergence from darkness, dogma, and delusion, emergence from the limits and bounds created by selfish, fearful or controlling beliefs, a force that supports us to move into freedom and in greater personal fulfillment.


Enough about my own natal chart - what about some of these Leo stars in the charts of President Obama, or would-be presidents Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?

Acubens, at between 12 and 13 Leo would have been close to President Obama's natal Sun and Hillary Clinton's Mars and Pluto, at their times of birth.



At Constellation of Words
One significance of Acubens is the enforced use of applied intelligence when finding oneself in combat at someone else's behest, as we may say the Crab's front leg finds itself driven on by the Mars Al Tarf on the back leg. But a generally more positive quality to read from Acubens is that of a sharp intellect and ease of coming to grips with problems, for which one might earn public renown. But, again there is the note of doing this under pressure of others demanding 'from behind'. [The Living Stars, Dr. Eric Morse, p.50.]

Donald Trump has Giansar close to Pluto natally.

From Terry Nazon HERE
Penetrating and analytical mind, travel and many friends, craft, ingenuity, and valour, but danger of robbery and accidental poisoning

And Alfard/Alphard (with Mars). At Constellation of Words:

Trouble and scandal through love affairs. Attachment to a married person.

ALSO Regulus at his ascendant! Hmm.
(From Terry Nazon)
The most Royal Star. Raphael, the Healing Archangel, the Watcher of the North. Nobility, ambition, alertness, great power, status, leadership, sudden downfall, accidents, violence.

Bernie Sanders has only one planet in Leo: Pluto at around 5 degrees - fairly close to Praesaepe when he was born. Main indications for this fixed star from traditional sources seem to be eyesight problems, but those come up regularly in respect of several other stars too. I tend to ignore this interpretation when considering people born 20th century or later. Praesaepe hasn't been seen as a fortunate star in general though. Maybe there'll be better indications from stars further along the zodiac.

Anyone else have anything of interest to report in this vein, either in personal chart or other charts we would recognise?

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Middle Class Darlings of the SOTU Address

Watching President Obama deliver the State of the Union address on Tuesday evening, two oft-repeated words began to irk me a lot: "middle classes". Tsk. Who are these people?

As I wrote in the first paragraph of a post in 2013 (here):
The USA's version of "middle class" is different from the UK's version. Here the middle class seems to refer to anyone not living in actual poverty, yet not of the 1% of elite bankers, financiers, corporate CEOs, "celebs", multimillionaires and billionaires. In the UK middle class is understood to relate to the professions: doctors, lawyers, professors, scientists - that sort of thing. Ordinary folk, tradespeople, craftsmen, office workers, factory workers, store assistants etc. are the working class.

If the President wants to help a group of people in this country, the poor should be front and centre of his focus, not the "middle classes" who, if I understand the term correctly, are already on their feet and striving, in their dreams, to become part of the 1%, or at least to claw their way into the top 10 or 20%.

A comment elsewhere online made me smile: with regard to the drinking games some like to play to ease their way through SOTU addresses by taking a swig each time a certain word or phrase is mentioned. A commenter observed that on Tuesday evening it'd have been be wise, if someone had chosen the term "middle class" to be the catalyst to imbibe (again... and again) then doing so only on every third mention of "middle class" would be required, if he/she were not to be found completely legless at the intoning of "...and God bless America", or as stated on Tuesday, "God bless the country we love" (I wonder why he didn't say "America" this year?)

Just to get a last bit off my chest: "values", he said...what values? What the heck ARE American values? Oh yes and...far as I can see, neither the USA nor its people are "exceptional". The USA is beautiful - but so are countless other countries, its people, on the whole are pretty nice, but so are the people of most other countries. Dang, but I wish Presidents would disabuse themselves of that notion of exceptionalism!

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

S O T U

President Obama will deliver his State of the Union address tonight to the first Republican-controlled Congress of his presidency. White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer has revealed the theme of the speech: "middle-class economics", ways to improve wage stagnation and economic mobility. How much time and emphasis will the President give to climate change? Any bets?



I haven't decided whether to watch the speech or wait until tomorrow and read it and weep.

