A Serving of Friday, Saturday & Sundries

A couple of slivers of arty-farty:

Meet painter Pollyanna Pickering, an internationally renowned wildlife artist and environmentalist. Her birthday is this weekend, she was born on 30 July in 1942.

And (with Hat-tip to Avedon's Sideshow)
If Norman Rockwell painted African-American culture today. -
By Jake Johnson [9 pictures by Sam Spratt]







A pouring of politics:

Jon Walker has written about an interesting plan to rectify US's failing health insurance system:
Here’s A National Single-Payer Health Care Plan That Would Work.

A soupçon of astrology:


Back in 2008, just for fun, I Just for fun, I coined twelve collective nouns (you know, similar to "a murder of crows", "an exaltation of larks"), for each zodiac sign, for possible descriptive use in a natal chart where a cluster of planets appear in one zodiac sign, alternatively, for those attached to Sun sign astrology, to describe a group of people who share the same Sun sign.

A rush of Aries
An affluence of Taurus
A chatter of Gemini
A nest of Cancer
A parade of Leo
A proficiency of Virgo
An arbitration of Libra
A collusion of Scorpio
A magnification of Sagittarius
An institution of Capricorn
A metamorphosis of Aquarius (I did write that in 2008, but now prefer An innovation of Aquarius)
A mirage of Pisces

And to pull together the whole caboodle:
A cadence of zodiac signs!

A whiff of words: at The Bureau of Linguistical Reality







A trickle of TV:

We've lately been watching the 10-part series Ozark, starring Jason Bateman (who also co-directs), and Laura Linney, plus a cast of interesting character actors.

Most reviewers compare Ozark to Breaking Bad, I can see why, but for me it felt more akin to Justified, due to its rural, mid-America, background location with lots of attendant quirkiness as well as criminality in local residents. Bateman plays Marty Byrde a cool-headed wheeler-dealer financier from Chicago who, with his early-on murdered partner, had been laundering (and skimming) drug money through their business. He escapes, with his family, to an area of Missouri around Lake of the Ozarks, in the hope that supposedly less-sophisticated (in the ways of finance) locals with be easy to entangle in the money laundering lark away from the FBI's gaze. The laundering must carry on, in order to protect Byrde's own life and those of his (cheating) wife and two (fairly obnixious) teen-ish offspring. He'd thought Ozark locals were going to be unsophisticated in the ways of crime - he had some fast lessons to learn. Some locals could give him a run for his money - quite literally too!

While Ozarks isn't quite up to Breaking Bad or Justified standards, all in all it's not bad, and better than many other offerings available at present. The series could have used a wee bit of lightness to contrast so much darkness, the odd joke or touch of wit, a one-liner or two would have helped anchor the tale in viewers' memories.



The dish garnished with ~

A pinch or two of Pratchett

Most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally evil, but by people being fundamentally people.


Some humans would do anything to see if it was possible to do it. If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry.
~ Sir Terry Pratchett.

Politicklish Subjects

I noticed a wee argument brewing on some comment thread somewhere on the net earlier this week as to the potential side effects of Bernie Sanders' plan for what's being called single-payer healthcare. Commenters brought up that, though perhaps desirable on first thoughts, there'd be a lot of collateral damage in job losses for insurance company employees, and probably a lot of empty, unused expensive real estate to be dealt with. I'd say that, while this would be true if a change-over were to happen within a very short time period, that's not likely to be what Senator Sanders has in mind. Nothing in a country with the USA's population could ever be subject to rapid change, (absent catastrophic events). I'd have thought any change would have to be made by tiny steps, perhaps initially by lowering the age when people become eligible for Medicare.

There would still be a need for staff, some proportion of existing insurance staff could be re-trained. Supplementary insurance needs will still exist too - so all insurance jobs will not be lost. And, if the system were akin to some in Europe, private plans would still exist alongside the government-run system, for those who could afford it, permanently or occasionally. Real estate? Maybe some of that, too can be re-purposed for government use, eventually. Bernie Sanders isn't daft! These issues will have been considered for sure - especially the loss of jobs. I'm confident that he'll have a plan.

