Here’s Maddow’s inquiry and discussion with ACLU North Carolina Legal Director Katherine Parker:

1. Article 6 prohibits religious tests for public office and the First Amendment prohibits establishment (and it can be argued that by requiring state officials to be of a particular religion, the state is establishing a religious preference

Short book review of Simon Singh’s “Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe”

I recently finished reading Simon Singh’s excellent book, “Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe.” I learned quite a bit from the book, and, as I’ve told some friends, I think I learned more about chemistry and physics than I did in the years that I took courses in them. Learned in a deeper level of understanding sort of way, conceptually. That’s something major missing from high school and college education — the way everything fits together, introduced in a historical scale. Before anyone even takes an advanced math or science class, everyone should have to take a course in the origin of the universe, taught in Simon Singh’s narrative style.

The book got me excited about astronomy, physics, chemistry, and, surprising to me, the history and people behind the development of what I recall as a child being this new and amazing “discovery” that everything started with a “big bang.” I was surprised to learn that when I was a kid, this wasn’t new stuff, but had been a theory steadily gaining support for many decades, constantly urged on by advancements in technology and discoveries across a swath of scientific disciplines.

That last bit is what I think most fascinated me — we needed astronomers, physicists, chemists, and mathematicians to help explain our universe; defining the stars wasn’t relegated to the astronomers. Singh’s book helped me come to the realization that our common understanding of the universe and all within it derives from separate disciplines related by the fact that they’re all merely different ways of trying to perceive and translate those perceptions of the universe into something we can understand. Each person in the chain of history had an important role, but knowledge was built on the backs of their combined (and often independent) efforts.

Singh also spent some time describing how religion and unscientific thought kept holding back discoveries and realizations of what the real world was like, despite the fact that a good number of discoveries were made by clergymen. Almost surprisingly, Singh didn’t place the likes of Einstein on a superhuman pedestal of perfection. Einstein wasn’t always right, and Singh focused on the mistake that each scientific generation was wont to make — settling in with a comfortable idea about how things work and turning a dogmatic eye to new discoveries that challenge the status quo. Einstein was guilty of it (read the book to see how), and it took decades for him to recant. He was by far not the only one.

Consider the Ptolemaic point of view, carrying on the ancient assumption that there was something divinely perfect about the circle, so much so that it must, by that very nature, lie as the foundation of just about everything. Ptolemy tried to mathematically explain both how the Earth was at the center of the universe (another stubborn claim perpetuated by religion) and simultaneously how all the orbits of all the satellites of the Earth and other heavenly bodies must necessarily follow circular orbits.¹

What he came up with was quite a mess. Instead of going for simplicity (as in, perhaps the Earth isn’t in the center, and perhaps circles aren’t all that), he added in complexity.

(image from cset.mnsu.edu/pa)

What that image shows is how each major entity in the solar system had two orbits — one around the Earth, and another around its own orbit around the Earth. This invention satisfied those who, despite new discoveries and scientific doubts, wanted to keep the universe squeezed into a God-shaped box. The universe is a lot more complex than we originally imagined; for example, it’s not reduced to four elements. However, it’s also a lot more straightforward; when we discover something new that doesn’t conform to our prior notions, it quite often leads to a shift in thinking (what Singh explains is a “Paradigm Shift”) that explains the universe in a different, more accurate way.

As described in the book, even the most brilliant minds resist change, but the beauty of the scientific method is that it doesn’t care what the most brilliant minds think. If we feed it new information, and the results show that it does not conform to previously held ideas, then either the data is wrong or the old ideas were wrong. Singh’s book, while laying out the amazing development and modification of the theories of the origin of the universe, is a thorough explanation of how science works, despite all the efforts of stubborn humans to have it their way.

If you have even the remotest interest in why we accept the “big bang” as the theory of the origin of our universe (in the same way that we accept evolution), I strongly urge you to read “Big Bang.” If you’re afraid that the math and science will be beyond your comprehension, worry not; Singh’s style flows gently like a book of historical fiction, with a comfortable depth for the layperson. I didn’t once have to pull out a calculator. Of course, if you’re a scientist, you might find the math and science in the book to be beneath you, but the rich history, introduction to (or reminder of) the cast of characters involved, and the lesson in humility should appeal to anyone.

1. This was in an effort to explain why Mars appeared to move backwards (retrograde motion) during part of its orbit “around Earth.” See Geocentric Perspective by Robert A. Hatch. Although the Ptolemaic model was imperfect in some ways (one being its non-reality), it did explain the behaviors of the solar system bodies better than any previous model, and more accurately. What science does in our favor is to take new data and destroy old ideas, no matter how nicely they appeared and no matter how staunchly they were protected by the men who clung to them.