I opened this blog during the second half of 2006, my first experience, as a blogger, of a State of the Union address was in January 2007 - here's what I wrote about it, the post's title was "State of the Hypocrisy". The address was, of course, by George W. Bush:
I'm a foreigner here in the USA, a legal resident, but until such time as I can apply for US citizenship still a foreigner, a British citizen.

I'm interested and concerned about American politics, so I watched all of last night's State of the Union address, and the discussions which followed. I had to watch alone, because my husband refuses to watch or listen to "his" president, so great is his disgust and dismay at current policies. By the time the proceedings had wound down, I was left with a bad headache! Next year I shall follow my husband's example.

As I watched and listened I was amazed at the obsequiousness of both parties towards the president. Many of these men and women profess to detest the president's policies, yet they leapt to their feet at every opportunity, applauded each proposition he put forward. Few, if any, remained seated throughout, few didn't wish to shake his hand and smarm over him as he entered the hall like some great prize fighter, and left, signing autographs for fawning fans along the way. I realise that all of this is "just for show" - but why? Isn't this hypocrisy? I suppose it's tradition. Traditional hypocrisy.

There are more than enough bloggers giving their opinions about the content of the president's speech, so I'll limit myself to one point only - the one which disappointed me the most, and the one about which even I, as a foreigner here, have some right to voice my opinion. Mr Bush mentioned global warming only once, and almost as an afterthought. After outlining plans to conserve energy, reduce the use of gasoline etc. for the stated purpose of reducing America's dependence on oil ..... then...oh yes, one short sentence acknowledging that these measures would help the environment and global warming. He actually said the words "global warming". No acknowledgement though that global warming IS a serious threat. I wonder what Senator Inhofe, our Oklahoma senator, thought about the mention of global warming - he's been declaring, for the past several years, that it's all a great hoax. I bet he was on his feet applauding with the rest of 'em .

Sigh. Al Gore - come back to politics - PLEASE!!!

I must get back to astrology before I blow a fuse!!
Playing this drinking game tonight would require listening carefully to what's being said, but this way could make it more fun! Maybe I'll watch after all - glass in hand.

 Hat-tip HERE

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Flotsam from the Week That Was

Photo:  Sean Gallup/Getty
Has President Obama at last sensed a cold blast heading his way from what he likes to call "his base", where once only balmy (not to mention barmy) breezes blew? It reminds me of some of Bob Dylan's lyrics in To Make You Feel My Love (recently brought up to date by Adele)-
The storms are raging on the rolling sea
And on the highway of regret
The winds of change are blowing wild and free
You ain't seen nothing like me yet...
The President has been talking a good talk on at least four topics since the midterm elections early this month: climate change agreement (in principle) with China; immigration reform (announced on Thursday evening that he will use his executive powers to prevent deportation of certain classes of undocumented immigrants); Keystone XL Pipeline (the Senate voted against it on Tuesday, relieving President of any further action - for now); and net neutrality - pending.

Will President Obama reveal, at this late date, what some die-hard Democrat fans, and a mixed bunch of Republican right wing and Tea Party nut cases still like to believe or hope, is "the real Obama"...a closet leftist with Marxist roots, ready to stand up and fight for what in his heart of hearts he knows to be right or or rather left? I wish I could believe that.

A good piece by John Grant at "This Can't be Happening", also at Counterpunch relates.
Is Lame Duck Obama Ready to fight?




A British actor with a multi-syllabic name, Benedict Cumberbatch (on right in photograph), has been doing the publicity rounds promoting the movie The Imitation Game, in which he plays the lead part of Alan Turing (left in photograph). Turing helped to shorten World War II by cracking the "unbreakable" German Enigma Code. After the war, he was arrested for homosexual activities.
Turing's natal chart with a nutshell size explanation is at astrologer Bob Marks' website HERE.





Interpreting Mona Lisa - by a group of youngsters in a local art class. Husband noticed these on display in the lobby at our local concert hall and snapped 'em. He now wishes he'd stopped to take closer shots of each.

It's not hard, even in this small size (click on it to see a slightly bigger version) to identify seminal rebels among this group of young artists.


Mona Lisa





Tweet from "God" this week:
It's funny how nearly all the people who believe global warming is a myth also believe I'm not.







 From 9GAG.COM 



We watched the 1960 film version of H.G. Wells' The Time Machine on Turner Classic Movie channel, Thursday evening. I'd seen it more than once before, and read the book long ago, in my youth. I count the tale as one of the best of its genre, especially as it was first published in 1895.


