Category Archives: Columnist

The Big Line-Up – Mercury and Jupiter In Retrograde

Mercury and Jupiter, the only two sign-ruling planets in apparent retrograde motion right now, are lined up with Earth and the Sun. The alignment is getting tighter by the day. It is an arrangement that begs you to defer any need for precision or meaning so as to simply stand in wonder of and appreciation for the sheer majesty of celestial beauty and cosmic timing.

len-wallick-logo

Yet, implicit meaning and functional precision are in much in evidence as the smallest fully-fledged planet (Mercury) and the largest one (Jupiter) move in unlikely synchronicity with Earth.

We might begin deriving interpretation of the Big Line-Up with Jupiter because you can see it with your own eyes. It’s the steady bright light in the East after dark. You can distinguish Jupiter from Sirius (or Canis Major, Orion’s faithful dog), shining fiercely to the South of Jupiter by the fact that stars tend to twinkle and planets don’t.

If you have been watching Jupiter lately, you may also have noticed it’s a little lower in the East for a given time every successive night. That’s what Jupiter retrograde looks like, rising a bit later every evening.

In the middle its Leo retrograde period (which started on Dec. 8 and ends on April 8) Jupiter will oppose the Aquarius Sun on Feb. 6.

What astrologers call an opposition actually means Earth will be moving between Jupiter and the Sun while “lapping” Jupiter’s apparently slower motion from our inside lane. This process creates the illusion of Jupiter in reverse.

Nonetheless, Jupiter’s approach to oppose the Aquarius Sun from Leo functions very much like the template for all oppositions — a Full Moon. First, Jupiter will be rising just as the Sun sets, just like a Full Moon does. Secondly, Jupiter will be at its brightest, also like a Full Moon.

Finally, manifestations of Jupiter in your life (expansion, amplification, optimism and excess) will likely become more exaggerated as Jupiter approaches and reaches opposition to the Sun. You can probably see such expressions developing in and around you already.

Interestingly, and in unlikely synchrony, Mercury is nearing the middle of its Aquarius retrograde period (which started on Jan. 21 and ends Feb. 11) just as Jupiter enters the middle of its Leo retrograde period on the opposite side of the zodiac and the sky. Nevertheless, the process will play out very differently because Mercury has the inside lane on Earth.

Hence, there will never be a Mercury opposition, because Earth will never pass between Mercury and the Sun. Thank goodness for that; no amount of sunscreen or air conditioning would help us if such were to be the case.

Instead of an opposition, Mercury has two types of conjunction with the Sun. The exterior (or ‘superior’) opposition comes when Mercury is in the middle of a period of direct motion, traversing the other side of the Sun, but still occupying the same degree of the same sign with the Sun on the zodiac — which is a conjunction defined. We are not approaching that sort of Mercury conjunction with the Sun now.

Instead, we are now approaching an interior (or ‘inferior’) conjunction of Mercury with the Sun at 8:45 am EST (13:45 UTC) on Friday. That means Mercury will be passing between Earth and the Sun as it laps us, once again creating an illusion of backward motion in the process, but not an illusion you will be able to see.

Mercury at interior conjunction is hidden in solar glare in very much the same way that the template for all conjunctions (a New Moon) is — rising with and traveling across the daytime sky with the Sun.

That’s how Mercury’s conjunction with the Sun on Friday will probably play out much as a New Moon does, except substituting Mercury’s many and varied associations for lunar archetypes.

First, it will be the beginning of a new cycle between the solar representation of consciousness and Mercury’s mentally associated attributes. The new cycle will eventually manifest visibly with Mercury re-appearing in the East before sunrise after the middle of February, following its recent disappearance from the West after sunset.

Additionally, the impending conjunction from the Sun to retrograde Mercury will (once again, like a New Moon) represent a merger of energies. Indeed, you may already be experiencing some difficulty quieting the mind to simply be conscious.

So that’s the Big Line-Up for you. Not something that happens every Mercury retrograde. Not something that comes with every Jupiter retrograde, either.

It’s not perfect or precise, but close enough to connect Leo’s imperative towards extroversion with Aquarius cultivations through a rare cosmic alignment.

It’s a string of pearls (Jupiter, Earth, Mercury and the Sun) of which you are a part. It is beyond meaning, and is perhaps best taken in a state of awe and reverence for how all of us must somehow be similarly aligned with each other and with greater things, both evident and unseen.

Offered In Service

Len is available for astrology readings. You can contact him at lenwallick [at] gmail [dot] com.

Mercury’s Revenge

By Amanda Moreno

I usually try to ignore Mercury retrograde. I mean, I do the whole re-think, re-view, re-check thing. I try not to submit grants (I’m a grant writer in one of my other lives) and I pay closer attention than normal to what I say, but by and large I shy away from anything with lots of hype. And boy oh boy, does Mercury retrograde come with hype.

Photo by graywacke/A Landing a Day

Photo by graywacke/A Landing a Day

I also try not to comment on the fact that I normally get through these periods unscathed, lest I bring on some scathing. Sometimes I’ll feel it emotionally, but that’s about it.