I’ve said this before, but I think it’s appropriate again: I think the parents of those who preach abstinence should have practiced it.

I bet there are a lot more string-pullers over here than we’ll ever discover.

I tend to see the “Self-Help” and “New Age” sections of the book store to be redundant. Both appear to proffer a variety of methods by which readers may allegedly improve their lives, and the methodology is based either on mysticism or disguised pragmatism.

‘Be The Change’ is a book that I could see being found in either section, but something that seems to set it apart from most of its neighbors is that instead of focusing entirely on helping the reader, it has as a goal to improve the world in general. The premise is that meditation can change you and the world.

But what is meditation? Surprisingly, this book on meditation doesn’t come right out and tell the reader. This fact had two effects upon me. First was frustration. Why am I reading a book about meditation that doesn’t start off by telling me exactly what the authors think meditation is? Second was enlightenment. The authors are indirectly telling me that it’s not quite that easy to define meditation — the anecdotes told by the myriad contributors go a long way to show that although meditation is somewhat tangible as a concept, it’s still very subjective and personal. I wasn’t getting an easy answer, but instead of throwing the book down in frustration, I tried to analyze the collected thoughts of the authors and contributors.

Be The Change was written by Ed and Deb Shapiro, who, according to their website, have authored sixteen books on personal development, meditation and social action, and who have led meditation retreats and personal development programs worldwide for over 25 years.¹ The book’s personal foreword was written by HH The Dalai Lama, and enhanced greatly by contributions from dozens of famous and influential people who have all had a variety of experiences with meditation. Although the book’s format is quite unlike reading an instruction manual, the personal contributions are interesting and thoughtful — the book could nearly rest on the contributions alone and still be a worthy read (note that there are certainly samples of religious contributors, but plenty of non-religious, spiritual, and overall peace-loving contributors to add balance).

The skeptic in me suggested that something so subjective and undefined as meditation couldn’t be as influential as advertised. The standard fare for self-help and new age seems to involve one of two fundamental components — magic or pragmatism. Authors often twist these into shapes that appear novel and exciting for readers who are on the lookout for the next great thing to help them along some personal path. But when those how-to books are examined, and the facade stripped away, all that’s left is either a skeletal message of “just do what makes sense and you’ll be fine,” or “this is about as reliable as coin-flipping, but at least you got to light some candles and chant some freaky words, right?”

With that as a basis for comparison, why should I think that meditation is any different than what boils down to mere “resting for recovery of the mind and body, a logical and pragmatic thing we all do in sleep anyway”? The book seems to challenge that notion, suggesting that meditation is not just a basic function hyped up for eager audiences, but, instead, it’s a source for clarity and personal insight that can have a positive effect on the world around us. One of contributor Ed Begley, Jr.’s comments expands on that notion:

Although we are not going to solve all the problems by just sitting on the side of a hill or by spinning a prayer wheel, we also have to be still and centered so we can act with clarity. In other words, in order to do this work, we need to have an inner resource we can always come back to. If we do not have quiet time, we will get too burnt out to be able to clean up the rivers or save the whales. We have to sit still and recharge. We have to be in the moment as it is happening, and we cannot do that if we do not have meditation as a resource.²

When my skepticism kicks in with a response like, “Well, that can’t possibly apply to everyone who is doing good in the world, for many of them get along just fine without meditation,” my guess is that meditation “apologists” would respond, “We’re not talking about meditation necessarily in the form of sitting down, cross-legged, humming or chanting for hours on end; meditation can take many forms, and fundamentally it’s about self-reflection, clarification, and contemplation.”

I, in turn, wonder whether, then, if meditation isn’t just another fundamental form of pragmatism, but one that transcends aspects of life so much that just about anything can be referred to as meditation. For example, a dancer who gets into a “zone” while dancing may not personally believe he or she is “meditating,” but ‘Be The Change’ suggests³ that dancing can be meditative.

The Shapiros nearly answer my question in their second chapter, So What Is Meditation?

Meditation has been associated with everything from affirming ourselves as thin/rich/in love to visualizing ourselves bathed in white light to sitting cross-legged with closed eyes and doing nothing but contemplating our own navel. Yet meditation is none of these. Rather, it covers a vast arena of experiences and activities, including opening our heart to all beings, realize the truth and becoming free, counting our breaths, gazing at the flame of a candle, intoning different sounds, or moving rhythmically…. In other words, it is both an experience and a practice — an experience of oneness, of being with who we really are, as well as the practice that enables us to be in this state.⁴

That statement is both revealing and misleading. I don’t think the authors are trying to say that sitting cross-legged while thinking self-affirming thoughts is “absolutely not meditation,” but instead that doing so doesn’t cover the gambit of meditation — it’s not the embodiment of meditation, since meditation includes so many different things, fundamentally being some sort of mental connective experience combined with whatever physical method is necessary to achieve that state.

