Another Broken Reed ~ Rachel Maddow

She ain't kidding - and in more ways than one!

From investigative journalist Robert Parry's excellent piece:
When ‘Disinformation’ Is Truth, yesterday. It begins:

The anti-Russian McCarthyism that has spread out from the United States to encompass the European Union, Canada and Australia has at its core an implicit recognition that neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy have failed.

Later in the piece, under section heading New McCarthyism and Maddow:

But it appears now that many liberals and even progressives are so blinded by their hatred of Trump that they haven’t thought through the wisdom of their new alliance with the neocons — or the fairness of smearing fellow Americans as “Putin apologists.”

Meanwhile, mainstream news organizations have abandoned even the pretense of professional objectivity in their propagandistic approach toward anything related to Russia or Trump. For instance, I would defy anyone reading The New York Times’ coverage of Russia to assess it as fair and balanced when it is clearly snarky and sneering.

It also turns out that this New McCarthyism has become profitable for its leading practitioners. The New York Times reported on Monday that the ratings for MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow are soaring with her frequent anti-Russian rants.

“Now, rattled liberals are surging back [to network television], seeking catharsis, solidarity and relief,” the Times wrote, citing a Kentucky woman explaining why she has become a devotee of Maddow: “She’s always talking about the Russians!”

Frankly, for the past dozen years, I’ve wondered about Maddow. I first heard her on the radio in August 2005 when she was a summer fill-in at Air America reporting on President George W. Bush’s Katrina fiasco, which she partly blamed on the deployment of Louisiana National Guard units to Iraq, so they couldn’t help evacuate flooded New Orleans.

It was clear that Maddow was talented and her excoriation of the Iraq War was on point, although – by summer 2005 – it didn’t require a huge amount of journalistic courage to slam Bush over the Iraq War. As I watched her career rise through a regular Air America gig to her show on MSNBC and then to stardom as an anchor on the network’s election coverage, I always wondered whether she would put her lucrative corporate acceptance at risk and go against the grain at a tough journalistic moment.

Now, Maddow’s behavior in becoming a modern-day mainstream-media Joe McCarthy has put my doubts to rest. She is riding high in the ratings by keeping her whip hand coming down hard on the bash-Russia steed. She is putting her career or her politics ahead of journalism.

Like so many other Democrat/liberal/neocon activists, Maddow not only ignores the evidentiary gaps in the Russia-did-it conspiracy theory but she seems oblivious to the dangers of her opportunism. By stirring up this McCarthyistic frenzy, she and her “never-Trump” allies make a rational policy toward nuclear-armed Russia nearly impossible. Thus, she is contributing to the real risk of a hot war with Russia that could lead to the annihilation of life on the planet.

So Ms Maddow, in my estimation too, has traced a downward spiral since 2008, when I wrote, still somewhat starry eyed:

Rachel Maddow: One For The Future? (9 Sep. 2008)

I wonder who'll be on the political scene in the USA around 10 years from now, say for the elections in 2016 and 2020? One name in the future's political headlines which wouldn't surprise me a bit would be Rachel Maddow. She's 35 now, in ten years she'll be just about the right age to run as a presidential candidate, or be chosen as VP, having perhaps done a stint in the House or Senate in intervening years.

Rachel's new TV show, which has all the hallmarks of being "the one to watch" for those keen on politics, was aired for the first time last night. She has been seen fairly regularly on MSNBC all year, doing pundit duty along with Olbermann, Matthews, Buchanan and the rest, as well as presenting a regular radio show on Air America. She strikes me as the type of person for whom US politics is crying out. She oozes confidence, speaks and debates with a no nonsense clarity, clear grasp of issues, but never loses her calm, friendly approach.

After astrological meanderings on her natal chart:

It'll be interesting to watch Rachel Maddow's progress from here on.

However, by June 2012 I wrote in a post HERE:

I no longer watch MSNBC (bad for my BP!) In the days when I did watch, when Rachel Maddow's show first aired, in 2008, I wrote a post about her and her natal chart. That was before the political scales dropped from my eyes. I still enjoy hearing Rachel speak when interviewed outside of her show, but feel now much as Nick Gillespie indicated. He accused Maddow and Maher of being partisan. Well DUH!! They are. Maher gave President Obama's campaign fund $1 million cheque recently. In Maddow's professional eyes Democrats and President Obama can do no wrong. We have no means of knowing how she really feels....................................................Talking heads - all of them, including Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert as well as the MSNBC and Fox crowd are there to serve a single purpose - support for the two political establishments in the USA, to keep the controversy going, keep the country divided.

Broken reeds - so many of 'em to left and to right, so many I used to admire, but now see the error of my starry-eyed ways!

Thoughts Astological on Keith Olbermann's Dismissal

Oh dear! Keith Olbermann has been given the old heave-ho yet again, this time by the bosses of Current TV who released a statement, signed by Al Gore and Joel Hyatt, the founders, indicating that relationship with Olbermann had devolved to an unsustainable point. Olbermann released a statment of his own, via Twitter, indicating that he intends to take legal action against Current.

I haven't seen Keith Olbermann's show on Current, it's not available through our cable package. Occasional YouTube videos of clips from his show prove that his style has remained much the same as during his time at MSNBC : angry (with good reason) and passionate.




A Grand Cross formation in his natal chart links planets in fixed signs: Mars in Taurus, Venus in Aquarius, Jupiter in Scorpio and Uranus in Leo (also loosely Pluto in Virgo). This configuration is significant in Olbermann's overall nature. Astrologers see such a formation, especially when in Fixed signs, as indicating a constant state of tension and challenge - and certainly no indication of a relaxed, easy-going temperament.