I'm heartened that two favourite political writers of mine have (almost reluctantly) begun to slide just a little bit further towards confidence in Bernie Sanders' chances of success. Andrew Levine at Counterpunch and Dave Lindorff.

On the other side of the divide - an astrological prediction at the Skyscript forum, by "Ellen" on Donald Trump's chances of success is worth a look, if a tad scary! There's obvious potential for success in his natal chart, nobody could argue that. My thoughts/hopes are that, perhaps he has already fulfilled his success potential - in this lifetime - his glass of success has been drained!

SCOTUS, ACA, King v Burwell ...Here we go again...

This week, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court is to consider the case known as King v. Burwell — a challenge to that part of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare & ACA) which deals with subsidies.

The ACA created a subsidy system for low and some middle income families to help in the purchase of health insurance through insurance exchanges "established by the state". The law sets a cap on the amount of insurance premium that individuals and families will have to pay for the second cheapest Silver plan based upon that person/family's income in relation to the Federal Poverty Level.

States were given the option of establishing their own exchanges or allowing the Health and Human Services Department to run a state marketplace for them. The administration would argue that both types of exchange count as having been "established by the state" (i.e. a state with a federally run exchange having made their choice to "establish" that exchange in their state.) Lawyers will argue day and night on this point, I dare say!

The case turns, I think, on just those four words of the Act: "established by the state".

Plaintiffs attest that subsidies should be available only to people buying coverage on exchanges “established by the state,” i.e. state-run marketplaces. 34 states don’t have their own exchanges. Residents rely on federally run marketplaces - the course opted for by their state representatives. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, subsidies in the form of tax credits would end in those 34 states. Subsidies have made insurance affordable for millions of people who would otherwise have remained uninsured.

The whole point of ACA was to make health care affordable to everybody, not simply to those in states where the state had opted to run their own exchange. If this had not been so, wording would have been clear on this point (or ought to have been!)

There's a somewhat dodgy argument by some lawyers that proposes the real reason for not making the subsidy available in relation to both types of exchange was a way of forcing reluctant states to get on board and establish their own exchanges - or lose availability of subsidies for residents of their state. I can easily imagine that some states would not have wished to get into the exchange/marketplace thing because of the extra worries and risks involved - so much easier to let the government deal with it all! The option and the decision on this did remain with each individual state. States' rights an' all that.

It doesn't seem likely, to me, that there was ever an intention to lock people out of subsidies depending on their type of health exchange. That would have been counterproductive. The aim was to bring in as many insured people as possible, to make the system work as intended.

If SCOTUS finds for the plaintiffs, outlaws subsidies in states with federally run exchanges, the people of those states who become unable to afford health insurance will be rightly incensed. Governors of such states should be under immediate pressure to establish state run exchanges tout de suite! Would they though? Would the people rise up and demand? Would the state representatives comply? Oh.... hmm...and could this possibly be a ploy to force states into running their own exchanges? No, that doesn't feel right....a bit conspiracy-ish for me.

I doubt that those potential eventualities will come about, unless the Justices are feeling particularly obtuse and bloody-minded, with intent to bring down the whole caboodle. Couldn't they have done that on the last opportunity - that time in 2012 when Chief Justice Roberts, for once, saved the day for ACA?(SEE HERE)

Red States Are Not Totally Red

Just a brief post while still on the road - well on an overnight stop on the road to be accurate.

I've just noticed a piece at Common Dreams and some of the comments proposing that, as a way of solving the current government impasse, so-called Red States be allowed to opt out of Obamacare. That is not a good proposal! Not everyone in Red States voted Republican, so why penalise the whole state's population? Even in the reddest of 'em there will be around 30% or so of the population who voted Democrat or 3rd party.

A better plan would be that if a person is a registered Republican, they can opt out if they wish to do do. That would not be possible, I guess.

Someone should do something though - and soon!