This time, however, I noticed the glitches creeping up days before Mercury stationed, and now I’m just annoyed. Because, you see, my iPod just died — and then I learned that they don’t make those anymore. And because my brain has been a ball of loose ends with no hope of connecting the dots, and I have grant deadlines to meet. And because I have now written this column not once, not twice, but three times and somehow lost it all three frickin’ times.

So you will not be reading about mandalas and polycentric models of the psyche. I’ve had to re-think my original plan. My attempts to move out of the realms of personal narrative writing have been very firmly thwarted.

*Enter a 15 minute pause while I stare out the window.*

I really like Aquarius. And by “like” I actually mean love. How is this relevant? Well, because Mercury is retrograding through Aquarius, and because Aquarius is my Sun sign. Growing up, I was a part of the Catholic cult for a moment, a fundamentalist Christian cult for a second, and bounced from Methodist church to Methodist church in the in-between stages. The scripture and gospels were fairly irrelevant to me, and nothing really spoke to the strange nature of my experiences. What I loved about the various churches was the sense of community they provided. We Aquarians sure do love a good tribal vibe — even though we often feel like complete outsiders, or make ourselves that way. We’re weird. It’s true.

When I was 12 or 13 I came across a poster in some kitschy shop in the mall that said “Aquarius” at the top. Lo and behold, it spent three paragraphs describing someone who was somehow like me. It explained my experience. It spoke to my soul. I became hooked on astrology, at least in theory — the real hooking didn’t take place for about a decade. I soon thereafter read a book that said something along the lines of, “Aquarians travel further in their minds in a day than most people do in a year.” Uh, yup.

I love the Aquarian ideals — brotherly love, progressive thinking, evaluating the structures of society to see if they’re still working and relevant and if not, breaking through them (I am indeed a fan of the Uranus-ruled Aquarius, although the Saturn rulership is clearly important as well).

I also tend to think of Aquarius as the sign of individuation, of finding one’s own path and breaking away from the collective, which makes things confusing when you think of Aquarius as a tribe-oriented sign, as tribes don’t tend to like outsiders. That seeming sense of paradox is so important to astrology as a whole.

In fact, that conflict — the Aquarian/11th house affinity for tribe and friendship — is a core conundrum. In my experience it mainly manifests as a longing for tribe conflicting with a feeling that I’ll always be an outsider, that I will never truly belong — at least when I’m feeling low.

Aquarius, to me, is also very much about detachment, particularly detachment as a function of trauma. In evolutionary astrology, Aquarius, Uranus and the 11th house indicate tendencies toward and experiences of trauma and fragmentation. As the sign associated with individuation, or the process of following the path of the soul and differentiating from the group, it is the sign of the outsider or exile. The beauty of the mind is that it can see far into the future, and the danger of the mind is that we can get stuck there, bypassing emotion, especially when the body has become an unsafe place to be. We can also be ostracized for seeing something that seems weird or different before our culture is ready for the idea.

I find the detachment most prominently in my own life when I head full-speed into an experience that I know will be intense but sounds so interesting. For example, as I explore my kinky self, someone will say to me something like “Hey, Can I tie you up spread eagle on this massage table?” And I’ll say, “Sure! Sounds interesting!” I then have to make space for my emotional body to respond — or not, depending on the situation.

I can’t even tell you the number of times in the past six months I’ve experienced the disconnect between the Aquarian part of me that finds super sexy kinky experiences to be fascinating and interesting and the 4th house Scorpio Moon part of me that is extraordinarily sensitive and vulnerable (and, well, totally down for intensity too). Bridging the two is a matter of letting myself feel the intensity and then processing it later, rather than bypassing it all together.

So, what’s the point? Well, the point is that I’ll hopefully have a more cohesive blog for you next week. In the meantime, I’m going to take some advice from a recent Planet Waves horoscope for Aquarius and review the past six years of my life. I’m also going to give in to that urge to keep staring out the window in reverie. Mercury is dredging something up, and I’m curious to see what it is.

Weekend Tarot Reading — Sunday, Jan. 25, 2015

By Sarah Taylor

When the cards speak in the way that they are doing this week, then it’s time to pay attention. Specifically to three things:

  • What was coming up on the horizon mid-December last year
  • How that came into focus in your life around Jan. 11 this year
  • What is about to move into the picture again from the week of Jan. 4, and how it, too, is related to the reading of Jan. 11

This is going to get a little mind-based, but given a Swords card is the central card (again) — and Swords are associated with the mind, mental processes, and beliefs — we might as well make use of the prevailing analytical current and apply it.

hermit_six_swords_justice_rohrig_sm

The Hermit, Six of Swords, Justice from The Röhrig Tarot deck, created by Carl-W. Röhrig. Click on the image for a larger version.

I’m going to go through each of these three points and see what emerges over the ensuing paragraphs, and how that might be playing out in your life in ways that make sense to you. Or at least they may seem to make their own sense even if they are held in a kind of mystery to which the mind is only partially admitted.

First, the Six of Swords made an appearance on Dec. 14 last year in the right-hand position. Swords, as I mention above, are to do with the mind, and the Six of Swords is one of the most ease-ful of the often difficult Swords suit. In this deck, it is associated with a kind of mental breakthrough, or synthesis; an idea that solves a quandary, or a meeting of minds that suggests a feeling of ‘falling into place’ — where, “Wow! Three and three equal six! Why did I not see that before?!” Appearing as it did in this position suggests that its influence was being hinted at or intuited, but it did not yet have a tangible presence in your life.

