Let me explain. Dowd views politics as soap opera, and fleshes out the personal details that she doesn’t know about the candidates by viewing them through familiar narratives for which she has no particular evidence. That is, the Democratic men are wimps, the women are bitches, and the Clenis is all powerful. She sees these

Similarly, Lutin writes about the candidates using the conventional wisdom cliches of their personalities: Clinton is a scheming bitch and Obama is a dainty elitist, and Edwards is gay. He writes:

Back in Las Vegas he was honest when mentioned that he’s absent-minded and would lose any piece of paper given to him any more than five minutes before he needed it. Nobody is completely truthful, however, because he might have also said, Can’t you see that we’re royalty? We leave leave the details and menial work to underlings.”

And Edwards, remember him? Instead of “I’m too sensitive”, he might have said, “I’m just a ambiguous Gemini. Stop calling me gay. It makes me want to cry”.

And as for Hillary, instead of that “I get impatient” baloney, I would have loved it if she had said, “I’m a Saturn Pluto type Scorpio. I can be a total bitch to live with, you know, on those mornings before coffee when I feel like riding down the street on a tank and shooting people, especially you-know-who.”

That’s nuts! If Dowd had written any of those above three paragraphs (well, at least either of the last two) I’m pretty sure you would have given her a deserved smackdown, not link to her as your favorite Jungian columnist.

Lutin’s comments are no more appropriate just because he uses astrology as the pretext for them. What is it about Edward’s birth time that makes him a gay girly man?

What makes his “observations” any more valid because he supposedly came to them through astrology, rather than just going with Dowd’s pulitzer prize winning “I know what they’re thinking even if they don’t” method?

You’re welcome to comment here as long as you don’t piss me off with personal attacks on me (your host). Please understand: I have no incentive whatsoever to put up with assholes. Trying to bait me or other readers over my personal spiritual beliefs (particularly when you obviously don’t have a fucking clue) isn’t the way to earn my respect.

Thanks for listening!

The Twentieth-Century presidents who were Scorpios illustrate the range the sign can take, from Warren G. Harding to Theodore Roosevelt.

Really? Is that what that demonstrates?

You say that a disparate group of personalities and people “illustrate the range the sign can take,” but why not see this as evidence that there is no correlation between personality and “sun sign?”

If I had a set of randomly dispersed data points between two variables (ie personality and sun sign) I wouldn’t say “My, how amazing the range that x can take about y,” rather I would say that the hypothesis of correlation isn’t supported by the data.

But hey, that’s just me. Maybe I’ll understand once I make my way through more of planetwaves.net’s archives.

First consider Barack Obama. His Sun sign is Leo. Leo is the lion, the king of the beasts. Leos are natural leaders. Leos are happy if they are treated like the king that they believe they are. The may have a problem with ego and entitlement. Leos tend to be good politicians, because they want to please the crowd. The last Leo president was Bill Clinton, and he was famous for the way he could connect with people. It is hardly surprising that a Leo would give great speeches, giving the audience exactly what they want. But if you don’t recognize the kingly status of the Leo, they can get angry and insecure.

Hillary Clinton is a Scorpio, the most maligned of signs. Traditionally, each of the 12 Apostles was assigned to a Zodiacal sign; Scorpio was assigned to Judas. During the Middle Ages, when Jewish people were not well liked, Jews were assigned to the sign Scorpio. Scorpios are often accused of being secretive, manipulative, or even negative.

But Scorpios are also known to have hidden strength, they don’t give up easily. One of the symbols for the sign is the Phoenix, a bird that is reborn for its own ashes. But a Scorpio can also be its own worst enemy, as seen in the scorpion stinging itself to death. The Twentieth-Century presidents who were Scorpios illustrate the range the sign can take, from Warren G. Harding to Theodore Roosevelt.

Would you be so kind, however, as to point me to some good resources on the web? Astrology on the internet seems a mess of contradictory and financially competing sources. Are there any that you find to be credible or worthy of further inspection?

Maybe if Dowd wrote her columns claiming authority from the stars she\’d be more respectable to you?

I ask this sincerely, Susie, because I don\’t often get the chance to interact with astrologers/believers; Would you please skim this post and discuss briefly why you don\’t find the evidence against astrology convincing?

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/what_do_you_mea.html

Furthermore, why is it that \”mainstream\” academia is disdainful of astrology? Arrogance? Conspiracy? I\’m genuinly asking, because I would think that if one could find a way to show a deep correlation between human behavior and astronomical states, that this would be at the very least a confounding counter-example to the rationalist worldview that dominates academia.

Thoughts? I know that you\’ve probably had it out about astrology before, but please, indulge me.