Untangling Chains

I've read through yards of comments, this week, relating to articles about the rash of CEOs in the catering or restaurant business whose hackles have been well and truly raised at the prospect of the Affordable Care Act's mandate that they must, if their staff numbers reach a certain level, provide health care insurance cover for full-time employees. A common response from commenters is something which, after a while, began to strike me as tiresomely smug and self-righteous: e.g. "We never, and have never eaten, (alternatively will not in future eat) at Applebee's, Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Denny's, Dairy Queen, Papa John's....." the lists go on. These people obviously must live in urban areas where choice abounds. Usually there are added remarks about the quality of food in the named establishments, words such as "garbage" "swill" appear. The usual internet hyperbole!

Whereas I do fully understand the principle and value (in some cases) of boycott, and acknowledge that people are free to choose their eating places, for taste or other reasons, it does seem kind of counter-productive to boycott all chain restaurants if the main reason for doing so relies on the inhumanity of their CEOs. All that's likely to happen, should boycotts become widespread, is that even more jobs will be lost, more people will become unemployed. It's unlikely that small cafés would suddenly spring up to take up the slack and offer jobs in small local establishments, whose owners would not be required to provide health insurance anyway!

Here's an idea: if a person decides to dine in one of the offending eateries, where the chain is not conducting itself well regarding matters mentioned above, why not carry a personal, signed letter addressed to the Manager or Area Manager, expressing concern at the attitude of their company on the matter of health care insurance provision? Withering remarks could be backed up with a link to an on-line article. Ask that the letter, delivered locally by hand, be copied to the company CEO.

The type of food most chain restaurants dish up is not to the taste of everyone. Some of it is certainly not to my own taste, but most of it, especially in the non-fast food places, couldn't, in all fairness, be categorised as "swill" or "garbage". Unimaginative - perhaps! Some of it is unhealthy too, but then, so is some food served in local, privately-run diners. We frequent chain eateries in the course of our road trips, we have a few favourite venues; a few we routinely avoid when possible, too, for reason of our own tastes.

There are certain advantages to chain eateries. 1: Consistency. You know exactly what you're going to get when you order a certain item - wherever you are in the vastness of the USA. Some might consider that not to be a good thing - but it does have advantages. 2: In most states you can be reliably assured that high standards of cleanliness in food preparation and proper storage are fully adhered to in chain establishments. In independently owned businesses, one cannot always be as confident on this score - if you've ever watched TV's Restaurant Impossible
you'll not need convincing!

Another post of mine about the injustices restaurant staff must endure is HERE.

Pawns in their game: SCOTUS, ACA, Chief Justice Roberts, Re-consideration, Retrograde Planets.

Re-visiting my March 29 post on the SCOTUS debate on health care I noticed, and thought again, about these lines:

I stumbled upon a non-astrological blog: His Vorpal Sword written by Hart Williams. Mr Williams' post dated 26 March is titled Athena and the Jurists and opens like this:

Any astrologer worth her salt would tell you that there is not a lot of good that you can expect from a grand Supreme Court argument over the future of health care, held on a day when Mercury is retrograde, Saturn is retrograde, and Mars is retrograde. And, since, like global warming, astrology is easily refuted, except by observation, allow me to make this observation on the madness of the zeitgeist.

That's the only mention of astrology in the complex and interesting post......rather a good astrological point he made....

In an UPDATE to this Thursday's post I wrote: "trust a triple Aquarian to do the unexpected" - referring to Chief Justice Roberts' voting with the liberal justices rather than with the four right-wing conservatives on the bench, as has been usual. Recalling, via the above extract, that retrograde planets were around at the time of the initial arguments makes me wonder whether those retrograde planets have turned out to have had some symbolism or astrological importance: i.e. an eventual revision, reversal, reconsideration (retrograding) of one justice's crucially important opinion ?

I've read several comments from lawyers who, having perused the SCOTUS decision, and the dissent, have come to the conclusion that the dissent seems to have been written more in the style of a majority decision. If they are correct, and I have no means of knowing how reliable their opinion is, it might mean that there was a last-minute change by someone - Chief Justice Roberts?

Part of my My 1 April response to blog buddy R.J. Adams has turned out to seem correct:

I'm suspecting now that SCOTUS was only showboating, and they'll uphold the Act but don't want to make it look too easy. They couldn't possibly take away all that extra dosh from their pals the insurance corporations.