I will also go back to the idiomatic meaning of the Six of Swords, which will be relevant for some: a journey over water.

This changed around the week of Jan. 11 (the second point above), when the future became present and the Six of Swords moved from the right-hand position to the central position. Something started to get real wings. What was merely a glint in the celestial eye moved into the realm of tangible possibility. And this week, the Six of Swords is, yet again, in the centre of the reading.

This possibility of synthesis, understanding, a meeting — or a journey — still stands, or has developed or evolved in some way. And it still has as its basis The Hermit, which is also in the same position as it was on Jan. 11. The synthesis or journey has come out of a period of inner contemplation that has transformed the way you think about something, what you believe, how you choose to approach a particular mystery. That, in essence, has allowed the mystery to remain as such while you, simultaneously, have been able to navigate it. Yes, that’s the paradox right here: neither you nor the mystery had to surrender who you were at core in order to get to the other side.

You see, The Hermit has learned that, to work its magic, the mystery is embraced, but not solved.

Which brings us to the third point: that which is about to move into the picture again from the week of Jan. 4, and how it, too, is related to the reading of Jan. 11.

On Jan. 4, Justice appeared in the near-past or foundational position of the reading. Today, on Jan. 25, she appears in the near-future reading. We are currently in Mercury’s retrograde phase in Aquarius (underlined by the Six of Swords, which corresponds to Mercury in Aquarius), and so what is coming up will be a revisiting of old ground from early January.

Bearing this in mind, what did Justice mean to you then, and what does it mean to you now? I wrote this about Justice on Jan. 4:

“No fighting — no projecting conflict outside. The time for that particular engagement has passed. You now work with what is — it is the foundation for where you find yourself in the present.”

That ‘present’ is about to make itself known again — the implication being that you will have an opportunity to make a choice as to whether you want to project an inner conflict outside, or to assume any responsibility for it that you have heretofore assigned to others.

This is not about taking responsibility for what isn’t yours, but rather to look at conflict with a discerning eye and look at where any roots have their origin in you, or your own experience of conflict in the (distant) past that you are now revisiting. Again, The Hermit, as foundational card, can assist you both with discerning what is yours and what isn’t, and with being able to hold and transform what you now see to be true.

The outcome is also linked to the third point above, and has a connection to the reading from Jan. 11. Look back at that reading and to the Princess of Swords on the right, and then look at Justice. There are a couple of striking similarities and contrasts between both, and I am going to pick out just a few.

The first is that they are both female figures, except Justice speaks of a soul-based experience, while the Princess speaks of an element of the personality, or a specific person. The second is that both figures have a weapon with a distinctive hilt, except the Princess holds her sword to herself while Justice rests her arm on her light-sabre in order to weigh up the scales of karma. The third is that while the Princess’s eyes are open, and her headdress is made of 18 eyes similar to her own, Justice wears a blindfold fashioned by the cosmos. One sees personally; the other one is guided — not by her eyes, but by the checks and balances of existence and patterns that lie beyond our minds to comprehend.

And so we come back to this reading: The Hermit is the point where our personal comprehension encounters the mystery; Justice is where balance is restored and where the impersonal comes into play. Both of these meet in the maze of the mind — the Six of Swords — in a way that honours both.

You are the intersection of man and mystery; from this intersection magic is both made and honoured. Something is happening here. You might not be able to explain it fully. No — you will not be able to explain it fully. However, you can know it and you can feel its effects. There are bigger things at work. But you are an integral part of them. Perhaps that’s all you need to know.

Astrology/Elemental correspondences: The Hermit (Virgo), Six of Swords (Mercury in Aquarius), Justice (Libra)

If you want to experiment with tarot cards and don’t have any, we provide a free tarot spread generator using the Celtic Wings spread, which is based on the traditional Celtic Cross spread. This article explains how to use the spread.

Sex, cinema and secrets: early exposure at the arthouse

Note: Since Mercury retrogrades often invite (or compel) us to review some aspect of our lives, I offer you this piece from The Guardian in which Erin Cressida Wilson, who wrote the script for the 2002 movie Secretary, recounts her 1970s upbringing by bohemian parents and early introduction to erotica. — Amanda P.

By Erin Cressida Wilson

Growing up in 1970s San Francisco I was often dragged by my parents to explicit foreign films at small cinemas like the Clay or the Vogue, the Balboa or the Castro.

"In 2002, educated film-makers were not supposed to like this sort of thing..." -- Erin Cressida Wilson. Promotional photo of Maggie Gyllenhaal in Secretary courtesy of Allstar/Lions Gate

“In 2002, educated film-makers were not supposed to like this sort of thing…” — Erin Cressida Wilson. Promotional photo of Maggie Gyllenhaal in Secretary courtesy of Allstar/Lions Gate

There I’d sit, underage and somehow smuggled in, on a scratchy red chair that smelled of popcorn and sticky floors, surrounded by bohemians and intellectuals watching the same thing that I was watching: sex.

Back then, the entire city felt drenched in sensuality, and so did my home. It was here on sweaty afternoons that I watched Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman on TV, curled up with my mother, drawing constellations and stars and universes from freckle to freckle across her skin.