A refreshers from Wikipedia

Social class was a theme in Wells's The Time Machine in which the Time Traveller speaks of the future world, with its two races, as having evolved from the gradual widening of the present (19th century) merely temporary and social difference between the Capitalist and the Labourer ... Even now, does not an East-end (of London) worker live in such artificial conditions as practically to be cut off from the natural surface of the earth? Again, the exclusive tendency of richer people ... is already leading to the closing, in their interest, of considerable portions of the surface of the land. About London, for instance, perhaps half the prettier country is shut in against intrusion.

Wells has this very same Time Traveller, reflecting his own socialist leanings, refer in a tongue-in-cheek manner to an imagined world of stark class division as "perfect" and with no social problem unsolved. His Time Traveller thus highlights how strict class division leads to the eventual downfall of the human race:

"Once, life and property must have reached almost absolute safety. The rich had been assured of his wealth and comfort, the toiler assured of his life and work. No doubt in that perfect world there had been no unemployed problem, no social question left unsolved."

More from another page of Wikipedia on the two ways H.G. Wells imagined humans had evolved in the far distant future:

By the year 802,701 CE, humanity has evolved into two separate species: the Eloi and the Morlocks. The Eloi are the child-like, frail group, living a banal life of ease on the surface of the earth, while the Morlocks live underground, tending machinery and providing food, clothing and infrastructure for the Eloi. Each class evolved and degenerated from humans. The novel suggests that the separation of species may have been the result of a widening split between different social classes, a theme that reflects Wells' sociopolitical opinions.

The main difference from their earlier ruler-worker state is that, while the Morlocks continue to support the world's infrastructure and serve the Eloi, the Eloi have undergone significant physical and mental deterioration. Having solved all problems that required strength, intelligence, or virtue, they have slowly become dissolute and naive. They are described as being smaller than modern humans, having shoulder-length curly hair, chins that ran to a point, large eyes, small ears, and small mouths with bright red thin lips. They are of sub-human intelligence, though apparently intelligent enough to speak, and they have a primitive language.

While one initially has the impression that the Eloi people live a life of play and toil-less abundance, it is revealed that the Morlocks are attending to the Eloi's needs for the same reason a farmer tends cattle; the Morlocks use the Eloi for food.

More on H.G. Wells and his natal chart at an archived post HERE.

Sunday, August 03, 2014

What did we do in the "war" (on terror) Daddy 'O'?


"We tortured some folks".

Using the royal "We" are we?

"We" also killed some folks, aka children and civilians, with "our" drones, didn't "we"?

What exactly are "we" then?

Monsters?

"Erm...uh..."

HERE.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

DAR-de-dar

It's peculiar how, sometimes, a chance encounter among my own archives can lead to a many-forked unmade road and route to "what to write about next".

A post titled Lightworker? from 2008 featuring words from a column written by journalist Mark Morford on the topic of Barack Obama's (ahem) "light", was the first road sign. I've included a link to the article itself because that in my old post is no longer live. After I'd stopped laughing, I quickly checked to find a more recent column of Mark Morford's on President Obama and found one, Obama and the harsh reality check . After the first few paragraphs of that piece which I think must be from late last year, Mr Morford gets down to the nitty gritty and blows clean away any of that "light" nonsense of 2008.

The road forked from there, to various commentary about Mark Morford's journalistic style and comparison with that of another columnist, Jon Carroll.

Onward....I found a few of Jon Carroll's columns at SF Gate, read and enjoyed several; wished I could find birth dates for both Morford and Carroll to compare them - I couldn't. One of Jon Carroll's columns had inspired an idea for a blog post though. The Mystery of Jewdar.

In that column the author first discusses "gaydar", said to be an intuitive sense of whether a person is gay. He then moves on to "Jewdar", which I'd never heard of, but would be an intuitive sense to indicate a person exuding Jewishness. I'm not clear what benefit being in possession of either sensibility would be, though as Carroll wrote, in Germany and parts of Europe in the 1930s/40s being in possession of acute "Jewdar" would have been valuable in deciding who one's friends were.

