I still am thinking about the chart of the inauguration of Obama, so this post is not my final analysis.
What bothers with our understanding of event charts is that, although we have a lot of traditional sources with advices for electional astrology, the fact is that few astrologers use them in an “everyday basis”, so have no experience of what really works. Worse, I have found consistently lack of logic in the approach to electional astrology, like electing “a secure moment for flying”. Besides that, many astrologers use the chart of an event as if it was a “birth chart”, and usually will use rules of horary astrology, or even worse, natal astrology.
Using the rules of horary ignores the problem that, in an horary, the “radix” of the chart is the question (in a natal chart the radix is the birth of the person) but an event can happen at any time, and so most of them it is not clear what is the radix. So, astrologer never reach a conclusion what is the “real” moment when a business, a marriage or a office term begins.
Second problem is that the chart can show anything, but the person doing it can´t. Let´s assume that I will take the most perfect astrological moment to be a candidate to the presidency of USA. Well, I am not an US citizen, and a complete unknown, so my pronouncement will not accomplish anything, notwithstanding what the chart may show.
The third problem was raised several centuries ago by Sahl Ibn Bishr who asked “if two ships depart at the same time, will they have the same fates?” And the answer is not, because they have different radix charts.
The fourth problem that I have with the inauguration analysis is that we can expect, for the next few weeks a lot of “fake analysis”. Do you remember, during the elections, the amount of astrologers saying that McCain would win ? Or that Kerry would win ? Or Gore ? Yes, they are all wrong, mostly because it wasn´t astrology, it was wishful thinking. Now, with Obama, we will see a lot of supporters seeing “greatness” while the other team will only find doom and gloom. But none of this is astrology. As would Shakespeare say , a lot of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.
So, before I take my time studying the Obama´s chart, and others, I would like to make some comments
What is the real moment of inauguration: noon or 12:05 ?
Me and Rodney Smith have the same opinion about the Obama Inauguration. Obama´s term began at noon, not with the oath.
The difference is minimal, as the oath was taken at 12:05. But I believe that astrology should be grounded on solid principles, not in “I always did this way” or “it works for me”. The constitution of US says that the term of the president begin at noon. What if the constitution have said that the term begin at midnight, we would have an 12 hour difference, what to do in that case ?
Modern astrologers usually take what they think it is the “most symbolic moment” instead of the real, not so flashy moment of beginning. An example would be a marriage. Most astrologers will take the moment that the couple says “I do”, even if this couple has already married in the courthouse and is only doing the religious ceremony. The ceremony can be hours or days after the marriage, but the ceremony is a festivity to celebrate two already married people. In western society, two people are married after they sign a contract. It is an legal and social act. In eastern societies the religious ceremony is probably more important, but to us, it is not necessary to have a religious ceremony and it is not legally binding unless there is recognition by the State.
Although the constitution of US says that the president must take the oath, notice that Joe Biden took the oath BEFORE noon (at 11:58 according to my watch). If the oath is the really important factor in a term, this should be confusing, because Joe Biden took his oath while Bush was still the president of USA !
So, let´s assume that Obama`s term only begins at 12:05. As Bush´s terms ended, in spite of anything, exactly at noon, from 12.00 to 12.05 there was no president of USA, but there was a vice president, Joe Biden. And from 11:58 to 12:00 we had two vice presidents, according to this reasoning.
But, if we allow the principle that Joe Biden took the oath before he started his vice presidency (which started at noon), it is only logical that Obama also could have took the oath at a prior time, e.g. at the time when he was recognized as president. Why not take the oath before his term begins ?
There are a huge number of moments of the beginning of the process. The moment Obama announced that he was running for president. The moment that he filed the necessary documents to be a candidate. The moment it was announced his victory. All of those moments were necessary and fundamental. Yes, the oath is necessary, but I see no reason to think that it is the fundamental point of the accession.
As I said before, the discussion is not important for the inauguration, because the two charts are less than one degree apart. But it shows that astrology is only baby walking in the definitions of the electional field.
Void of course moon and mercury retrograde.
As most of modern astrologers think that the oath is the great moment, it is only natural to think that we should move the oath to the best possible moment. And, if we see the chart of the inauguration, we see the two great devils of modern astrology: a void of course moon and a mercury retrograde !
As Chris Warnock complained one time, modern astrology has renounced to the malefics planets or houses. Even the word “malefic” is nothing more than echoes of a distant past, where people were not sophisticated as now, with our self help books. But there are two really great malefics in modern astrology: the void of course moon and mercury retrograde ! Every time that mercury goes retrograde, we see all over the internet that all hell went loose and the apocalypse is coming.
And in the chart of Obama inauguration we have that these two little kids have come out to play. So, of course that the inaugurations promises nothing more than horror.
Both Rodney Smith and Patrick Watson already wrote about it, so I will not. Watson takes special notice of the connections between inauguration chart and Obama´s natal chart (which, by the way, all of the supporters of McCain fail to see during elections).
As I said before, the chart will be only used for personal delusions. See the comments in Rodney Smith post and you see enraged “anonymous” babbling that ” The chart is dire, just admit it and stop being a partisan hack”, even thought Rodney wrote that “The chart is what it is, there are many challenges in it, and wishful thinking about the moment the President takes his oath of office won’t change anything.”
In many discussion that I have seen on the internet, the real problem was always lack of reading skills…
Statistics, the devil´s math
I own “devil´s math” to a member of skyscript, don´t remember know who was…
Lee Lehman used the devil´s approach, statistics, to analyze the previous inauguration charts. I reeaaaaaalllyyyyyy don´t believe in statistics as a key for astrology, but, anyway, setting my opinion aside, she predicts that Obama (probably- because she is using the method for the first time) will have only a one-term presidency (Lehman is a Obama supporter before someone starts shouting).
Will Obama die ?
There already began some comments about it, but this is what I call as “go fishing”. A lot of astrologers like to talk about unlikely scenarios so they can say “well, I predicted it several years ago and nobody believed me”. But they “forget” that they predicted also that the stock market would raise in 2008, that there would be a terrorist attack during the Olympics, etc, etc. Any sounding astrological reasoning to show that has not been show until now. But, unfortunately, it is one of the things that one should see in the chart. Lehman´s statistical approach didn´t show any strong evidence of that happening.
Well, but it isn´t always this way ?
I have lost account of how many analysis I have seen over the years that forget that, in every inauguration in the US, for god knows how long:
- the ASC is always in taurus
- the sun is always in the first few degrees of aquarius (so in exile)
- that venus would be either around 17 pisces or around 13 Capricorn (one degree give or take – venus has a regular 8 years cycle)
So we also have some other regularities:
- Sun will be probably in the 10th house (even if it not exactly on the MC) but will be always in exile.
- Venus will be exalted in half of the inaugurations, around the 11th house
- Venus will be only in triplicity, in half of the inaugurations, in the 9th house.
- She will not ever be combusted.
So, in your analysis, please don´t say “venus is exalted so we´re going to have a good term”, because 8 years ago venus was also exalted in Bush´s chart !
I will try to analyze this chart in the future, but I will have to look at a lot of charts until really know what we can and can´t predict from the inauguration chart.
Good luck for Obama, as the next few years don´t seem like they are going to be a breeze !