While to his TV audience Olbermann comes over as clear, fairly informal, informed and passionate about his subject, behind the scenes he is reported by those who have worked with him, to be difficult. It seems he "doesn't play well with others". Or perhaps others don't play well with him ? Sun in Aquarius people can appear intimidating, cold or stand-offish to some non-Aquarius-types. Of the Air signs Aquarius is generally less sociable than Gemini and less overtly charming than Libra. (Disclaimer: my birthday is on the same day as Olbermann's - I was not born the same year though).

Another astro point to consider: Olbermann's natal Saturn at 2 Capricorn is still within orb (limit) of transiting Pluto currently at 9 Capricorn. This was also the case during his firing from MSNBC last summer. Pluto impacting a personal planet can play havoc. I know this from the time Pluto transited my natal Venus and my whole world collapsed subsequently to be re-built. As Saturn connects to work (rather than Venus's connection to love in my case) Pluto transiting natal Saturn is likely to be transformational in the work area in some way or other. Something else to consider: Al Gore, one of Current TV's founders has Moon at 3 degrees of Capricorn - also under transiting Pluto's shadow. Perhaps they have both been feeling extra scratchy during recent months.

Through clearing fog....President Obama

Did any astrologer "see" the real Barack Obama in the run up to the 2008 election, or during the weeks immediately following? I was beginning to doubt it when I stumbled across this, fairly brief, Obama astro-profile written in 2008 by astrologer Hunter Reynolds: Barack Obama’s astrology chart: “Grace in a Cracked Vessel”
Snips:

When I stare at the symbolic map of his psyche and consider his unique blessings and blind spots, I am sobered. He — like all of us — is a cracked vessel........

To the extent that he uses his charisma for self-aggrandizement instead of advocating for those whose suffering he feels as his own, his ambition becomes his undoing.

Minus the cathartic, body-reclaiming routines of basketball and regular workouts, his articulate activism could easily slip into provocative impatience; his altruistic passion could degenerate into dominating others "for their own good."

This much is certain: Barak is a born representative. He is both qualified and cursed to serve as a the face of our collective ego, for on the breath of his luminous presence is a trace of nicotine—a whiff of our own secret shame.

Hunter Reynolds' website is Astrodharma, by the way.

Did anybody else see the real Obama? From what they're saying now, a few amateur political commentators who have been marinated in US politics for most of their adult lives did. Apparently they tried vainly to pass on the knowledge to the rest of us, who were too busy Yes We Can-ing to listen.

I wasn't that busy chanting, to be honest. Having achieved US citizenship in 2008, just in time to register for voting, I registered Independent, and started by supporting the single candidate saying the things I wanted to hear: Dennis Kucinich. He was pretty much ignored or worse, ridiculed. He withdrew. I wondered about John Edwards, then Hillary, but eventually just went with the crowd and Obama. I really thought him too inexperienced to be taking on such a huge job, made even more huge by Prez G.W. Bush's 8-year stint. I had no inkling things were going to turn out this bad, though. None. I have always felt that there's a aura of mystery around Obama. In astro-terms he's very Neptuney, and has turned out to be a shape-shifter extraordinaire.

The real Obama hove into view some months ago, for those of us who are straining to peer through the slowly clearing Neptune fog.

One of my favourite political commentators, Prof. David Michael Green, associate professor of Political Science at Hofstra University, located in Hempstead, New York, wrote a brilliant essay at the weekend: "Stupid Democrats, Stupid Republicans", it outlines the present situation wonderfully well. The full, long essay can be read at Prof. Green's website The Regressive Antidote.

Extracts:

The thing about Obama that neither Democrats nor Republicans understand is that this guy is fundamentally regressive in his politics. That is the essence of his presidency, though – astonishingly – very few people get that. Look at the litany of issues addressed above. If you honestly asked yourself for each of them what, in the abstract, would a progressive president do, and what would a regressive president do, you can immediately decipher the true nature of Barack Obama. A progressive president wouldn’t triple American forces in Afghanistan and launch three new wars abroad, but a regressive president would. A progressive president wouldn’t out-do Dick Cheney in wrecking the Bill of Rights, but a regressive president would. A progressive president wouldn’t follow behind the lead of Republicans on civil rights issues, but a regressive president would.

And that’s just what this regressive president has done, all down the line. Never mind that we’re just getting started here. We could go on and on with this, issue after issue. What do you think a regressive president would do about the planetary nightmare of global warming? Nothing, perhaps? Gee, does that sound familiar? How about giving out unprecedentedly gigantic oil tracts off the Atlantic coast? Or multiple rounds of additional tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy? Hey, where have I heard that before? Even Obama’s signature ‘liberal’ issue, his health care plan, was just dandy from the perspective of the insurance industry, with whom he cut a deal at the very beginning of the legislative process......

Democrats are stupid about this. They still mostly like Obama, to the tune of about 75-80 percent job approval, though they might grumble here and there about this or that perceived failing of the president’s. It is a measure of their abysmally low standards and our pathetic national political discourse that policies like Obama’s can satisfy his base, so much so that he won’t even face a primary challenger from his left........

These attitudes are also a measure of bias as well, or what one might describe as a sort of political tribalism of the uninformed........

Why? I suppose some of it is because he’s black. And some of it is because he’s young and articulate and energetic and photogenic. Mostly, though, I think it’s because he’s a Democrat, and people are so tuned out from public affairs – despite what public affairs policy decisions are doing to their lives right now – that they simply go with that in-group vs. out-group rubric: “Democrat good, Republican bad”. Chances are they got that from their families and communities, along with their religion and nationalism and so on. Of course, to a certain extent, one of the key functions of political parties has always been simply to serve as precisely that sort of short-hand...... But there is a point at which such guiding assistance can cross a line into negligent laziness. More importantly, as in our time, there is a very real danger that today’s Democrat is far from being your father’s Democrat. At which point, using party labels to make otherwise blind decisions about politics becomes not just laziness or negligence, but complicity in a crime. And a crime where you’re one of the victims, no less.........................