Although I don’t agree with a number of the contributor quotes, there are so many different points of view that I found it to be more like reading different perspectives about life, so that even though I might not be able to perceive it in the same way, I can respect the thoughts of those who are experiencing it right along side me.

This isn’t really a comprehensive meditation ‘how to’ book. It provides a few basic techniques, plus insight into areas that I had not previously considered as fitting for “meditation,” such as while running, dancing, and writing. Despite the fact that by doing so, the book implies that meditation is anything and everything as long as you can pin the “meditation” label upon it, the concept of searching for a meditative state in an activity that is not stereotypically meditative is unique (for me) and has offered me something to try on my own.

So, can meditation change me and the world? Absolutely. If through meditation I am more clear, less distracted, focused, and can achieve some sort of greater connection to my inner self (where I believe most people have a common set of higher moral principles), then I, as a member of the world, have improved it, have changed it. If others do the same, we collectively improve and change it. Is ‘Be The Change’ the key component in accomplishing such a feat? No, but it’s certainly an interesting book that may help to guide those who know nothing about meditation or who are curious and want to learn more. Just be sure to approach the book with the knowledge that it is primarily anecdotal, with clarifying insights by two longtime practitioners, and not everything in it should be taken as objective fact. (For example, the book is full of statements like, “Meditation accomplishes X,” where a more factual and unbiased approach would be, “Meditation can accomplish X.”)

In any event, I think meditation is certainly worth a shot, and I plan to try some different methods and try to visualize meditation with different points of view based on my reading of the book. It’s already gotten me thinking about things I’d like to try, and considering my general skepticism, I think that says something about the quality of the book and the revelations of the authors and contributors.

1. http://www.edanddebshapiro.com/about-us/
2. p.197
3. pp.321-323
4. pp. 15-16

Also see What is Terrorism? by Mojoey

Excerpts: (starting at about 1:00)

Virginia… elected an attorney general named Ken Cuccinelli, who has called being gay “intrinsically wrong,” and has said that it does not comport with natural law….²

…Virginia’s new governor-elect Bob McDonnell just a few years ago said that certain homosexual conduct could and should disqualify a person from being a judge because of violating Virginia’s Crimes Against Nature law.³

1. To clarify: I’m not calling what Maddow said as hyperbolic. I’m saying that my satire might not be as “out there” as it might seem at first glance, as there’s plenty of evidence that McDonnell and Cuccinelli are both noted regressionists.
2. See Shannon questions Cuccinelli’s stance on gay employees, Richmond Times Dispatch
3. See Sex Law Is No Judging Criteria, Daily Press

McDonnell was attacked for his 1989 thesis for Regent University, in which he described working women and feminists as ‘detrimental’ to the family. Despite his campaign promise that his views have matured, McDonnell is apparently using the gubernatorial platform and the trend of states passing similar initiatives regarding civil rights to manifest his idealism in a state that has a long history of conservatism.

When asked about the implications of the Tenth Amendment, McDonnell’s spokesperson indicated that “the Constitution as ratified explicitly excluded women,² and even if state sovereignty in this matter does not trump federal law, it is firmly established that the federal government cannot force participation in the administration of any of its programs.³ In addition, the federal government is prohibited from trying to prevent the Commonwealth’s free exercise of religion, which is a substantive part of the referendum — to affirm religious freedom.”⁴

1. No, he didn’t. But it certainly looks like he could. How can we stand by idly while we let the masses vote on whether minorities can exercise equal civil rights? It’s quite likely that for years after Brown v. Board (and maybe even up through today), if we had put integration up to a popular vote, we’d still be segregated. Look at our rich history of civil rights, and you can easily see how we require iconic heroes to make headway, not majorities. How does it feel to see the finish line of equality and intellectual honesty and then suddenly and relentlessly be pulled backwards, back toward the dark ages full of human inequality and cruelty? Feels like shit.
2. See NOW
3. See Printz v United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
4. See First Amendment

According to the article, ”Klusmeyer and Thomas said the day’s events reminded parishioners about reaching out to the smallest and the poorest of the poor, and also the gentleness and simplicity of all of God’s creatures …

“For example, Thomas, known as Father Bill, might say this prayer: ‘Almighty God, Creator of all things, and giver of all life, let your blessing be upon Molly and grant that Molly may serve you to your glory and the welfare of your people, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.’”