Chief Justice Roberts achieved two things by upholding ACA: he somewhat rescued SCOTUS's image from appearing to be politically-driven and partisan; it has been seen that way due to many recent rulings, leading to a huge dip in public approval of the Court. CJ Roberts has managed to adjust Scotus's image for the better while still buttering up the corporations - again. This time the insurance corporations benefit. CJ Roberts might even have achieved a third result: Gov. Romney now has another weapon to wield in his campaign against President Obama - that newly named "tax".

They say that President Obama is a political chess player. It now seems that Chief Justice Roberts can match him, move for move. And where are we in all this? To paraphrase a line from Bob Dylan: "We're just pawns in their game".

During coming months it will be interesting to note whether the SCOTUS decision will benefit President Obama in his re-election campaign because his flagship legislation, The Affordable Care Act or so-called Obamacare, has survived SCOTUS. Or, whether the categorising as a dreaded "tax" the penalty for not buying health insurance will assist Gov. Romney in firing up his base, along with some independents and libertarians.

Supreme Court's Debate on Health Care/Health Insurance

Topic of the week around political blogland is the Supreme Court's current debate on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the "landmark" healthcare reform bill signed by President Obama a couple of years back.

Comment on this issue is really "beyond my pay grade" (nada). Attempting interpretation of astrology relating to this debate would become tangled up in too much fog, variables and complexity to be useful. The only time I've ventured into anything connected with the Supreme Court was in noting that Chief Justice John Roberts shares my birthday, 27 January (but not birth year). When mentioning this in a post several years ago, while still very wet behind the ears as far as US politics and the finer points of applied astrology were concerned, I wrote:

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)

Since then I've come to the conclusion that my Pollyanna-ish view of Chief Justice Roberts and the impact his astrology were mistaken. If he is indeed compassionate and sensitive he reserves these traits for his intimate relationships. Compassion for, and sensitivity to the needy masses doesn't seem to enter much into his professional decisions.

Surfing the net for related astrological insights, I stumbled upon a non-astrological blog: His Vorpal Sword written by Hart Williams. Hard to resist a blog title taken from Jabberwocky, one of my favourite poems by Lewis Carroll:

.....He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.....

Mr Williams' post dated 26 March is titled Athena and the Jurists and opens like this:

Any astrologer worth her salt would tell you that there is not a lot of good that you can expect from a grand Supreme Court argument over the future of health care, held on a day when Mercury is retrograde, Saturn is retrograde, and Mars is retrograde. And, since, like global warming, astrology is easily refuted, except by observation, allow me to make this observation on the madness of the zeitgeist.

That's the only mention of astrology in the complex and interesting post. I was very glad to find this unusual non-astrological writer who doesn't immediately disparage astrology. Thank you Mr. Williams! That was rather a good astrological point he made too.

My experience of US health care isn't wide enough to write about the current issue with any grain of credibility. I've lived here only since 2004. All I know for sure is that the National Health Service of the UK, flaws and all, beats the current US system, or the system that would come to pass if the Supreme Court upholds The Affordable Care Act, hands down.

This quote from a debate about the debate, hosted by Amy Goodman, reported at Truthout outlines what I think needs to be said:

DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: Well, the insurance industry wrote the framework for Romneycare in the form of Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation in Massachusetts that wrote the original framework. When it came time for Obamacare, the Senate framework, which became the backbone of the law, was written by none other than Elizabeth Fowler, whose previous job had been vice president of WellPoint, the nation’s largest private insurance company. The insurance industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying on this bill. They gave hundreds of millions to the Democrats and hundreds of millions to the Republicans, both supporting and opposing the bill, but assuring that voices from the left who supported real universal healthcare, real single payer, were shut out.

The only way those voices ultimately got heard was because people showed up in front of the White House in white coats and demonstrated. Doctors and nurses got arrested in Senate hearings. We forced the issue of single payer back onto the agenda against the wishes of the private health insurance industry. And that’s what needs to happen if we’re ever going to get to a real universal system that’s affordable, that gets rid of the private health insurance industry, and recaptures that $380 billion in excess paperwork costs and uses it to cover everyone.