Whether those two "-dars" are sensed via visible signs and signals, or in accordance with that old adage: "it takes one to know one", or perhaps from both combined, or from some real, but as yet unidentified, human radar-like sense I shall not guess, nor shall I delve further into either sensitive topic. I will invent a new "-dar".

In fact, there's scope for 12 new "-dars" for those among us who claim to be able to sense a person's astrological type. I do not, emphasise NOT, mean their Sun sign. Astrological type could be a Sun sign, but could equally be Moon sign or ascendant sign, or could emanate from a heavy cluster of planets in one sign. It'd be, for instance, a feeling of...."He/She seems very Taurean", or "I'd bet he has a lot of Gemini in his chart, or that was a Scorpio-type if ever I met one!"

What'll we call these "dars"? Aridar, Taurdar, Gemdar, Candar, Leodar, Virdar, Libradar, Scordar, Sagdar, Capridar, Aquadar, Pidar ?

Is this a reasonable proposition? Any ideas?

Sunday, December 22, 2013

Up a Lazy River Without a Paddle?

Ted Rall's diatribe posted at Smirking Chimp this weekend encouraged me to break my self-imposed rule not to post political and depressing stuff during this season of traditional warmth and goodwill. I feel that Mr Rall's words would be exactly what I'd write - if I had the talent and knowledge.
Obama's Governus Interruptus

Points made in this piece seem harsh, but they do reflect the truth, in my opinion, and ought not to be buried.


Snips:
Dude went to Columbia and Harvard. He seems smart. What’s wrong with him? Is he — as his former colleagues at the University of Chicago, who noticed that he never published — lazy? He’s certainly a far cry from the LBJ who, according to his biographer Robert Caro, routinely burned the midnight oil committing every sentence of every bill, ever, to memory.

Obviously, a president who finds time to watch sports, play golf and kick off for vacations for weeks at a time — while the global economy is melting down — hell, while his signature legislative accomplishment, Obamacare has all but completely imploded — is lazy as all get up. Still, there’s nothing new about presidential sloth. Reagan, Clinton and Bush all worked less than the average minimum-wage worker whose misery they were steadfastly ignoring.

Obama is unique, though. It goes beyond laziness. He doesn’t follow tried and true practices of presidential governance that have served his predecessors for more than two centuries. Intentional? Who knows? It seems more than likely that (and this is so outlandish that I’ve literally waited years to write these words) he is so ignorant of history that he doesn’t know why and how previous presidents have failed and succeeded. Because, let’s face it, if this is three-dimensional chess, he’s down three queens.

Regarding the "lazy" accusation. I suspected as much way back in 2008, even though I did vote for him in that election. In one of the presidential debates I clearly recall his answer when asked a question on which part of presidential duties he'd dislike most. He responded along the lines that he doesn't enjoy routine office-type work and leaves all that to assistants. Which is alright, on the surface of it, most managers do the same, but for me it clanged a warning bell

Ah well, three more years......"we might have someone worse in 2016" I hear someone whisper - or shout. We might indeed, but that doesn't excuse the now.

Saturday, November 09, 2013

LIES



An always relevant song by David Frishberg (see an earlier post about him HERE). The song came to mind when I heard a brief discussion on the radio the other day about President Obama's comment on the Affordable Care Act - that anyone happy with their current health insurance policy would be able to keep it under the new legislation. Some people have found that this pledge doesn't hold water. Some are labelling it an outright lie.

The Prez has added a caveat, or tweak, more recently to that earlier promise. Speaking to supporters this week in Washington: "Now, if you had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed," he said.

Was it a lie originally? Husband and I chatted on the question and couldn't fully agree.

My view is that, if Obama had felt confident enough to make such a statement originally, then there should have been some clause in the Affordable Care Act backing up his pledge and absolutely preventing insurance companies from reneging on, or cancelling, policies if policy holders wished to keep them. Apparently this was not the case. So, either the President was not familiar enough with the complexities of the Act, or it really was a lie to placate opposition. As with everything Obama - we can never be absolutely sure. Either way it was a "misleading statement", deliberate or not, to be added to the roll of "misleading statements" we've heard, since 2007, from Barack Obama.

With regard to the snafus at the Obamacare website - good advice to one and all:

Monday, October 14, 2013

Next Exit 2016?