In short, Democratic support and defense of Barack Obama is a sad joke. This guy is no liberal. He is, in fact, using liberal votes to join the Gingriches and Cheneys and Palins of this world in the project of destroying liberalism and its great achievement of massively widening the middle class and sharing national prosperity. Hey, not a bad gig, if you don’t mind the whole cynicism part, and the whole spending eternity in Hell thing.

.............It’s not a good sign when so many people – basically all of us – have politics which are so flat-out wrong. And if these feel like the worst of times politically in America, that is not such an exaggerated perception, notwithstanding the country’s more overt crises throughout the past two or three centuries...... There are significant differences now, however......... our body politic is so diminished that it can no longer recognize basic political facts anymore. Nothing is more emblematic of that than the case of Barack Obama. Democrats love him for being a good old liberal Democrat. Republicans hate him for the same reason. Both are so politically dumbed-down that neither can recognize how absurdly wrong they are on such a central question as the politics of the country’s chief executive.

But, of course, the biggest single problem facing the polity is that nobody is talking about the biggest single problem facing the polity. The country has been hijacked by hyper-greedy elites, who have demonstrated that there is absolutely no bottom to what they are willing to do to the rest of us, and to the country, to milk it and bilk it of every last remaining penny of value..........

A Ramsussen poll from March 2011 found that "Most voters think President Obama is more liberal than they are" - which says a lot about the level of critical thinking of a majority of people in the USA! Or, alternatively, about the rot at the heart of this nation, where the majority don't give a damn about what is happening to their fellows. Take your pick - either way it's not pretty!

This morning it seems Keith Olbermann too has seen the light - or the darkness surrounding the president.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/keith-olbermann-obama-social-security-medicare_n_895420.html

AQUARIUS NOTES ~ (My Astro Twin ~ Keith Olbermann's departure ~ What's in a name?)

A glance through the Aquarius links via Label Cloud in the sidebar refreshed my memory on previous posts concerning the sign itself, as well as people with Sun in Aquarius to whom I'm related or acquainted; and about some characters in public life born on the same day as I was, but in different years.

As far back as 2006, I wrote about an almost exact astrological twin of mine, born same day, year, with same ascendant sign and Moon/planets placements. We were born on opposite sides of the Atlantic though. I discovered him at astro.com's VIP Astro-Twins section.

I discovered when drafting this post that the gentleman in question, Brugh Joy, sadly died in December of 2009.

Ordinarily news of the death of an astrological twin might have un-nerved me somewhat. However, I'd been told, years ago, by Brugh Joy's assistant that Dr. Joy had a biological twin brother. So I was less worried. (Brugh Joy is on the left of his fraternal twin brother in this, more recent, photo, borrowed from a blog HERE.)


A Google search indicated that the brother, Bob, seems to have led quite a different lifestyle from that of his twin. He has been a teacher and adminstrator; whereas his twin was originally a doctor then, in 1974, a life-threatening disease led to a spiritual transformation and the writing of his best-selling book Joy's Way. He continued his explorations into healing, meditation, dreams and their interpretation, and the influence of the unconscious. His last book Avalanche: Heretical Reflections on the Dark and Light tells how his "once-revered values finally crumbled under an avalanche of new insight into the dark and disowned portions of the human psyche."

"For more than twenty years, Brugh Joy has been a teacher of Heart Centered Transformation and Spiritual Enlightenment. His courses deal with body energy fields, healing techniques using energy transferred through the hands, and Self-discovery. His teaching includes shadow work (seeking insight into an individual's unconscious side), understanding dreams and projections, and exploring high-intensity sound, rituals, collective energy dynamics, and intuitional states of consciousness."

Archived post is HERE.

Something immediately came to mind as I belatedly read of Brugh Joy's 2009 death. Back in January 2009 there was a solar eclipse which hit our Sun's Aquarius degree exactly. I am skeptical about the influence of eclipses on the lives of people. I could be wrong though. Anyway, Brugh Joy's twin brother and I seem to have weathered that eclipse-related storm, but Brugh Joy, perhaps (?) with a link back to his 1974 health problem, didn't. RIP.




Keith Olbermann (with whom I share a birthday this week- 27th January) has been in the news in the last few days. His contract with MSNBC and his nightly political comment show Countdown is no more.

I didn't watch Countdown regularly, hardly at all in recent months. It is an MSNBC offering and MSNBC is part of the GE (General Electric) empire. Keith, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and others were/are there to pull in viewers who support the Democrats, so that commercials carried can reach their eyes. MSNBC commentators are necessarily hobbled by their corporate bosses. They can only get away with so much "lefty talk". Keith may have been the bravest of the bunch, over-stepping their lines on more than one occasion. For my taste he spent far too much time criticising "the other side" and conservative commentators. There is no "other side" in the USA. There is one side only - the corporate side. A brave commentator ought to say THIS on some TV channel - but they can't because the whole of the media is owned by corporations whose aim is to present the illusion of a two-party situation. Until more Americans realise what is going on nothing will change, no matter who is in the White House, for the incumbent is as hobbled as MSNBC presenters are.

The astrological slant on Keith's departure has been covered by several astrologers already. What struck me first from his natal chart was that transiting Pluto had passed over his natal Saturn, at 2 Capricorn, last September and is still within range - now being 3 degrees further along. Whenever Pluto "hits" a personal planet one can expect some kind of transformation to follow.




Aquarius is popularly illustrated as "a water bearer", interpreted by astrologers as bearer of knowledge rather than water, Aquarius being one of three Air signs, and Air connects to mental process. So there's something of a water/air disconnect, and the same applies to the commonly used Aquarius symbol: two wavy lines depicting water (some astrologers depict the lines as more zig-zaggy to better represent electricity, as a connection to the sign's modern ruler Uranus).

Delving into the origin of the name Aquarius can be pretty confusing, due to the diverse, yet related, threads of the DNA of astrology itself.