I found this this morning - Will Fudeman sings Charlie King's parody of John Lennon's well-known Imagine- advocating for universal single payer health care in the United States. I'm absolutely certain that John Lennon would approve and would have added his voice to this. Oh my - if only he could!

USA: The Uncaring State of America.

The disgraceful saga that is the debate on health care reform in the USA trundles on interminably. To someone like myself who lived for many, many decades in a country where socialised (not socialist) health care is the norm, the debate appears ridiculous - the result ought to have been a foregone conclusion. How can a country, priding itself as a world leader, allow hundreds of thousands of its citizens to live without access to adequate levels of healthcare ? How can the population have been sitting idly by for so long when even those citizens who have dutifully paid their health insurance premiums for years are told, when serious illness befalls them, or a family member, that "you are not covered for that", and either bankruptcy or further suffering - or death - must ensue?

Is there something inherently immoral in the American citizenry, that they have not long ago - decades ago - demanded that something be done about this parlous state of affairs? It can only be that a large proportion of the population does not care about their fellow-men and women - and children. Simple as that. And this is a country which prides itself as being A Christian Nation. Please.

People of the USA would like to think of themselves as compassionate, friendly and forward-looking, and tend to advertise themselves as such. This isn't always the picture onlookers see. Although I'm now an American citizen myself, I'm still really an outsider, an observer of much that's alien. Some attitudes I notice here are more foreign to me than those I suspect I'd encounter among the inhabitants of of some lost tropical jungle.

If I'm feeling kindly, I could put it all down to the fact that the USA is a very young country, as compared with the countries of Europe. Some western states, in particular, are not much more than a century from the days of The Wild West, when it really was every man for himself. How long will it take for the minds, and hearts, of people in the United States to catch up? Too long.

Insurance Corporations have a stranglehold on things now, the country is being run by what may as well be termed mercenaries, verging on sociopathic, but the people, over time, have allowed this to happen. Their votes have been sending successive lawmakers to Congress and to the White House. Successive administrations have in their turn allowed the disgraceful situation to continue and worsen. At root, the people themselves are to blame - for their carelessness.

This post originally ended at that point - but then I read something at Think Progress which lifted my spirits a bit. New York Rep. Anthony Weiner spoke up clearly on the side of the people yesterday, when the House of Representatives debated the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act, legislation that would repeal the 65 year exemption health insurance companies have from anti-trust regulations.

Speaking on the House floor, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) lambasted Republicans for being “a wholly owned subsidiary of an insurance industry,” prompting an offended Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) to lodge a complaint:

Transcript:

WEINER: You guys have chutzpah. The Republican Party is the wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. They say this isn’t going to do enough, but when we propose an alternative to provide competition, they’re against it. They say we want to strengthen state insurance commissioners and they’ll do the job. But when we did that in our national health care bill, they said we’re against it. They said we want to have competition but when we proposed requiring competition they’re against it. They’re a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. That’s the fact!

LUNGREN: Mr. Speaker I ask that the gentleman’s words be taken down.

WEINER: You really don’t want to go there, Mr. Lungren. [...] Make no mistake about it. Every single Republican I have ever met in my entire life is wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. That is why —

LUNGREN: Mr. Speaker I ask that the gentleman’s words be taken down once more.

WEINER: Look, the point is very simple, there are inequities in the present way we distribute insurance. There are winners and there are losers. The winners are the insurance industry. [...] There is not bipartisanship on this particular issue. The people who sit on this side, at the risk of offending anyone, generally support the idea of standing up for the American people in their battle against big insurance. And the people generally speaking who sit on this side of the chamber and specifically speaking as well in a lot of cases, simply won’t permit that to happen and haven’t for a generation. Well, that is going to end now. [...] Enough of the phonyness. We are gonna solve this problem because for years our Republican friends have been unable to and unwilling to. Deal with it!” (applause).

Bravo Mr. Weiner!

A quick look at his natal chart reveals that he has rebellious Uranus conjunct Sun, Mercury and Pluto all in discerning Virgo.

This is what the USA desperately needs more of!

THE GOOD, THE BAD, and the ugly truth.