I was trying to find the secret – the reason that fueled her to grab my hand on Sunday afternoons, take a left turn as far away from the playground as possible, and rush me to the opening weekend of I Am Curious (Yellow) (1969 – age five), Carnal Knowledge (1971 – age seven), Last Tango in Paris (1972 – age eight), A Clockwork Orange (1972 – age eight), The Mother and the Whore (1973 – age nine), and Swept Away … by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August (1974 – age 10).

I would sit next to my mother on these afternoons and inevitably a tendril of tension would start emanating from the screen, and from her. Suddenly, in a fierce whisper, she would instruct me to look at the floor. And so I would stare at a discarded popcorn box, a spilled drink or simply the darkness that disappeared into the seat ahead of me – listening carefully to quickening breaths – allowing the film’s soundscape to caress me. I learned to peek with my eyes to see bodies in motion, pushing like animals, doing something mysterious that I didn’t understand, but somehow enjoyed.

It was during this era that even the more explicit films like Deep Throat (1972) and The Devil in Miss Jones (1973) managed to cross over into the mainstream. My mother blessedly spared me these films. A confluence of factors – among them the rise of television and a growing counterculture – led film-makers to mine previously taboo topics. The abandonment of the Production Code in 1968 opened the floodgates for sex to migrate from dirty theatres to more legit venues. But it was short-lived thanks to a 1973 Supreme Court decision that once again shunted these features to adult picturehouses. Nevertheless, it was a transformative time to be coming-of-age.

But despite this early education in sexually-explicit cinema, I never quite understood how I came to construct the power dynamics in my script for Secretary (2002 – age 38). It wasn’t until I came across my mother’s diary, a few months before her death, that I started to fully comprehend what was at work in my subconscious. This journal kept a weekly record of what turned out to be my mother’s 20+ year affair with her shrink. One afternoon in 1951, after only a few sessions, he pronounced my mother to be a sadomasochist. Not great shrinkage, but there was a lot of truth there. And reading my mother’s diaries brought me to understand that secrets that fly around a house actually do get absorbed by children in ways that are mysterious.

Ours was a house full of books. Food to eat was scarce but it was packed to the rafters with words to read. It took hours of searching the pages of highbrow literature to find anything naughty. I quickly figured out that in a cinephile’s house, some of the easiest sources of sexy images were film magazines. Curious and dressed in my school uniform, knee socks, and saddle shoes, I would sneak down to the basement and flick through my father’s stashes of magazines. Alongside the mildewed copies of Oui, Hustler and Playboy, were stacks of Film Quarterly whose pages were charged with erotica, drama, and – best of all – a lot of European men.

If the city and our house felt like extensions of all things carnal, then our derelict basement seemed to be the epicentre. Oddly, my parents’ bedroom, with its door always open, seemed to be the one place sex did not inhabit. Philosopher Gaston Bachelard has written much on basements and their psychological connotations. In The Poetics of Space, he posits the attic as the site of rationality and the basement as the site of irrationality – manifestations of the conscious and the unconscious respectively. While the attic provides reassurance, the basement provides mystery.

And mysteries it held. It’s where my father hid not only his porn, but his alcohol. It’s where my mother, a lover of many men, hid her love letters – locked in a metal box buried in the dirt under the house. She would often say to me, “Don’t go under the house.” And just as her order to not look at the sexy films had spurred me on to do so, I would indeed look under the house. When I finally uncovered “the box,” I found on the very top, a note to my father: “Dear heart, if you find these letters, I loved only you.” And then underneath were handwritten and typed letters from the men, often writers. On thin onion skin paper were words of love and sex and longing. But my mother had, like a true self-censor, carefully cut out all the explicit words with scissors. If I held the paper up to the light, it was like lace.

It was also in this basement that my mother would invite the dustbin men in. They were Italian-Americans who collected our trash in large burlap sacks that they’d throw over their shoulders before going back down the 30 or so stairs to their truck. In the same way I imagined my father would linger on the sexy images of his magazines, my mother admired these men, their muscles dancing and backs straining under the weight of our detritus. She would say to me, “Look at his hands. Look at his lips. Look at his back. Listen to his voice.” She was giving me erotic instruction.

It felt natural that in my early adulthood I would start writing plays about sex. Though in the 1980s New York theatre scene, a woman liking men was practically against the natural order. There appeared to be a rulebook thrown at every emerging playwright. If you were gay, an obligatory coming-out play was what was called for. If you were a person of colour, you were told to cash that card in and write with that in mind. If you were a woman? It was advisable to write about how abusive men were. It was not so good to be a thinking woman who was phallus-embracing. At Smith, the all-women’s college I attended in Massachusetts, girls walked around in T-shirts that said, “A Century of Women on Top”. And I remember asking, “What if you don’t like being on top? Does that mean you aren’t a feminist?”

My Women’s Studies professors would say: “You don’t know how hard we fought for you.” And yet, when they told me my sexuality was not correct, I felt embarrassed. I knew I had longings that didn’t line up with the politics, but I refused to repress them, particularly in my writing. I fought to unravel a political correctness that was censoring desire.