In terms of constellation, not zodiac sign, Aquarius is thought to be one of the oldest. It is located in the region known as The Sea because of surrounding constellations associated, by name, to water: Eridanus The River, Pisces The Fishes and Cetus The Whale.

Babylonian star catalogs name the Aquarius constellation after "The Great One", said to embody the god Ea (aka Enki) - one of the three primal gods of Sumer. Ea = god of water; Enlil= god of earth; and Anu = god of heaven.

Originally a local deity in the city of Eridu, he evolved into the lord of the fresh waters beneath the earth, the god of ritual purification, and a patron of sorcery and incantations. Ea/Enki is the basis for the half-fish, half-goat form from which the astrological figure of Capricorn is derived. In sidereal astrology, based on the constellations, most of tropical Aquarius IS in sidereal Capricorn.

The Air/Water disconnect remains when considering the alleged origin of the name Aquarius from Greek myth. According to that tradition the constellation Aquarius was named for either:

1) Ganymede, a beautiful prince from Troy, son of king Tros. Ganymede was considered to be the most beautiful of mortals. He was carried off by the gods (in one story by Zeus himself, or by Zeus in the form of an eagle) to Olympus as Zeus's lover, and to serve as cup-bearer to the gods, a position previously held by Hera’s daughter Hebe, goddess of eternal youth. Zeus replaced Hebe with Ganymede after she spilled a flask of nectar. Zeus immortalized Ganymede, his favorite server, with a heavenly constellation in the form of the eagle he had assumed when abducting Ganymede to Olympus: 'Aquila' (eagle), also 'Aquarius' (water bearer). One of Jupiter's many moons is also named after Ganymede. (Note: The Zeus/Ganymede myth is the first indication of male homosexuality in Greek literature.)

The Rape (kidnapping) of Ganymede. Early 16th-century Renaissance ceiling panel, Villa Farnesina, Rome, by Baldassare Peruzzi.

OR

2) The myth concerning Deucalion, son of Prometheus and king of Phthia in Thessaly, also husband of Pyrrha and father of Hellen, mythical ancestor of the Hellenic race. When Zeus, king of the gods, resolved to destroy all humanity by a flood because of their godless ways, Deucalion constructed a boat in which, according to one version, he and his wife rode out the flood and landed on Mount Parnassus. According to a story found first in the Roman poet Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Book I, upon offering a sacrifice and enquiring how to renew the human race, they were ordered to cast behind them the bones of their mother. The couple correctly interpreted this to mean they should throw behind them the stones of Mother Earth, and did so. The stones thrown by Deucalion became men, while those thrown by Pyrrha became women.

Deucalion is known as the ‘Water Bearer’. He not only lived through the flood, but he helped to bring life to a new generation. Similarities between this myth and the Judeo-Christian legend of Noah’s Ark are clear.

Deucalion and Pyrrha: Marble relief in the Parc del Laberint d’Horta in Barcelona, Catalonia (Spain).

What's in a name? In astrology: sometimes confusion!

All in all, constellation Aquarius and history of its somewhat watery origin, mythologically speaking, presents a clear disconnect from our tropical Aquarius - sign of Fixed Air.



MANY HAPPY RETURNS TO ANYONE ELSE WITH A BIRTHDAY COMING UP WHILE THE SUN IS IN AQUARIUS.

Blog will be on hold for a few days after today.

The Week That Was

Keith Olbermann announced that a fellow presenter, Ed Schultz (below, right) also born 27 January, like himself, has joined MSNBC's early evening news programme line-up. Both he and Olbermann were previously sports commentators. I'd like to be able to say that Aquarius, at 27 January, breeds leftwing political folk with a love of sport. But I was born on that day too. I'm interested in left-wing politics, but sport was always a big blind spot for me.


Chief Justice John Roberts was also born 27 January, by the way. He's almost certainly right wing politically, whether he's a sporty type remains a mystery.




There was a bit of tut-tutting, among the more strait-laced protocol upholders, about the photograph of Michelle Obama and Queen Elizabeth II with, fleetingly, arms around each other. It's reported that they seemed to get on well. That's not surprising, thought I - one lady with Capricorn Sun, othe other with Taurus Sun - two Earthy ladies. It was refreshing to see someone unafraid to demonstrate affection towards a monarch who is often thought of as unapproachable.

And as for idiot criticisms of what Michelle Obama wore to the palace (e.g. "You don't go to meet the queen wearing a sweater"), or what she chooses to wear at any time - exactly who gives anybody the right to tell anybody else what to wear? In any case, I'd be very surprised if Buckingham Place officials and advisors hadn't been in touch with the First Lady's advisors with pointers as to the type of meeting it would be, and how formal or informal, just so as to avoid embarrassment on either side. Apparently the meeting was very informal - an invitation to share afternoon tea with the queen, who was herself informally dressed in a pink frock. Of course, nothing ever pleases the fashion police. I bet Michelle Obama has a good laugh at it all, if she ever reads some of the drivel written about her choice of clothes.





Bob Geldof had a few words to say about the G20 meeting in London this week. He speaks much sense. His natal chart and biography are at Astrodatabank here.
There's a discussion about the chart on an Astro.com forum here

In a nutshell he's a blend of Libra diplomacy and charm, Sagittarian philosophy and Virgo discernment, with a dynmic opposition between his cluster of Libra planets and Jupiter in Aries which I suspect is the main driving force which spurs him on to his good works, and prevents him from being simply a charming academic or run-of-the-mill musician.

See a brief interview at G20 below.






A Broadway revival of "Hair" opened this week. The show presented in Central Park last summer now moves to an indoor stage. Hair has perennial appeal, and remains relevant more than 40 years after its original showing. Uranus and Neptune currently semi-sextile (30*) in Pisces and Aquarius, and in mutual reception (in each other's home signs) probably offer a suitable asto-atmosphere for the hippie musical. A harmonious blend of radical opinion and mystical creativity seems just about right !