The outlook is dull, no silver linings can be seen behind the clouds, so far. To brighten things, how about looking further ahead than the next government shutdown (if this one ever ends).

2016? Whenever I have to face something I don't enjoy ( major dental or medical treatment for example) I send my mind well ahead to when it'll all be over, and concentrate on that. Perhaps concentrating on future possibilities now would serve to lighten our darkening skies a little.

I read a decent piece by Sean McElwee in this vein yesterday at Salon, with some interesting comments attached:
"To defeat the Tea Party, the left needs bolder leader than Hillary
The right's tactics won't change. Democrats need a 2016 candidate who fights differently than Clinton and Obama."


Whether Hillary Clinton will run for the presidency in 2016 isn't clear, but let's say she will. Would she be the best way forward for the "left"? I use the word "left" with caution, because really and truly there is no representative of the true left in the USA - such a person is not allowed to rise. If one were to appear on the scene he/she would be put down rapidly, either by ridicule or something more destructive. I shall have to curb my enthusiasm for true leftists and third parties in 2016, while still scanning the horizon anxiously for the rise of one of them. Bearing all that in mind then, would Hillary be the best we could hope for as next President? I must not forget that the president is only one piece of the picture. More truly left-leaning and outspoken congress people would be an even more important step to take at election time - but where are such people? Perhaps a few more of them will appear in 2014 and 2016, emboldened by the currently wretched job incumbents are doing.

One commenter to the linked piece pointed out that progress towards the left, however much many of us wish for it, has to be very, very gradual, in order to avoid dangerous backlash from the extreme rightist and/or dominionist factions. I agree, reluctantly. Hillary does fill that requirement. From what I've read about her early years, she did seem, then, to be of the true left. Her experiences with "the guys behind the curtain" must have dampened her leftist ardour in maturity. She does know how to play the game, must have learned many lessons from Bill. How to play the game is a valuable skill to have, in the circumstances. The skill: an ability to please "the guys behind the curtain" while still helping the rest of us, and the nation, as much as possible. Maybe this would be further lesser evilism, but if, for the time being, it's all we can have....what else is there, other than to keep scanning the horizon for signs of change?

The argument I see often, that "the US isn't really a leftist country at heart", doesn't ring true. Look what happened when candidate Barack Obama presented his original promises of hope and change, leftist proposals all the way from him - then: fighting Wall Street, making government more open and transparent, healthcare legislation with a public option, closing Gitmo, and more. You remember all those good promises? The people ate them up, ravenously, and voted him in. Then what happened? His devoted followers still insist that he has been thwarted at every turn by an intransigent congress. Others consider he was a centrist or mild conservative from the start, someone wily enough to know how to play the base sufficiently well to get into the White House. History will decide which was the true face of Barack Obama. What his original triumphant win did prove is that the USA truly wants to be the more left-leaning nation it is not presently allowed to be.

Names such as Elizabeth Warren, are being thrown around as an alternative to Hillary Clinton for the Democrats in 2016. I think Ms Warren is too new to the game, but in time she could prove to be the nation's saviour. 2020? 2024? I'd like to see Alan Grayson and Bernie Sanders in positions of some power, if not president, with considerably more national influence - and Dennis Kucinich of course. It's not likely to happen in my lifetime though, maybe not even in theirs.

Well....that didn't turn out to be a particularly sky-lightening exercise after all. Hmmmm. I shall have to take the following to heart:
“Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves.

Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.”

~ Bruce Lee


Wednesday, September 11, 2013

SMALL STEPS

Small steps.
#1 When the UK stepped back from allying itself with the US on proposed military action in Syria.
#2 when President Obama decided to take his case for military action in Syria to Congress for approval.
#3 The suggestion by Putin that if Assad allowed inspectors to quarantine and destroy his store of chemical weapons that would preclude any US military intervention.
#4 President Obama, in his speech, hastily re-jigged due to fast-moving changes, postponing Congressional vote on the issue, agreeing to await outcome of proposed solution.

Small steps which would, ideally, have been taken in reverse order - beginning with efforts to solve the crisis without force and further pain and bloodshed in Syria, this time at our hands. But as always, we take what we can get and feel thankful for the breathing space, with hopes that a crisis can, for once, be solved peacefully.