By the time I wrote the screenplay for Secretary, I had given up all hope of ever reaching a wider audience. No movie star would accept playing the lead in that film. After all, to portray a submissive and to be spanked onscreen would be a disastrous move for their careers. In addition, there was talk early on that the script was sexist because it ended with Maggie Gyllenhaal’s character making a bed and dropping a cockroach on it – so that her husband would find it and punish her. It was repeatedly suggested to me that – instead – she should “find herself,” and become a lawyer herself. She should be powerful in a way that appeared strong through a traditional feminist lens. There was also a vibe around the film that Gyllenhaal’s character should overcome her problem. Again, I didn’t consider her to have a problem. And so I decided that this was a coming-out film for a masochist.

When the film screened at the Sundance film festival, middle-aged feminists stomped out during the spanking scene. I’d sit on the bus that shuttled us through the snow between screenings and eavesdrop on conversations. When the subject of Secretary came up, film-goers would look sideways. No comment. After all, in 2002, educated film-makers were not supposed to like this sort of thing. They were not supposed to like BDSM. And so we came away from Sundance with an honourable mention and exhaustion. We had not sold the film to a distributor. I had observed other films like Tadpole getting sold to Miramax for $5m. It was not a sexy situation. Perhaps we were the ultimate masochists, attempting to make this film in such a climate.

But Secretary was allowed to sit on the vine for a long time thanks to an eventual distribution deal from Lion’s Gate Entertainment, the advent of home video, DVDs, streaming and the glory of late night airings on the Sundance Channel. Today, it seems that what was pornographic 12 years ago is passé and maybe even clichéd. One generation’s risqué becomes the baseline for the next.

My mother used to tell me – among the many things she told me – that there was nothing sexier than a man whose breath smelled of scotch and cigarettes. I miss cinema and sticky floors and popcorn on an empty stomach. We move forward, but some of us stop sometimes to remember what it was like to fill in the blanks of a dirty letter, to hunt for the naughty film magazine, and to look up between one’s fingers to catch a glimpse.

Around The Corner

By Judith Gayle | Political Waves

You will be pleased to learn that we’ve finally turned a corner. I’ve read any number of articles that confirm it this week, some citing Obama’s progressive march to the sea despite the Republican win in November, others declaring that income inequality, racial tension and climate change are decided, no longer useful as a political football with no goalpost in sight. With Republicans hell bent on obstruction of any remediations, getting the ball up and over will be a monumental task but one that will continue to illuminate the entrenched illogic and corporate loyalty of the party on the right. With one last Uranus/Pluto aspect coming up fast, we’re heading into the final moments of a genuine game change.

275+Judith_Gayle

The talking heads are all but sure that gay marriage and marijuana legalization are inevitable in this nation. Challenges working through the judiciary could delay but not dissuade the public that the time is now. The war of words from Establishment politicos attempting to equate Warren Democrats with Tea Party extremists is falling flat as public opinion swings back toward populism. And internationally, within just a matter of weeks the shifting sands of the Mideast have revealed much of that political arena to be not just troubled, but also increasingly fragile. With Yemen’s leadership overthrown and the death of Saudi King Abdullah, replaced by his (reportedly demented) brother, coinciding with the downturn in petro profit, continuing fracture seems not just possible but probable.

A left turn from the political and cultural mayhem of the last fifteen years would be a relief, certainly, if we could just push through and take a deep breath without feeling as though someone was behind us, plotting to drag us back into a previous century. And while those of us who chart change might agree that things are turning rapidly now, I think of it more like a long curving on-ramp that reflects our growing political awareness — combined with an almost nostalgic longing for a positive, ethical human footprint — than a sharp left turn. But turn we have, and if you haven’t felt it yet, you will. What used to be an obstructive solid red light on common sense proposals, indicating a brake-squealing stop, has become a flashing yellow and occasionally, green light go.

If you didn’t see it, you missed an interesting State of the Union this year. From a theatrical standpoint, it was a winner, with Pubs mostly minding their manners and the President almost jovial in his presentation. I say mostly because there was one moment in which the right expressed their disdain for the Prez, and he followed their scorn with a quip that put them all in their place (that was the point at which I whooped and hollered). One politico, post-speech, said that moment was an indication that Obama was the most competitive politician in Washington DC — trash talking like he was on the basketball court — and all I could think was that if it had been George W. taking that shot at his naysayers, he would have been congratulated for his quick wit and leadership qualities.

The absence of SCOTUS Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas helped keep things cool when Obama, once again, criticized the Citizens United decision, calling it a “mistake.” In 2010, his milder condemnation that the ruling would open the floodgates of special interests had Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words, “Not true.” If he’d shown up, Obama could have mouthed “True!” and been forgiven by most, if not all, of the seated justices, but probably not Roberts, who feels obligated to represent the court on these occasions even if they’re “political posturing.” And Kennedy? Undecided (pun intended). You will want to open this link if you’re a Ruth Bader Ginsberg admirer. Unlike Alito, who has said attendance at the SOTU is like being “a potted plant,” RBG seemed to have enjoyed herself. The same cannot be said for John Boehner, who sat behind the Prez with a face as pouty as ‘grumpy cat.’