ECLIPSE, and me, and them.

This month's Solar eclipse falls directly on my natal Sun which is at 6.46 Aquarius. Well, there are 16minutes of arc difference. The eclipse falls on 6.30 Aquarius. I'll be in dreamland as it occurs here, in the early hours of tomorrow, Monday 26th.

Others who spring to mind immediately, whose natal Sun will also be very close the this eclipse (because their birthdays are on the same day as mine) are Keith Olbermann, Chief Justice Roberts (who made a boo-boo when administering the Oath to President Obama), Mohamed al Fayed (father of Dodi, Princess Di's friend), Derek Acorah, a British medium, Brugh Joy MD (my almost astrological twin), and my husband's younger daughter. My post of last year covers some of these. (Hard to be Humble Birthdays).

When I first noticed where the eclipse would fall I felt a little nervous. I tracked back to the last eclipse in a similar area, this fell in 1990, January 26, at 6.36 Aquarius, even closer to the exact minute of my Sun. I recall nothing of note during the weeks and months immediately following that eclipse. It seems, however, that 1990 eclipse was not of the same series as this current one. The last one of the same series as this touched a degree of Capricorn, in 1991. Still, an eclipse is an eclipse is an eclipse.

My nerves about the upcoming eclipse have now dissolved. I'm not convinced that eclipses are as significant as all that anyway. It's difficult to attribute happenings in one's personal life, or in world affairs, to a single celestial event. Eclipses, solar and lunar occur several times every year. In my opinion they are neither rare enough nor long-lasting enough for us to be able to say that some change or event was "a result of the eclipse".

Currently we have a Saturn/Uranus opposition in Virgo/Pisces, Pluto has recently changed signs from Sagittarius to Capricorn, Jupiter has recently moved into Aquarius for a protracted stay - and now a solar eclipse in Aquarius is added to the mix. There's a lot going on up there, so why attribute anything to a relatively fast-moving eclipse? There'll be another one along soon, then another pair later in the year. In contrast, the Saturn/Uranus opposition will be with us for a lot longer, and Pluto in Capricorn is there for the long haul. Gradual changes are bound to develop over the coming few years, with or without help from eclipses.

I regret departing from commonly held astrological theory on this, but I'm being honest - and obviously I could be very wrong. We shall see. I'll report any significant changes over coming weeks and months, and am prepared to eat my words - with a cherry on top!

Bill Maher & "Religulous"

Bill Maher's new film "Religulous" is due for release this week, though how wide the release will be isn't clear. It is highly unlikely to be shown at our local cinema, but perhaps we'll be able to see it in some city not too far away. The title, Maher says, is a blend of two words - religion and ridiculous. That tells us a lot about the film's theme! From here :

"Hang on to your vestments, everyone. "Religulous," certain to be among the fall's most discussed movies, arrives Wednesday. The documentary is comedian Bill Maher's brutal takedown of what he calls "the most controversial, taboo topic ever": organized religion. The subversive film, directed by fellow comic Larry Charles ("Borat") finds Maher traveling the world to question true believers. Maher's point is that believing absolutely in dusty scripture causes more problems than it solves, and that "mankind needs to shed this skin before it can really progress." "

Bill Maher's views on organised religion are well known by those who watch his HBO weekly show, "Real Time". He's scathing about religion in general but rather than defining himself as an atheist, he says his stance is "I don't know". On this point, as on many others I'm with Bill. I have been annoyed on several occasions by the sexism/misogyny he occasionaly throws around, but even so have never missed a show.

Bill has an interesting natal chart. Born 20 January 1956 at 10.32pm in New York, NY.



Rather than trying to interpret his chart in general, I'll concentrate on what strikes me as particularly interesting about it, and on where his anti-religion streak comes from.

Interesting: so many very early and very late degrees:

Sun 00 Aquarius
Saturn 00 Sagittarius
Mars 04 Sagittarius
Neptune 00 Scorpio
Uranus 00 Leo
Moon 02 Taurus
Venus 04 Pisces
Chiron 05 Aquarius

Pluto 28 Leo
Jupiter 29 Leo

The first decanate (10 degrees) of each sign is thought to be most characteristic of the sign in question, having the sign itself as sub-ruler, whereas the second and third decanates are sub-ruled by the other two signs in the same element. This could make for a particularly clear-cut planet-in-sign interpretation in Bill's case, but because so many planets lie in early degrees there are numerous close aspects in the chart, which in turn form webs of interlinked aspect patterns. Perhaps the simplest translation is that Bill has a particularly complex personality. The most interesting aspect patterns here are the Grand Cross and the Mystic Rectangle.

The Grand Cross, which I've outlined heavily in blue, includes four square aspects and two oppositions. Astrologers see this type of configuration as indicating stressful, tense energy which needs a clear focus if it is to be constructive. In Bill's case the Grand Square is in Fixed signs: focus will be inflexible, opinions not open to persuasion. I've recently noticed this type of configuration in the charts of a couple of other ascerbic well-known personalities - Keith Olbermann and Randi Rhodes. All three of these critcal observers focus on the political scene. Aviator Amy Johnson's chart contained this pattern too - her focus was on feats of flying, in her time unusual for a female. These people seem more driven than the average person, almost as though they house a hidden looped dynamo.

The Mystic Rectangle, which I've outlined in purple, isn't actually mystical. The configuration combines helpful and tense aspects (2 trines, 2 sextiles and 2 oppositions). This feature of Bill's chart may act as a partial antidote to the Grand Cross, bringing in a softer more adaptable side, especially as some of the aspects are "out of sign" - which means that early aspects of one sign link to late aspects of the previous sign, combining two elements/modes. Eg. Pluto/Jupiter in late Leo (Fixed Fire) trines Moon in early Taurus (Earth), a degree or two more would put the Leo planets in Earthy Mutable Virgo, indicating the potential for a rather more adaptable attitude than indicated by the Grand Cross.