I did watch President Obama's speech on Tuesday evening, unusual for me, because what he says usually bears no relevance to what actually happens, so I tend not to bother. I was curious to see how his speech writers would have managed to spin the re-jig in light of fast changing events.

I called out to the screen just twice, towards the end. Once when the Prez said
To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor, for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.

I shouted back: "And what about the children lying dead or writhing in pain as a result of your kill lists and drones Mr Obama?"

Then at the end of the speech, when he said:
That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.

I shouted "You are not exceptional, and you are not humble. Simple as that."

But.... small steps can lead towards peace, so we'll take whatever we can get!

Received this a few minutes ago with request to share wherever possible....so:

Sunday, September 08, 2013

"....every 100 years"

Last paragraph of a piece titled Kaiser Obama by Elliot Sperber at Counterpunch this weekend

To be sure, as Obama argues his case for bombing Syria it is interesting to reflect upon the fact that at least since the death of Louis XIV, in 1715, there has been a major shake up in European western power every hundred years. In 1815, after the defeat of Napoleon, the alliance largely established at the Congress of Vienna maintained a balance of power that persisted until an industrializing, unified Germany upset it, leading to World War I in 1914, after which a new Order arose. And now, in 2013, over 20 years since the end of the Cold War, one cannot help but wonder whether an overextended, historically unpopular US will precipitate its own demise, joining Napoleon’s Empire, and the Austro Hungarian Empire, and so many others in the clutter of the dustbin of history.

100 years? None of the major outer planets' orbits (or related oppositions etc) is near enough to 100 years to reflect any "shake-up effect" in a 100-year cycle. (Uranus= 84 years, Neptune 165 = years, Pluto 248= years). Out of curiosity I looked up length of Eris's orbit (557 years), then Chiron (about 50 years) which led to Pholus (92 years).

Two orbits of Chiron = 100 years, that's not a good fit though. Alternatively, 1 orbit of Pholus comes nearest to 100 years. I know nothing of Pholus. Let's see.....From HERE at astro.com re Pholus
According to first astrological observations, Pholus gives unusual ability in a particular area, or unexpected results, due to a gift for experiment. Pholus' transits over the main axes of a chart, often mark radical and unexpected change, hinted at by his sudden and unexpected death in the myth.
Coincidence? Maybe. Just a thought.

Tuesday, September 03, 2013

Red Lines In Art & In Life


President Obama's metaphorical "red line" drawn in an attempt to prevent or dissuade the use of chemical weapons, still could mean the use of military force by the USA and consequently even more killing. Seems to me to be counter-productive in the worst possible way.

We all have metaphorical red lines of one sort or another. This is being illustrated vividly by current TV series Breaking Bad.


I've mentioned Breaking Bad in a post once before, in February:
Thoughts on Crime and Morality. Since then, when we'd seen a backlog of old episodes via DVD, the series has returned to TV for its final season, a season taken in two "bites", first bite watched again via DVD, but we're now properly on board in real time on Sunday evenings for the last few episodes of all.

The story, layered and layered again as it is, never ceases to surprise us with twists and turns. Brilliant writing, even more brilliant acting, well deserving of Awards already received.

I never forget that, as Walter White, his family and his young, much abused protégé, Jesse Pinkman stumble towards what can only, logically, be a dark ending for all involved, that the insidious seed from which all this grew was lack of proper health care availability in the USA.

First we watched the "breaking bad" of a formerly mild mannered though talented chemistry teacher, his interaction with others who were either already broken themselves or on the cusp of it. The story was then about Walter White's breaking. As will always happen, once an apple turns rotten, the rot spreads.

We are now discovering exactly where, as with Obama and chemical weapons, the secondary characters each find their own "red lines". Walter White's wife, his brother-in-law and sister-in-law, all formerly presented as fine, moral, upright citizens, have at last reached their red lines and are, verbally at least, beginning to break bad.

What would it take for any of us to break bad? To consider killing, or even harming, another person? Threats to loved ones? Threats to our preferred way of life? Threats to our hubris or dignity? We wouldn't know for sure until presented with such scenarios in our own lives.

For our President, it's not a difficult choice. He can and does order drone attacks, which regularly kill innocents and children. I'd say he's broken bad already. He has the authority, now, in his own mind, to attack Syria, but is attempting to give himself cover by seeking the approval of Congress. How many of them have broken bad?
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche.