Once again, Shepard Smith proves that he's the one news anchor at Fox News to have any semblance of conscience and intellect. See HERE There's a video of the incident included at the link.

"The Fox Report" on Fox News, hosted by anchor Shepard Smith, ran a piece by reporter Dan Springer on how Canada's single-payer health care system is forcing Canadians to come to the United States for care because the waiting period for treatment is too long. The report was intended to contrast negatively with proposals in the U.S. to include a public option in health care reform, however Smith questioned whether the report they just ran was actually fair....."

This may not seem like much, but I'd give Shep Smith yet another gold star for it. At the very least it might encourage viewers to stop and think, or ask a few more questions of their representatives.

My previous posts on Shepard Smith and his astrology are at:
Shepard Smith - Fair and Balanced
and Shepard Smith of Fox News.

That news item ties in with something I've been steaming about for a couple of days. I wrote to our two Senators a while back, urging them to support a public option as part of the proposed health care bill in the USA. Both our Senators had indicated that they intended not to support this proposal. I didn't expect to hear anything further, but writing helped me feel I was doing what I could. I received a response from one Senator: James Inhofe.

What was written would be funny if it wasn't so damned pathetic. He has sent me what I assume is the standard response prepared for sending to "pesky left-wingers" like myself who dare to write in. He has the gall to criticise the UK National Health Service, and the Canadian system too, offering examples of their faults. He neither knows nor cares, of course, that one recipient of his letter spent most of her life under the wing of the National Health Service and sees the lies in his letter for exactly what they are. For myself it doesn't matter, but for others who receive a copy of the same letter, without the experience I'm so lucky to have had, it is tantamount to brainwash.

Sen. Inhofe and his astrology have been the subject of two of my previous posts:HERE
and HERE

I've also read this week that Sen. Inhofe is to attend the international meeting on climate change in Copenhagen. See here. He gives this peaceful state of Oklahoma a bad name.

"How more removed from the day-to-day reality of most Oklahomans can you get than flying to Copenhagen, Denmark to tell the international community the United States will not pass legislation anytime soon dealing with global warming?

But that’s just what U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe says he intends to do, according to the National Review. Inhofe says he will lead a “truth squad” to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December. This squad will argue there’s not enough support in the U.S. Senate to pass a bill."

I don't blame James Inhofe for being who he is, he can't help it. I blame the people of Oklahoma for voting him into the Senate and giving him such power over their lives.

HATRED

While we were away, and since we returned home, even though I've attempted to avoid upsetting news stories and the opinion of others, one thing has seeped through the brief instances I've happened upon accidentally : hate (that's a verb) so I should really have written "hatred", I guess. Whether noun or verb, it's still obnoxious.

Hatred is like fire -- it makes even light rubbish deadly.
George Eliot

British astrologer of the last century, C.E.O. Carter wrote that:

"Hate is one of the most extreme Martian vibrations, through Scorpio rather than Aries, and probable generally with an admixture of Saturn or Uranus. The last-named is often violent in its antipathies, and, like Scorpio, may remember slights and insults after long periods. In maps capable of nourishing hatred and revenge the benefics are usually obscurely placed."

We have an "admixture of Saturn and Uranus" hovering above us just now, in the form of a celestial opposition between the status quo (Saturn) and change (Uranus). Perhaps it's this reflected in earthly terms that we keep encountering here in the USA.

Extreme political right-wingers seem hell-bent on the destruction of any aims of President Obama and his administration to right many societal wrongs, particularly in relation to health care in this country. These wrongs are clear to others, but the hatemongers remain blind to them, or obtusely uncaring. Hatemongers will use any twisted logic and lies to persuade the uninformed or passive that their views are the right ones. This is bad enough, but as long as it stops at people waving hate-ridden signs, and shouting abuse, not much is lost. I fear that whipping up hatred of this nature among many who will not stop to think things through for themselves, could lead to much worse eventualities. Blood could well be spilled before long. In fact, immediately after drafting this post yesterday afternoon, I saw this article at Huffington Post: "Census Worker Hanged: Bill Sparkman Found with "FED" on his Body". This man was a teacher and part-time worker collecting information for the census in Kentucky. Investigations are ongoing.