His quick wit and ready ability to see the funny side of most things probably help Bill to deal with many of the stresses of his lifestyle. Mercury, the communication planet isn't closely tied into any aspect or pattern, it lies at 12 Aquarius (in the second decanate of Aquarius, sub-ruled by Mutable Gemini). Symbolically here Mercury acts as "an observer" of the tangled web of aspects - rather as Bill himself observes the tangled web of the world's political and religious scene.

So....back to "Religulous", and Bill's antipathy for organised religion.

In astrology Sagittarius and Jupiter connect to religion. In Bill's chart Jupiter, planet of religion, conjoins Pluto in Leo. Pluto is an outer planet, not usually significant in a personal chart unless closely tied to a personal planet, which, here, it is! Pluto energy is challenging and transformative, often in an initially negative way. Jupiter's religious flavour is being seriously challenged and modified by Pluto in this chart. The conjunction forms a part of the Mystic Rectangle rather than the Grand Cross though, and links to a few softer aspects, bringing a somewhat enigmatic feel to Bill's personality.

Two conjoined personal planets, Saturn and Mars, lie in Sagittarius the sign of religion. These two planets are traditionally thought of as malefic, they can add an awkwardly negative energy. Here, there's a conglomeration of linked challenging and helpful aspects. Sagittarius's religious flavour colours Saturn the old fashioned structurer and blends it with Mars the aggresive fighter. The two planets lie in helpful trine aspect to Uranus (the avant garde) ruler of Bill's natal Sun, which also links into the Grand Cross configuration. A tangled web, and it's not surprising that conflict on the matter of religion is evident in Bill's life.

In a nutshell, I see this web of linked but very different aspects in his chart as indicating that Bill Maher, though sharply critical of organised religion, still retains certain doubts. His humour softens and warms the harshness of his judgement, and this is always going to be his saving grace. For every challenging aspect in his chart, there's a harmonious one - which doesn't happen very often. Many viewers of his programme, myself included, have forgiven Bill much in the past. It's possible to sense an underlying kindness and softness beneath his overtly critical and prickly nature. Even so, not all will forgive him this time. Those who hold very fixed views on religion themselves are likely to be sorely offended by "Religulous" in spite of its humour, should they venture to watch it.

Rachel Maddow: One For The Future?

I wonder who'll be on the political scene in the USA around 10 years from now, say for the elections in 2016 and 2020? One name in the future's political headlines which wouldn't surprise me a bit would be Rachel Maddow. She's 35 now, in ten years she'll be just about the right age to run as a presidential candidate, or be chosen as VP, having perhaps done a stint in the House or Senate in intervening years.

Rachel's new TV show, which has all the hallmarks of being "the one to watch" for those keen on politics, was aired for the first time last night. She has been seen fairly regularly on MSNBC all year, doing pundit duty along with Olbermann, Matthews, Buchanan and the rest, as well as presenting a regular radio show on Air America. She strikes me as the type of person for whom US politics is crying out. She oozes confidence, speaks and debates with a no nonsense clarity, clear grasp of issues, but never loses her calm, friendly approach.

Rachel Maddow was born on 1 April 1973 in Castro Valley, California. I can find no time of birth, so here's a chart set for 12 noon. Moon position will be inaccurate, though it will be somewhere in Pisces. Ascendant must remain a mystery, in the absence of birth time.



Sun and Venus in Aries, Jupiter and Mars in Aquarius, Saturn in Gemini, Moon and Mercury in Pisces. Outer planets in Libra and Sagittarius.

Her Aries and Aquarius planets are in harmonious sextile; Saturn in Gemini also sextiles Sun/Venus in Aries and trines the Aquarius planets - more harmony!
A sweetly linked line-up, indicating a very "together" person, enthusiastic, energetic, abundant intelligence, ability to analyse, and disciplined communicative skills all work together in harmony. Moon and Mercury in Pisces reflect another side of Rachel's personality, her sensitive and comapssionate nature, via Mercury this softens her style, which otherwise might come over as cold or dictatorial, which she definitely is not!

Rachel is well known for her unstinting research and preparation, a reflection of workhorse Saturn in Gemini, and Jupter/Mars in analytical Aquarius.


"The former Rhodes scholar, with a doctorate in political science from Oxford, is writing a book about military politics in postwar America and is famous at MSNBC for bringing a scholarly rigor to her preshow research and preparation. She has been known to arrive at Rockerfeller Center from her Manhattan apartment nine hours before she is due to go on air, cloistering herself in a cubicle with an iPod as she reads and writes on the day's news.
"One of the things that separates Rachel from many people is the amount of fresh information she brings to her storytelling," said Wolff. "She really often isn't expressing an opinion as much as laying out facts that lead to the conclusion."(See here)

Rachel has had a good professional and mentoring relationship with MSNBC colleague Keith Olbermann. Perhaps they relate well to each other because Olbermann's natal Sun at 7.01 Aquarius conjoins her natal Jupiter at 7.04 Aquarius, and is therefore also in harmonious aspect to her Aries and Gemini planets.

It'll be interesting to watch Rachel Maddow's progress from here on.

Randi Rhodes and Other Bitter Tastes

I glanced at an article about Air America broadcaster Randi Rhodes. This week she was suspended indefinitely for making inappropriate remarks, on stage, about two prominent females, Senator Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro, at an event sanctioned as a fundraiser for Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign (see here). I found the information a bit of a yawn initially. After all, it's becoming de rigeur for so called "progressive liberals" to denigrate the two women in question. How "progressive" is it, though, to use gutter language? The group of political left-leaners in the USA who label themselves "progressives", to this onlooker seem like the exact opposite, it's a misnomer if ever I saw one!


I wasn't too intrigued by Ms Rhodes' lack of vocabulary and good taste until I saw her date of birth. 28 January 1959, Brooklyn, NY. She's younger than me, by a stretch, but her birthday is the day after my own. I had hoped that an intelligent Aquarius Sun might display rather more class and evidence of grey matter than this woman appears able to do.