This is the year that Obama decided he could not only fly the flag of his many successes, but also speak out for liberal policy, promising to veto a number of expected Republican bills. Those of us who have watched six other speeches with our wings crossed, waiting to hear the words he uttered last Tuesday, may be wondering what the hell took so long. There are a myriad of reasons and rationales for his slow assent into liberal ownership, including his academic reserve, his high-wire act as our first (patently ham-strung) African-American president, combined with that Neptunian quality that created him as the imaginary wishing well we all threw our change into, but let me add that his moniker “No Drama Obama” is both wise and welcome to thinking people, but NOT to those whose lives are best defined by drama and their embrace of it. I don’t have to tell you which of those I’m pointing toward, do I? Compared to the hysteria of the Bush years, the relative calm that this administration has insisted upon will be looked upon favorably by historians.

I did hear one analysis that made complete sense, however, skirting the personal traits Obama brings to the table. Now that the fiscal numbers no longer reflect emergency, and with that painful healing curve occurring on Obama’s watch and under his policies, he no longer has to focus on finance or apologize for flagging numbers. Tuesday’s speech was more the Obama we would have expected to see had he inherited a solvent nation. This was the agenda of the community organizer who had asked us to hope.

Too late to the table, we’d be better advised to organize ourselves, to work for the changes we’d imagined could happen from the top down, but we might also remember that where there was only black and white for the prior two presidential terms, the majority has learned from the experience. Now we are able to embrace nuanced thought and considered response in order to spot imaginary dragons launched to frighten us, and question the motives of ‘party lines’ that don’t seem to serve the public good.

Although the allegations are still flying, it’s become more difficult to rely on a failed economy to assault the left, which signals more culture war in the coming months, since the conservatives have little else to build on. They will no doubt continue to pour salt in the wounds of those who consider themselves victims of a lunatic left and repressive government, keeping them in the fold. Representing ‘values voters,’ Boehner’s party has been busy attacking on that flank since coming back to Washington earlier this month.

Besides going after Social Security and Affordable Care, the House was unable to pass a vote to restrict abortion when a handful of moderate Pubs refused to go along with as strict a bill as the one suggested, requiring a rape victim to report her violation to the police in order to receive treatment. The dissenters, 22 Republican women, said they did not want to rush a vote, the details of which would offend millennials who would most likely be the demographic affected. Branding them traitors, the party quickly moved along to another bill waiting in the wings, limiting ACA funding for abortion, which passed handily. To their credit, this same group of moderates refused to vote for an earlier bill in the House revoking legal protection for Dreamers. They may be the only pragmatists in a party determined to drive away the very voters they will need in 2016.

North Carolina’s Senator Richard Burr, replacing Dianne Feinstein as Senate Intelligence Committee chair, has decided that the torture report needs to go back into the black ops files of the CIA. As if to put the genie back in the bottle, Burr sent a letter to the Executive demanding that full copies of the 6,900-page report received by a number of agencies including the FBI, be returned immediately. The grisly details of America’s foray into torture are at risk, it appears, as the executive branch is subject to Freedom of Information Act requests, while the Senate is not. Feinstein, Udall and others must be apoplectic watching years of effort disappear in front of their eyes, but the rough outlines of American shame are still out in the open, which would never have happened without their service to the nation.

Obama’s affirmation that we’ve turned a corner is based on leaving behind two wars, while stabilizing the economy. His refusal to mobilize the whole of the military or further the War on Terror rhetoric gripes the neocons, even though there are plenty of covert American military-ops around the world that should keep them happy. The continuing tussle between the administration and the hawks over Iran will no doubt increase as election season heats up.

Wee Lindsey Graham is looking for support as the next Commander-in-Chief (both unlikely and unwise) because in the conservative view, U.S. militarism is not well served under a Democrat, although we could easily argue that the drone strikes never cease, couldn’t we? And that the military budget is still humongous, bloated and obscene? Establishment politics will continue to be about militarism and corporatism unless We, the People, decide that we no longer support those things as necessary to our lifestyle. Today, they are still deemed necessary. We will have to remain hopeful about tomorrow.

We might speculate about whether or not Mr. Boehner had a bit too much Merlot when he decided to invite Bebe Netanyahu to address Congress “on the grave threats radical Islam and Iran pose to our security and way of life,” without getting approval from the Executive. This comes at a time when the right is pushing hard for pre-emptive sanctions should negotiations with Iran fall by the wayside. The left rightly identifies that as a way to kill off any chance for on-going diplomacy regarding nuclear capability.

While Boehner’s loyalty to Netanyahu is well documented, frankly I’m surprised at this unprecedented action, which borders on illegal. Boehner seldom initiates much more than a verbal strike or a rounding up of the usual suspects to encourage a vote. Actually jamming a stick in the gears is very aggressive behavior. Very un-Boehner-like, indeed.

An unnamed official in Israel’s intelligence/special ops, Mossad, was quoted by John Kerry as suggesting that new sanctions would “throw a grenade” into the current negotiations, and to be candid, there are still many Israelis who would be happy to do so. But not so many as in bygone days when everything was black and white, nor are Americans so utterly devoted to the Israeli cause, now that they’ve gotten a good look at what is happening in Palestine.