Friday, August 23, 2013

"THE BUTLER"

On Monday evening we saw the movie The Butler (more correctly titled Lee Daniels' The Butler, due to some copyright debacle). The movie is another on the same wavelength as The Help and 42. The Help told the story of female African American domestic workers struggling against invidious segregation in the USA during the 1950s and 60s; 42 focused on an African American baseball player and his eventual rise to fame during a similar period. The Butler, as its title implies, shows us the view of similar times, but from the perspective of an African American butler in the White House. This film, like 42, is based on a true story, the life of Eugene Allen who served at the White House under eight US presidents from Truman to Reagan.


In the movie Forest Whitaker plays the fictional part of Cecil Gaines reflecting real life experiences of Eugene Allen (excellent performance it is too). We follow his life story from childhood on a cotton plantation, where he witnesses the murder of his father after his mother (played by Mariah Carey) is raped by the plantation overseer. Matriarch of the plantation (played by Vanessa Redgrave) takes pity on the bereft child, makes him a house servant, inducts him into the ways of house servants - along the lines of: The room should feel empty when you're in it.

After several years as house servant the young Gaines moves on, obtains work as a hotel steward, is further groomed, in the high arts of obsequiousness and attention to the smallest detail, by an old hand at the job. After some further years of polishing his skills Cecil is noticed and later head-hunted by a White House official.

The movie up to this point was done very well, I thought. It brought back memories of that wonderful mini-series Roots. I wasn't quite as impressed by the next section of the film, but was very interested to see how it unfolded.

We stagger uncertainly along with Cecil's first nervous steps in what would be an overwhelming experience for any of us, in any circumstance. One of the first things he's instructed by the head butler, and the first laugh of the movie for me and Himself:"We don't have politics in the White House". Cecil soon gets into the White House groove, his past training serves him well. We see him interact with a succession of presidents starting with Eisenhower (would you believe Robin Williams?), JFK (James Marsden who seemed way too petite for JFK - there must be actors more like him surely?) Jackie and Caroline Kennedy, LBJ (Liev Schreiber), Richard Nixon (good if cartoonish turn by John Cusack), and Reagan (interesting effort by Alan Rickman who couldn't keep that wicked twinkle from his eye), with Nancy played, to the chagrin of many commenters, by "Hanoi" Jane Fonda, I thought she seemed just right for the part, albeit maybe a tad too tall.


Along with the expected focus on highlights and lowlights of the several presidencies the film follows Cecil's home life, and regained its former quality in my eyes. He married Gloria (Oprah Winfrey -blogger muffles a groan) and has two sons, Louis (David Oyelowo ) and Charlie (Elijah Kelley). I'll not spoil the movie further for any passing reader who intends to see it by outlining the trials and tribulations linked to this part of Cecil's life. Enough to say that he faces heartache and dilemma vis–à–vis what is going on in the world outside the White House bubble in which he spends most of his waking hours. I'd best say also that, in spite of my strange intolerance for Ms Winfrey she did put in a very good performance.

The reason I wasn't as impressed with the White House section of the movie was its swing into almost cartoon mode at times. The film went from darkly serious, almost painfully so, to verging on farce. False noses, not even well-done false noses, LBJ sitting on the lavatory, JFK looking like a diminutive Tony Blair, Reagan - well...Rickman - need I say more? Now, I'm quite open to ridiculing presidents - most have deserved it at some point, but here it just seemed out of sync with the earlier tone of this movie and many of the later scenes. Cecil seemed to have genuine affection for at least some of the presidents. He wore a tie of JFK, given to him by Jackie, and the tie clip given to him by LBJ, to go to the White House to meet the new President Obama - this was after Cecil's retirement of course.

At this point I'll have a quick grumble.

As the movie ended, Cecil his family and friends were, naturally, overjoyed at the election of Barack Obama to the presidency. We watch them celebrate. At the time, in 2008, I celebrated too, I wept too. But ye gods, I'm angry now! Look what happened. Obama let them down. He let his people down. He let everyone who voted for him down.

"Enough"....I clearly remember newly elected Prez Obama saying that word. We should all echo it back to him....ENOUGH!

Sunday, July 21, 2013

HELEN THOMAS

RIP Helen Thomas, who died, aged 92 yesterday - a long life, well-lived, I'd say. She was an author and former news service reporter, member of the White House press corps for many years.