I can immediately think of three other January Aquarians who are less than classy these days - Dick Cheney, Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher, but even they would, I think, stop short of calling Senator Clinton or Ms Ferraro "fucking whores" while on stage.

Aquarius does have the reputation of being a rebel, a radical, a maverick, of course. How this emerges in each individual varies a lot.

Here's a 12noon version of Randi Rhodes' natal chart, I wasn't able to find a time of birth for her.



The first thing I noticed was Saturn at 2 Capricorn. Transiting Pluto is currently one degree away from her natal Saturn at 1 Capricorn. (Saturn in Capricorn is classic hard-nosed Saturn in its own sign. Pluto a powerful and potentially nasty and transformational influence). Add to this the fact that Ms Rhodes' natal Pluto is at 3 Virgo and transiting Saturn is at 2 Virgo, and we have a double whammy of Saturn/Pluto clashes. Nasty, and it doubtless has something to do with current events.

Other notable aspects in this natal chart are an opposition (180*) between Aquarius Sun and ruler of Aquarius, Uranus, in Leo. It's a tense aspect and I'm not sure of its meaning when a sign and its ruler are involved. Even more significant, an out of sign fixed Grand Cross involving 24 Taurus/26 Aquarius/28 Scorpio and 3 Virgo - which is 4 degrees from 28 Leo) planets involved are Mars, Venus, Jupiter, and Pluto (out of sign because Pluto is in early Virgo rather than late Leo). Even if the Grand Cross isn't tight enough square aspects (90*) remain between Jupiter, Venus and Mars - so there's plenty of aggravation and challenge here.

The term Grand Cross refers to "a chart where there are two sets of planets in opposition at right angles to each other." (When the aspects are drawn in the configuration looks like a square with a cross inside it.) "This is an aspect representing very difficult energy; it often denotes frustration, anger, stress, and intensity. However, this aspect also helps with self-growth and endurance."

Coincidentally ascerbic comedian and chat show host Bill Maher and TV talking head Keith Olbermann (both mentioned in the second paragraph, above) have Grand Crosses in their natal charts too - see Bill Maher's natal chart at Astrodatabank (here), and Keith Olbermann's is in an earlier blogpost of mine (here).

So - three January Aquarian Suns all with Grand Cross configurations in their natal charts, all given to ascerbic commentary, which, if unchecked can descend from ascerbic to downright offensive. Coincidence? I think not.

Snides of March (a rant)

CAESAR :
Who is it in the press that calls on me?
I hear a tongue, shriller than all the music,
Cry 'Caesar!' Speak; Caesar is turn'd to hear.
SOOTHSAYER:
Beware the ides of March.
(from William Shakespeare's "Julius Ceasar" Act 1 Scene 2


Pardon the "press" pun, please. The ides of March isn't until tomorrow(15th), but watching Keith Olbermann's rant, aka "Special Comment" on TV, Wednesday evening, brought to mind "a tongue, shriller than all the music". His diatribe against Senator Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro struck me as being subliminally hysterical, in a Saturn in Virgo, po-faced fashion.

Keith Olbermann doesn't do typical everyday hysteria, his Mercury and Saturn in Capricorn deny him that, but replace it with a quieter, more insidious version. We share a birthday (27 January), different year. I'd have expected a little more cool Aquarian logic from the man than we are hearing these days. Perhaps he is simply satisfying his masters at MSNBC, but he certainly seems to delight in inflaming an already sensitive situation.

I'd have thought that people who wish to see unity and healing in this country would do all they could to foster it, not fan the flames to encourage the fever. Remarks by Geraldine Ferraro, made as part of a longer speech some weeks ago, need not have been resurrected, taken out of context and magnified - not if there were any intention or thought of healing divisions in this country.

This is deliberate trouble-making. I am fast coming to the conclusion that there really is no wish to heal. "Yes we can"? No....you can't. Not without some radical changes in attitude.

Are we seeing a reflection, here on Earth, of the current celestial opposition of malefics: Mars/Pluto in cardinal Cancer/Capricorn?

Ms Ferraro's remarks may have been ill-considered, but they were hardly offensively racist, and nowhere near as offensive as Samantha Powers calling Hillary Clinton "a monster" a few days earlier. The ensuing outcry in the media has been far more shrill, in spite of Senator Clinton's apology and repudiation of Ms Ferraro's comments. Attacks against the Clinton campaign have now brought forth retaliation from some of her supporters in the form of videos. These involve one Reverend Wright, pastor of Senator Obama's church. They show the pastor, said to be Obama's mentor, making overtly racial pronouncements which are far beyond anything heard so far.

Vitriol brings forth even more vitriolic vitriol. An eye for an eye makes the.....well, we know what that makes.

Where will it end ? Perhaps with another Republican president in the USA.

Sigh.

Let's hope that as Mars moves out of range of opposition to Pluto things will calm down - sometime after the ides of March.

"Hard to be Humble" birthdays.

Happy Birthday(Sunday 27th), to Keith Olbermann, American news anchor and political commentator; US Chief Justice John Roberts; British medium, Derek Acorah; billionaire Mohamed al Fayed (father of ill-fated Dodi, companion of Princess Di when they both died).
Also.... to little ol' me!