No longer asleep, we have questions about who the evil empires really are and what they really want, the ideological right AND left no longer trusting appearances, or those who foster them. It seems that the larger coalitions, both political and cultural, are showing signs of stress and fracture. The systems — governmental, cultural, and even religious — representing Capricorn authority must surely morph by necessity before this is all over.

Uranus explodes and Pluto transforms; together they’re like the genie in the bottle. Once out, there’s no going back. The last time Uranus and Pluto danced like this, it marked the end of the Old Guard. Look at grainy black and white television footage from the early ’60s, showing humorless men in suit coats and hats along with women who appear to have been uniformly stamped out of dough with cookie cutters. Then watch a movie from the early ’70s, with garish colors and paisley patterns, long hair and bell bottoms, a seeming ease with sex and drugs, and question what happened to the fedoras and white gloves that were required only a few years earlier.

Let’s remember how quickly things changed after the genie of rebellion kicked over the blockage to glaring truths about Vietnam and culture war and a burgeoning Military Industrial Complex. Ricky and Lucy couldn’t sleep in the same bed in the 1950s, but by the ’70s, Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice all could, and did.

The ’50s gave us the Cleaver family, including the Beave’s iconic mother, June, she of the pearls and heels, day in, day out, who convinced a generation that they were missing out on adequate mothering. By the ’70s, “One Day At A Time” assured us that a divorced mother could raise two girls alone with the help of an apartment ‘super’ (an aging lothario with the instincts of a stalker). Times change while we’re busy with other things. Times change when we’re not looking.

So let’s look, shall we? They’re changing as we speak. Nothing’s black and white any more. We’ve discovered nuance, we’re asking questions. The gray of indecision has many of us unsure what to do next, but at least we aren’t marching off where we’re pointed, battling mindlessly, parroting patriotic catch-phrases. We’re a work in progress. The tornado that picked Dorothy up and set her down in Oz had Uranus written all over it, but in the end, she got back home, where the Pluto changes she discovered weren’t in the personalities around her, but in her attitude toward them, and toward her expectations of reality.

That ‘hopey changey stuff’ Sarah Palin found so silly actually happened: the changey stuff, anyway — the hopey stuff wasn’t quite realistic enough to pin itself into form. Changes happened when we weren’t looking; they’re happening right now. Those who impede progress may continue to do so, but progress won’t be stopped. Everything is a process of realization, a progression of events that lead us to examine what’s in front of us for another choice, and another and another.

Say what you will about the calm, collected president we elected a few years ago, he has given us permission not to blow a gasket or have a tizzy or lose our heads over the challenges of the day, and because of that, we can now identify what is hysterical, what’s over the top, what’s designed to manipulate us and what doesn’t ring true. Think of that as everything on TV, most of what you hear around the water cooler and much of the chatter in your brain.

And even though we do love the drama, and daydream of a mystical moment that might change everything for the better, there is strength and reassurance in knowing that the reality of our lives consists in appreciation of one another, in cooperation and shared expectations, in solutions discovered and embraced together. We are the creators of our reality, we are the ones who shape the future. We’re rounding the corner and where we go from here is — always has been — up to us: one thought, word, deed at a time.

The Passionate Path of Venus

For Venus (and how Venus expresses in your life), what remains of the Aquarius road to its Pisces exaltation would best not be called rough. More properly, the path Venus will trace through latter Aquarius before entering Pisces Tuesday, just seconds before 10:00 am EST (15:00 UTC), looks to be passionate and worthy of walking mindfully in good company.

len-wallick-logo

It helps that the Moon entered Pisces earlier today — preparing the ground, so to speak. Indeed, until the Moon moves on to Aries come Saturday morning (something Amanda has already prepared us for in her offering today), the passionate path of Venus will very possibly be previewed by how the lunar lives for you over the next few days.

Venus and the Moon have a lot in common. Both are nearly always silvery to the eye and often steadily bright when the Sun is below the horizon. Additionally, both Venus and the Moon go through phases, from a thin crescent to the fullest face.

Finally, both Venus and the Moon invoke a feminine warrior’s independent strength. That strength proceeds from the Western mythology behind their respective names to include part of how it feels when you simply look at them with your own eyes.

Yet, there are differences between how the Moon and Venus manifest. The Moon tends to correlate with what is so personal and immediate as to be unknowable to any but you and perhaps a select few others.

Venus, on the other hand, usually manifests as what each of us feel deeply in common with others. To cite just one example, the uncanny inseparability of timeless truth and ageless beauty is a Venus experience nearly always shared simultaneously and spontaneously — often reached in response to public performances or exhibitions of art.

When it reaches Pisces next week, Venus will also have attained what is called its exaltation. When a planet is exalted in a sign, it’s different from being in a sign it rules. It is something more, a liberation of sorts — like being temporarily relieved of a burden of responsibility while still in full flower of personal power.

Until then, however, Venus has a passionate path to walk, and you with it. Indeed, given the collective qualities Aquarius represents, it’s a path you will walk with others who share an uncanny inseparability with you.

Hence, you will almost certainly not be walking alone as you trace what promises be a passionate personal path on your way to Tuesday.

You could recognize others on your path by a common light. You may note how they are in phase with you somehow. You might even feel a warrior’s bond and a woman’s care connecting you.

