TENDING TOWARDS THE PECULIAR

"We’re not going let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," Neil Newhouse, the Romney campaign’s pollster, said last week during a breakfast discussion at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida, sponsored by ABC News and Yahoo News. He said that fact-checkers brought their own sets of thoughts and beliefs to their work. Link
cf. “The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” George Orwell
Cartoon Tom Toles, here

Tending distinctly towards peculiar, for me at least, was the reaction of a majority of The Great Unwashed from both sides of the political divide, to the speech/performance of Clint Eastwood at the Rebublican Convention last week, it ranged from determined po-facedness to outright nastiness. I guess I have to excuse native-born Americans, who weren't, unless exceptionally lucky, brought up on a diet of The Goons, Monty Python, and Spitting Image. The only response to Clint Eastwood's contribution to the Republican Convention anywhere near my own reaction, after having watched a video recording, was at a blog called Corrente: Two Cheers for Clint Eastwood. ...Anyway, Clint's monologue reminded me of the photograph (above left) - we found the old seat in the foyer of an abandoned theatre somewhere in Texas.


And....spotted in (would ya believe?)Sweetwater, Texas:



From elsewhere on our past travels: messages (from the Twilight Zone?):







"I gess they're hart is in the write plase" (hat-tip to husband for the caption - and he changed name of the BB-que joint to protect the innocently spell-check-less ):


Must I?



Seen in a local supermarket carpark. Erm....in time honoured tradition ... "You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment."




This (below) wouldn't seem peculiar in some locations - but in deepest bible-thumping, Tea-partying Texas it stood out like a sore, topless thumb. Evidence of a Texas Resistance Movement?



The Beetles, in a field in the middle-of-nowhere:

Un-Aquarian?

To paraphrase an old rhyme, oft recited to me as a child when being naughty: ("There was a little girl who had a little curl right in the middle of her forehead, When she was good she was very very good, But when she was bad she was horrid.")When Aquarius is good, it's very very good, But when it's bad, it's horrid. The same can be said of any zodiac sign of course - two sides to all of 'em.

In American politics there are now two people with what I'd categorise as the "horrid" side of Aquarius prominent in their natures - Dick Cheney and, new to the national scene, Sarah Palin.

I probably see both these characters in negative light due to their politics and beliefs, which are diametrically opposed to my own. I have Sun in Aquarius, as well as Aquarius rising when my chart is re-located to Oklahoma. Perhaps, if those two characters knew me, they'd see me as the negative side of Aquarius, if they deigned to consider astrology which, of course, they wouldn't!

In Aquarius, because of its reputation for eccentricity and unpredictability, one is apt to encounter much variety in how the sign reflects back through personality. Something I try to keep in mind also is that, before the discovery of Uranus, Saturn ruled Aquarius, along with neighboring sign Capricorn. Negative Saturnian traits might account for much of what I see as the "horrid" side of Aquarius. As a quick rule of thumb, for those unable to fully analyse a natal chart, I think it's valid to approach Aquarius-driven folk with the thought that they might display prominent traits of either Uranus or Saturn - very different. Another option, perhaps more common, a subtle mix of both.

In the case of Cheney and Palin, their old fashioned Conservative views and policies, and the beliefs and values they embrace loudly yell "Saturn here!" to this observer. The the humanitarian traits for which Aquarius is generally known these days are harder to identify, nor do I see much originality or inventiveness. Unpredicatable Aquarians? As folk ruled by Saturn they are eminently predictable.

I watched Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican Convention last night with interest. She delivered it well. I understand that most of it was prepared for her, so it's hard to say whether she actually believed what she was reading. Does she really see herself as "a pitbull with lipstick"? My thought afterwards was that, astrology apart, here is a seminal American version of Margaret Thatcher. (I used to think this about Hillary Clinton before I really listened to her - I was so very wrong about that.) I lived through Thatcher's reign in Britain, and believe me - it was not pretty! It's sad that so many Clinton supporters seem to be throwing their support to McCain/Palin as a way of "getting back" at the Obama campaign for the way Hillary was treated. It's a classic "cutting off nose to spite face" attitude, and it's scary. There's some proper astrology talk on Palin and her speech by Matthew the Astrologer, today.

Here's another scary thought - what about the much vaunted Age of Aquarius? What if it doesn't bring "harmony and understanding, sympathy and love abounding", but a load of old Saturn instead ?