A very mixed bag. I could also add a few more, who have gone before, such as Lewis Carroll, Jerome Kern, and Mozart. Concentrating on the living, though - a few interesting tidbits:

Billionaire Mohamed al Fayed has his Aquarian Sun closely conjunct Saturn. Mercury and Venus are in Capricorn, and Uranus in Aries. Aquarius' modern ruler fires his Sun, and Aquarius' traditional ruler drives his business skills, which must be considerable. Two other personal planets in Capricorn (ruled by Saturn)connect to his talent for business and making money. (Born 27 Jan. 1933, Alexandria, Egypt)

US Chief Justice John Roberts has Sun and Mercury in Aquarius, with Aquarius' modern ruler Uranus conjunct Jupiter in Cancer. Jupiter is traditionally connected with law, and government. Incidentally, with his natal Moon almost certainly in Pisces, Sun in humanitarian Aquarius, and that conjunction in sensitive Cancer , I'd say Chief Justice Roberts is a compassionate man, it's good to see such a person occupying that lofty position.(27 Jan. 1955, Buffalo, New York)

Derek Acorah, a well-known British medium, isn't well-known to me, but I have read a little about him. He has Sun Jupiter/Venus in Aquarius, Uranus in Cancer. I'm not sure where to look for any psychic ability, but I notice that mystical Neptune, in Libra, trines the Venus/Jupiter conjunction in Aquarius. Saturn in Virgo trines Mercury in Capricorn - a very down to earth combination. Perhaps Neptune lies close to one of the angles, but without time of birth it's not possible to know that.(27 January1950, Liverpool UK)

Keith Olbermann's chart was featured in an earlier blog post HERE.




I'm the odd one out - I have only Sun in Aquarius, the four named individuals have at least one additional planet there.




Oh!.......... I forgot my (almost) astrological twin, Brugh Joy MD. (See here)

In common with Chief Justice Roberts (though very loosely), I worked for the government (UK) in a department which dealt with aspects of the law (I have natal Jupiter close to midheaven). In common with Mr Acorah and Brugh Joy I'm interested (though not talented) in psychic and mystical subjects ( Neptune trine Mercury). The only thing I have in common with Keith Olbermann is Mercury in Capricorn - and a lively interest in politics. With regard to Mohamed al Fayed, again Mercury in Capricorn in common, but, it's interesting, as our birthdays are on the same day, that his son, Dodi died exactly two weeks after my mother died in August 1997, while Uranus retrograded within 2 degrees of our natal Suns.

Three Talking Heads and their Planets

Watching TV coverage of the New Hampshire primary election last week, I couldn't help but notice the difference in approach between commentators engaged in analysis. We had Chris Matthews, Tom Brokaw, Keith Olbermann, and several others, bombarding us with their views. Differences in approach, of the three named, came over very clearly. Let's see how their astrology shapes up.

Time of birth for just one of the three is available (via Astrotheme)other charts are set up for 12 noon.

Chris Matthews 17 December 1945, Philadelphi, PA



Chris Matthews' Sun, Mercury and Venus are all in outspoken, mutable sign Sagittarius, Uranus (and quite possibly Moon) in mutable, communicative Gemini opposes the three Sagittarius planets, producing some dynamic energy between chatty, mentally driven Gemini and exaggeratedly outspoken Saggitarius, which may manifest in some rather memorable, but not necessarily reliable commentary. Mars in Leo trines Mercury in Sagittarius, possibly an argumentative trait there? Polarity is very heavily weighted to positive, and there are no "grounding" planets in Earth signs. It's a pity I can't find a birth time, I'd guess at a Water sign rising - Pisces ? Chris tends to jabber and waffle, unlike the other two commentators whose style is more deliberate and incisive.

Tom Brokaw 6 February 1950, Webster, South Dakota @ 3.40am



Tom Brokaw - Sun and Mercury in Aquarius, Moon in Capricorn - one of those "Saturn hybrids" I mentioned HERE. But Mr Brokaw is a Saturn Hybrid with a good dollop of Aries in his nature with Jupiter, Mars and Saturn all in that sign, and Jupiter just 2 degrees from the IC (angle opposite midheaven - the nadir). If Astrotheme has the correct time of birth, Mr Brokaw had Sagittarius rising, Sagittarius is Jupiter's rulership, so with Jupiter's added strength, being on an angle, and with its ruling sign rising, it gives Mr Brokaw some of the same qualities as Chris Matthews. However, in Brokaw's chart there's a grounding Grand Trine in Earth signs, linking Moon/Neptune/Uranus. Tom Brokaw comes over as a solid and reliable individual - careful, steady and grounded. He'd be much less likely than Chris Matthews to veer wildly off point. Both have a certain warmth about them, however. Mr. Brokaw's Sun is square its modern ruler Uranus. I think this aspect modifies the more revolutionary and rebellious traits of Aquarius, calming them down to a more reasoned, well-argued approach. (Coincidentally, I have an Earth Grand Trine, and Uranus square Aquarius Sun, so hope I've interpreted these factors objectively.)


Keith Olberman 27 January 1959, New York City, NY. (Hmmmm - same birthday as me - different year though).



Keith Olbermann's chart has been interpreted recently by professional astrologer Lynn Hayes HERE
I'll concentrate only on comparison with the others, but mention that he is another Saturn Hybrid, like Tom Brokaw, with personal planets in both Aquarius and Capricorn. The Grand Cross formation in his chart which links the fixed signs - Mars in Taurus, Venus in Aquarius, Jupiter in Scorpio and Uranus in Leo seems highly significant. Astrologers see this formation as indicating a constant state of tension and challenge - it's certainly not a relaxed and harmonious indication as is the Grand Trine in Tom Brokaw's chart. Neither does Keith have the warm Sagittarian element found in the charts of the other two commentators. Whenever I've seen Keith Olbermann on TV or video he has looked and sounded very angry, and quite cold (rightly so, considering the subject matter - often President G.W. Bush's adminstration). Perhaps the Grand Cross fuels these passionate diatribes, especially as Mars is involved.

So, these are three very different characters, doing similar work. I honestly wasn't aware when I started preparing this post that two of the three individuals I'd chosen were Aquarians, with a few similarities to my own natal chart. I'm conscious that all three lean left, towards the Democrats, but can't bring myself to watch right-leaning pundits for long enough to get a useful impression. Any bias on my part is admitted, and inevitable.