rigorousintuition.ca

Maddy wrote:That's Sun Taurus:

Fri April 29 @ Sidereal Time: 14 26 26
Sun 8°21’03 Taurus
Moon 21°20 Capricorn
Mercury 14° 9 Aries
Venus 9°29 Aries
Mars 20°41 Aries
Jupiter 21°50 Aries
Saturn 12° 2 Libra
Uranus 2°38 Aries
Neptune 0°36 Pisces
Pluto 7°25 Capricorn



Very very very very basic concept:

That's a lot of Aries (Mars = aggression) (Mercury = communication and short travel; Venus = attractions and harmony; Mars = aggression; Jupiter = expansion and luck; Uranus = surprise, sudden change, innovation) in the Ninth House (other cultures and beliefs) opposed (working against or negatively stimulating) Libra (Venus = diplomacy), in Saturn (restrictions/lessons) in the Third House (interpersonal communication and technology).

Just saying. Not a good day.

Soft Skull Press founder and 9/11 Commission Report critic Hicks argues for a "high degree of 9/11 foreknowledge on the part of the military/ intelligence complex" in this exhortation to disbelieve the Bush administration's "web of lies." The book marshals a bewildering array of sources and testimony—all filtered through Hicks's outraged sensibility—in an effort to implicate the U.S. government in the 9/11 attacks. Hicks identifies a compromised relationship between the CIA, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, which, he asserts, has ties to al-Qaeda—thus the U.S. link to 9/11 and the government's relentless efforts to keep it concealed. Hicks relies on the research and testimony of numerous "rejected, truthful freelance mavericks," including Randy Glass, a jewelry con man and FBI informant who says he caught wind of threats to the World Trade Center in 1999; Daniel Hopsicker, an investigative journalist who argues that Mohammed Atta was a double agent; and Delmart Vreeland, a con man who claims he was a U.S. intelligence operative discredited for his 9/11 foreknowledge. Shocking exposé or gonzo conspiracy theory? This screed's credibility will depend on its readers' politics.

Only 6 percent of Americans really care about the royal wedding
By Kase Wickman
Saturday, April 23rd, 2011 -- 1:39 pm

With just under a week to go until Kate Middleton and Prince William wed, news of the royal nuptials is inescapable. The dress, the (lack of) the ring, the guests, the security — it's all getting coverage. Here's one surprising piece of royal-wedding-related news, however: Only six percent of Americans really care about it.

Results from a new New York Times/CBS News poll showed that six percent of respondents are following news of the wedding "very closely," with an additional 22 percent admitting to following the media blitz "somewhat closely."

Unsurprisingly, more women than men are interested in the wedding, and older women are the largest group that plans to wake up early next Friday to watch the ceremony.

Mary Nygard told the Times that she would be hosting 27 other women for a wedding-watching party next week.

“We’re going to wear special hats, and some of us will wear tiaras,” Nygaard said. “It’s going to be so much fun.”

The U.S. media has alternated between obsessive coverage and negative opinion about the saturation. For example, MSNBC has aired details about the minutiae of the royal wedding, and released an iPad app for the event, while host Lawrence O'Donnell recently went on a tirade against the wedding.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Sarah Ferguson was supposed to die in her charity offices at the top of the Twin Towers.
This would've help Tony Blair bring the UK along for the oil war ride. This was telegraphed in a 1998 priming movie, 'Antz.' The 'wasps'...