Hatred is like fire -- it makes even light rubbish deadly.

What could be done to alleviate the situation?

When we were in South Dakota last week, enjoying one of the many sights there, I heard a nearby group of tourists discussing the political situation. One of the group said "all Muslims are terrorists, and now we have one in the White House". On another occasion, in an antiques mall in Nebraska, another group of people stood discussing health care, and though I didn't hover too long, as I passed by them I couldn't help hearing just one sentence concerning what is, in the USA seriously misunderstood and looked on as a dirty word: "socialism". What is a person like me to do in such circumstances? Should I insert myself into their discussion? That would be very rude, and in any case my views would not be welcome because the minds of these folk are made up, set in stone. Yes their minds are set in stone. There's nothing to be done, but to live through whatever comes next.

I don't hate these people, I feel dreadfully sorry for them. I feel sorry for this beautiful, beautiful country that is has a proportion of citizens who do not want to see the wood for the trees.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!
(From Rogers & Hammerstein's "South Pacific" )

THE WEEK THAT WAS

This week made me angry - very angry. The lovely and peaceful state of Oklahoma, where I've lived for the past 5 years has two of the most despicable senators in Washington. Yes, they are both Republicans, and espouse the opposite ideology to my own, but that's not the problem. There are a few Republicans and conservatives who I respect, and who conduct themselves with dignity and intelligence. Not these two!



(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images: Tom Coburn on far left, James Inhofe on far right of photo.)

Senator Tom Coburn and Senator James Inhofe: it's past time that Oklahomans opened their eyes to see these two men for what they are. Why do they vote them into office, giving them power over their lives, when they patently do not give a damn about the people of their state? There are over 700,000 Oklahomans without health insurance, do these senators care? Do they?

This week brought two clear examples of the kind of men these are, and where their loyalties lie.

My blogger buddy, R.J. Adams at his blog Sparrow Chat has said things I want to say myself about Tom Coburn's actions this week. At a town hall meeting on health care reform a woman, in tears, told him of her husband's plight. RJ's two posts of 25 and 27 August relate:
"I'm Just Nipping across the Road to take Out My Neighbour's Appendix" and
"Health Care Reform? Don't let the Wealthy Suffer"

RJ has a much better turn of phrase than I can muster while feeling this angry.

Next, watch Senator James Inhofe declare that he'll vote against health care reform without reading the bill.

These men are public servants, it's time they started serving the public. They quite obviously have not the slightest inclination to do anything but serve their corporate masters, while undermining anything and everything the current administration is trying to do for the good of the people of this country.

Here are 12 noon natal charts for these two charmers. I'm going to point out one thing common to both - it's the key to the problem.





Look at the planets traditionally known as "malefics" Mars, Saturn, and in modern times, Pluto. (Malefic = having or exerting a malignant influence.)

In Coburn's chart Mars, Saturn and Pluto are conjoined at 12, 16, 19 Leo - a stellium of malefics, triple strength malefic energy!

In Inhofe's chart Mars, Pluto and Saturn form a Yod (Finger of Fate). Saturn is at its apex with a sextile between Mars and Pluto at its base. Astrologers say that the energies of the two sextiled planets are blended and chanelled through the planet at the apex.
Different pattern, same malefic blend!

I rest my case.

On a much calmer note, another blogger whose posts I sincerely respect and enjoy is Peter Clothier at The Buddha Diaries. Peter is encouraging his readers to join in a letter-writing and show of solidarity on behalf of the health care reform movement. He writes:

"So I'm asking the more than 70 percent of us who say we believe in significant health care reform to be "solid" with our friends, our neighbors, our families, ourselves--and yes, our online contacts. I'm looking for access to bigger platforms, more active support... Facebook (follow the link to the PO/PO facebook group), Twitter, big circulation blogs and political sites. Can you do this?

AND I want us all to show up at our local Post Office, letters or cards (expressing the hope that our senators will support reform) in hand, at HIGH NOON ON 09/01/09.