Your commonly experienced passions will in all likelihood include tensions, both private and public. To balance the tensions, passionate support will probably be equally available.

Most of all, each trial will also provide what could be unprecedented proof of both your own validity and that of others. Along the way, what will ideally result for you and your partners in passion is both a mindful and mutual exaltation of your true selves.

To get there, all you have to do is live your life so as to take it over rather than be overtaken. For such is the path of passion.

Offered In Service

Len is available for astrology readings. You can contact him at lenwallick [at] gmail [dot] com.

Photo by Amanda Painter

Intuitive News Flash: Mercury Retrograde, Aries Moon

By Amanda Painter

Mercury stationed retrograde in Aquarius yesterday — but then, your wiggy computer / lost keys / misdialing phone may have already alerted you to that fact. Over the weekend, the Moon’s progress through Aries will likely spice things up (in a good way!).

Photo by Amanda Painter

Photo by Amanda Painter

First, a quick review of basic Mercury retrograde protocols:

— Don’t make assumptions about: unanswered emails, the tone of someone’s text to you, your bank balance, the location/time of an event, or that you were understood correctly.

— Do try to: find a workaround to tech/electronic problems; reduce unnecessary spending; negotiate to sign contracts after Mercury stations direct on Feb. 11 (if possible); pay particular attention to inner messages about the past, memories, recurrent themes, and any new thoughts you might have about old group dynamics (that last one’s particular to Aquarius).

Against that background, the Aries Moon could be an interesting critter. It enters Aries at 8:31 am EST / 13:31 UTC Saturday (Friday’s’s dreamy Pisces Moon is ripe for enjoying music/art, romance and emotionally sensitive exchanges).

There’s not a lot of tension in the sky currently, but depending on how things are aspecting your personal astrology (birth chart), it’s worth keeping your antennae up for temper flare-ups and impetuous decisions. Throwing the computer against the wall will not find that missing file; combustive knee-jerk reactions will not smooth out miscommunication with your friends/lover/Facebook acquaintances.

Continue reading

Patient Skepticism — Mercury’s Aquarius Retrograde

Mercury’s apparent motion shifts into reverse at 17+ Aquarius tomorrow at 10:54 am EST (15:54 UTC). The combined circumstances of Mercury’s first retrograde station in 2015 appear to invoke an old adage (attributed to Edgar Allan Poe and Benjamin Franklin, among others) to believe nothing you hear and only half that you see — at least for a while.

len-wallick-logo

Part of it has to do with the fact that Mercury’s apparent pivot will take place in precise conjunction (to the degree) with a fast-moving Aquarius Moon.

That’s the same Moon that shared the very first degree of Aquarius with the Sun earlier today. That New Moon conjunction implies a fresh start on more than one level of consciousness.

Fresh starts do the most good when not accompanied by old baggage. Nonetheless, astrology associates the Moon with things like emotional needs, inner child, security and safety issues, at least some of which originated long ago.

Implied then by the Moon’s swift jump from conjoining a solar ingress one day to merging with Mercury’s illusory reversal the next is a lunar continuum connecting both. Also implied is some necessary precaution favoring patient skepticism. That’s especially so when you consider one of Mercury’s less savory sides along with predilections common to Aquarius.

Mercury is versatile. It’s also mercurial. Witness the signs it rules. Gemini and Virgo are both mutable signs. When the Sun traverses a mutable sign for example, a change of season is in store.

Additionally, Mercury’s own many and frequent changes (of direction, sign, and even the horizon where it can be viewed) account for its ancient reputation as a trickster. For example, the actual planet Mercury never reverses its direction in reality. It only appears to do so about three times a year when Mercury passes between Earth and the Sun.

It’s a phenomenon akin to passing a train in your automobile. At first, the train appears to slow down, then it appears to go backwards — even though it does neither in actuality. Nonetheless, it’s a very convincing illusion, and an excellent example of how you should not believe everything you see.

In a different, but functionally similar way, the connection between Aquarius and groups you identify with can serve to mislead if you believe everything you hear. Especially if what you hear originates from within your group (or groups) of choice.

Part of the territory for any group, but especially groups bound by shared identity, is a powerful pressure to conform. It’s one of the ways Saturn still expresses to rule Aquarius even as co-ruler Uranus might make distinguishing yourself part of a given group’s appeal.

Paradoxical? Yes. Yet, exactly what one would expect from a sign distinguished by the oxymoronic combination of fixed quality and archetypal air.

All of which is reason for you to suspend belief as much as possible in favor of patient skepticism for the near future.

After all, nothing is so powerfully persuasive as that of which you are already and firmly convinced. If your pre-existing convictions are being simultaneously reinforced on several levels (represented by the Moon, Mercury and Aquarius), you might very well divest yourself of any capacity to exercise unbiased judgment on your own. That’s a big risk.

Hence, a clearly reinforced message to go with Mercury’s first retrograde station of the year. As arbitrary, hackneyed and unimaginative as it may be, you might want to try going for a while believing nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see.

At the very least, patient skepticism is a smaller risk on the whole because you are buying yourself some time and keeping your options open. It’s also a healthy exercise in restraint while watching as situations develop through this month and into next.

Offered In Service

Len is available for astrology readings. You can contact him at lenwallick [at] gmail [dot] com.