Dear Friend and Reader:
Just three months away from the [probable] end of the Bush administration, the trust runs out. Not a day too soon; we would have done well with this kind of national conversation about the last five or 10 things that have happened that qualified as history: you know, stuff like wars and false flag terrorist attacks and ripped off elections and the perpetual 35% approval rating.
I can’t tell you whether — in the end — the $700 billion bailout plan was a good thing or a bad thing, and the discussion is not over. Was it a plan to bail out Wall Street fatcats, or for purchasing the assets of over-leveraged banks? Most people seem to be leading toward the first of those two possibilities. At least for the American people, this was very much a matter of trust; about wondering how those banks got that way; and wondering who profited from the disaster; about having been lied to so many times before.
I think that public disgust with the proposal was about feeling left out of the benefits of something they (and their children and grandchildren) were being expected to pay for. I don’t think there is anyone who hasn’t thought gee, I could use some infusion of funds for my business or some relief from these insane interest rates that I’m paying. And I think the only people not worried are those who, if you took away 95% of of their wealth, would still be able to eat well. Well, I assure you they’re worried too. Who isn’t? People who know how to grow food; people who see opportunity in the mayhem; Buddhists and scholars.
It’s interesting that even though the proposal was made by the Bush administration, it was the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives that pulled the plug. The majority of Democrats voted for it; the majority of Republicans voted against it. It’s disgusting that several Republicans cited “inappropriate” partisan comments of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as the reason not to support the proposal — that is, their feelings were hurt. But as Rep. Barney Frank said, they are just covering up for not having had the votes to get the thing through. At least say you’re standing up for the American people. Jesus H. Christmas, where the fuck do they get their political strategies from? I guess all the good writers are in Hollywood or at The Onion.
George Bush meets with Bicameral and Bipartisan Members of Congress to discuss a Wall Street bailout plan.
I don’t know what to make of this, and I’m concerned that there is a setup in progress. The setup would be something like this: Republicans, trying to keep power, kill this proposal, leading to an “economic emergency” that in turn results in the cancellation or delay of the election, or some other endgame power-play.
Today’s astrology involved a New Moon close to the Aries Point, at 6+ Libra. The Aries Point is another way of saying anything that happens in the early degrees of a Cardinal sign (Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn); these degrees are sensitive. The earthquake and tsunami of Dec. 26, 2004 took place the day of a Full Moon at 4+ Capricorn. The thing to remember is that, even after so much that has happened involving the Aries Point the past eight years, we’re only at the beginning of a very long spell of Aries Point adventure.
In November, Pluto enters Capricorn, squaring the point. A year later, Saturn enters Libra, opposing it. A year later, Uranus enters Aries, walking right over it…adventure. We will be living with, through and around a cardinal T-square on the Aries Point involving three of the most influential planets — astrology on a scale we haven’t seen since the mid-1960s. Yet most of that astrology took place in relatively placid, slow acting Pisces and Virgo (on the mutable cross).
Most of the forthcoming events take place on the cardinal cross, which usually has much more expressive energy. We are actually feeing the first rumblings of this as Pluto ventured into Capricorn for a few months earlier in the year, seeming to set off a knock effect. Astrology students, take note.