Will you help me? Will you broadcast this? Will you be there? Will you shake my hand? "

Yes, indeed - I'll be there physically at our local post office, and in spirit will stand with others elsewhere. I'm pretty sure that I'll be the only one at our post office. I encourage anyone who feels strongly that health care in the USA is in dire need of reform to write a letter to their senators and post it at 12 noon on the first of September. The letters, hopefully a lot of them, will arrive together - a show of solidarity, and proof that one person, even in isolation, can feel in tune with many other like-minded folk throughout this nation.

THE WEEK THAT WAS.......

Our tumble down the rabbit-hole with Alice continued unabated. Other news has been practically drowned out by tales of hate speech and unfair accusations hurled around at town hall meetings on the health care debate, in states throughout the USA. While my treatment of the issue (linking it to Lewis Carroll's masterpieces) may seem flippant, facetious, I'm hiding sincere concern at the way things are shaping up in the USA.

Is there any astrological sign of a return to common sense on the horizon? Will Saturn's move into Libra, sign of diplomacy and balance, in late October turn things in a better direction? Or will Saturn's influence on the sign's characteristics modify or blight them? It's not clear.

Alice laughed, "There's no use trying," she said, "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Right-wing extremists have continued to disrupt town hall meetings. Neither side can focus on what is important when tempers flare - that's their motive for disruption. They are running scared of change. They want Obama to fail in all his attempts, however mild, to make the USA a fairer country for all its citizens. Talk about wrong-headed! When the health care issue has been dealt with,one way or another, this mob will display the same tactics to disrupt discussion on environmental issues, education, transport. Everything. Reports of at least one individual attending a meeting last week armed with a loaded gun sent shock waves of memory among many citizens old enough to remember their country's fairly recent history.
More here

The horror of that moment," the King went on, "I shall never, never forget."
"You will though," the Queen said, "if you don't make a memorandum of it."

Something which did raise a smile came via Stephen Hawking who suffers from Lou Gehrig's disease. He chose to set the record straight after an editorial in a financial paper dragged him into the US health care debate. Blasting the U.K.'s National Health Service, Investor's Business Daily said the brilliant Hawking "wouldn't have a chance" if he was British. Hawking who is due to receive a Presidential Medal of Freedom as one of 16 "agents of change" - is British. And he says he owes his life to national health care.
"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS."

Britain's NHS (National Health Service) has been in place since 1948. I lived most of my life in England, have seen how my parents and other elderly relatives were treated, how I was treated myself when I needed a major operation - fast. I cannot speak highly enough of the NHS. It's not faultless - nothing is, and if the USA ever gets its act together sufficiently to construct anything similar (very doubtful) it will not be faultless either.

I would ask anyone who reads this post, who has doubts about the way a national health service works, to treat the right-wing's ignorance on the matter with the contempt it deserves. I'm not surprised that some people across the Atlantic are very, very annoyed at the crass ignorance of some right-wing activists in the US denigrating a system and way of life which they value.

"Now, I give you fair warning," shouted the Queen, stamping on the ground as she spoke; "either you or your head must be off, and that in about half no time! Take your choice!"

(Quotes in bold type italics come from either Alice in Wonderland or Alice Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll)

So as not to end on a sour note, a mention of something much more pleasant from the week that was.

Last night CBS aired an hour-long programme featuring Neil Diamond, one of my all-time favourite singer/songwriters. There were excerpts from a recent concert at Madison Square Garden in New York, his hometown, and some brief chat and film of him interacting with fans and New Yorkers. I thoroughly enjoyed the show. Neil looks good and sounds as good as ever. If it hadn't been for Neil's presence and tweets on Twitter, I'd almost certainly have missed this TV show - so Twitter ain't all bad! He was gracious enough to thank his fans for their supportive tweets too - so nice to see this! I suspect that he's a really, really nice guy. I've written about him on this blog in at least three past posts, so for any passing readers who are fellow-fans here are links to these:

http://twilightstarsong.blogspot.com/2009/02/aquarian-neil-diamond-to-be-honored.html
http://twilightstarsong.blogspot.com/2007/10/neil-diamond-headed-for-future.html
http://twilightstarsong.blogspot.com/2009/05/adam-neil-comparison.html


(Illustration at top of post is from here.)