My two archived posts about Ms Thomas, including her natal chart, are at:

Saturday/Sunday Superwomen (2008)
And
Helen Thomas, the President & Old Friend Neptune (Feb.2009)


I had to wince upon re-reading some lines from the 2009 post at the second of those links.
And our new President? I reckon he's doing just fine in the abysmal circumstances facing this country and the world. He inspires confidence. I very happily take back any suspicions I had early in the primaries that his lack of experience would be a detriment, and that a constant Neptunian vibe I got from him was A Bad Thing. I was reminded of that Neptunian vibe again the other day when I noticed the title of an article by John V. Santore at Huffington Post: "Obama Isn't Who I Didn't Think He Was. But He Might Be."
Doesn't that title reflect Neptune so very well?

Perhaps nobody can yet see President Obama without a wisp or two of fog around him. That's not an entirely bad thing though. It keeps us alert. Alert enough to note any mis-steps. The President is a human being, he'll make a few of those. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in a Neptunian fog far denser than those wispy clouds around President Obama.

Whaaaaat? Did I feel like that - then? "He inspires confidence" ? What a difference four years can make!

Monday, May 20, 2013

OBAMA x 3

In an archived post of mine from September 7 2011, "Each Man is 3 Men" ~ President Obama's 3 Men
I tried to identify the 3 Obamas with the help of astrology. Almost two years have passed, we're now several months into the President's second term. Have Obama's "3 Men" become any clearer to an observer? I guess it depends from which political vantage point one views the scene.
"Each man is three men:
What he thinks he is,
What others think he is,
and
What he really is."
I'll take another stab at it - this time sans astrology.

What he thinks he is ~ Only Barack Obama can know what he thinks he is - that's for sure. Even his closest companion, his wife, will not be 100% certain of how he honestly sees himself.

What others think he is ~ This one can have as many answers as there are people observing him. The main groups' opinions seem to fall along these broad lines:
Republicans of the far right like to think he's a socialist, Marxist ready to sell out the USA lock stock and ....whatever.

Moderate conservative and corporate Republicans tend to see him as weak and worth bullying to get their way.

Centre-left Democrats keep holding on to experience the kind of "Hope and Change" their hero promised he'd bring to them in 2008. They see him as a good guy hamstrung by wicked right-wing politics.

Progressive Democrats on the left of the party have begun to see through the Obama fog and are daring to criticise their leader (not before time in my opinion - and too little, too late!)

Those further to the left, whether Democrat or of other parties or of no registered party, have been critcising the President for years, seeing him as, at best a middle-of-the-road conservative, not far removed from the likes of Ronald Reagan, and even to the right of Richard Nixon.


What he really is ~ I wish we could be sure.

Was he groomed from early on in his career (or sooner), by the Real Powers that Be, as a likely candidate for the presidency during a time - possibly not then identified - when a black (half black) presidential candidate would inspire the disillusioned masses initially, then, after some had seen through the plan he'd continue to be pushed as "better than the alternative". He was certainly pushed hard and aided by the corporate-owned media in 2008 and 2012. In 2008 it had seemed far more likely that Hillary Clinton was headed for the White House. In 2012 there was no primary challenger from the Democrats and other parties were virtually locked out. Why would the Real Powers have preferred Obama to H. Clinton in 2008? His inexperience, meaning malleability, and perhaps a rather conservative and corporate-friendly under-pinning to his superficially Democratic nature?

Or...was he absolutely truthful and sincere in all his 2008 campaign speeches? Did he really believe he could bring the kind of hope and change of which he spoke, and only found out once ensconced in the White House that he was to be little more than a puppet? If that was so - why did he campaign so hard for a second term?

Or..if he wasn't deliberately groomed, did he understand exactly what would and would not be possible as president, and decided to go for it anyway, using as much insincerity and as many lies as he needed? He's seen by many as a narcissist, not into a lot of grinding hard work, loves to leave the daily drudgery to others. (I remember he once said as much in a 2008 debate when asked what was his least favourite part of being a politician, and it rang a warning bell for me). He'll be set up for life now. In 2016 he'll create his presidential library, go off on speaking tours, write books and never have to work again.

So...what is he really?