At ClarifyingChristianity.com, the writer seems to think it is possible for pets to go to heaven, but that it is just as unlikely that pets will go to heaven since so few humans will gain entrance. It is an odd defeatist mentality for a Christian. The writer offers no ways to measure how god will decide if a pet can gain entrance to heaven. Over at Pet-Loss.net, the writer states that animals don’t need to be “saved” because they have not “fallen”. Then why would pets need to be blessed if they are already and always will be within the good graces of god? Because of this default position, the writer is not offering us any help with our basic question. Finally, at Answers2Prayer.org, the writer states that animals do not have immortal souls, so no redemption is required because there is nothing to redeem. It seems that animals will occupy some kind of Spielberg-esque animal-like semi-intelligent life form that can be turned on or off on a whim — though heaven is supposed to be whim-free (sigh).

The article in the Gazette fails to mention how Molly (a pet) might serve the glory of the Christian god. Is Molly required to go to church every Sunday in observation of Jesus Christ? Minimally, Molly will need to adhere to the Ten Commandments (whichever ten you choose, makes no difference to me). Since Molly cannot speak a language discernable to humans, I think Molly is safe with the universal first commandment which prohibits any other gods. If she had any other gods, we would never know it. We’re not even sure if she has Jesus in her heart much less Lucifer in her mind, but she wags her tail when her owner returns home and she barks for treats, so Molly gets a bye on this one.

What about taking the lord’s name in vain? Again, since Molly cannot engage in conversation with humans, she gets a bye on this commandment. What about the prohibition on images? I am not aware of dogs possessing cameras, nor am I aware of their understanding of how cameras work. Additionally, I am not aware of dogs that sketch, paint, sculpt or make mounds of dirt for any other purpose than digging for prey. So, we have yet another commandment for which Molly earns a bye. What about bearing false witness? Another bye – can’t converse, can’t violate. Even if she saw and heard evil, she certainly can’t speak of it. By default, she cannot bear false witness.

How about keeping the sabbath holy? I don’t think Molly works on the sabbath, but I am not sure because I don’t know if she has chores. If she does have chores, her human owner would also be in violation of the commandment. So, maybe we can just call this one a default failure since her owner is likely to cause Molly to engage in activities that result in the sabbath not being quite as holy as intended.

Does Molly honor her mother and father? I am not sure, mostly because I am not sure what honoring your father or mother means. Is it asking for permission? Sending a birthday card? Addressing the parents with common titles of respect: ”Mother” and “Father”? Molly cannot ask for permission, at least not verbally. Except as a default circumstance of the next commandment, we simply can never know if Molly ever violates this commandment. Do not murder … well, I am sure that Molly wishes to eat and has murdered something in some way. If it is in reference to not murdering those of her own kind, I shall have to assume that she hasn’t violated this commandment because she is not a feral street dog. However, since some commercially manufactured dog food contains horse meat, and since horses are pets that are also likely to be blessed, it is my opinion that Molly has repeatedly sinned. This commandment may make the violator a victim of circumstance rather than willful action. If cows and pigs can also be pets that are blessed, then Molly is a big loser on this point.

Do not steal … another dilemma. If Molly snatches away a toy or bone from another dog, or if she absconds with her owner’s shoes for her own chewing pleasure, is that stealing? What if the item is later returned? It should at least qualify as adulteration of a material possession, although that is not a violation of a commandment. This one is a toss-up. Molly gets a default bye.

Next, we have coveting thy neighbor’s wife and adultery. No reason to handle these issues separately, for in doggie-land, they are one in the same. Now, for Molly, being female, coveting her neighbor’s wife presents additional moral dilemmas, but I will leave aside thoughts of a homosexual pet for this exercise. This is where Molly really has a doggie dilemma. Molly is a bitch. Unless her human owner is extremely protective of her, the owner is going to breed the bitch (either intentionally or by lack of action). The bitch enters heat. The bitch is going to be in deep trouble. I doubt Molly has engaged in any marital rituals with her companion dogs, so I am sure that Molly, as a representative example of all bitches, has repeatedly violated this commandment. Molly is, sadly, indiscriminate in her behaviors. She has sinned. If Molly’s owner has neutered her, then there are a host of other religious morals to review. Molly can’t get a bye on this – she can’t even win. Molly loses this one by default. So does her owner, by the way, but for a cornucopia of other reasons.

So, as Molly arrives at the pearly gates, it becomes crunch time for the Christian god. Has Molly sufficiently served the lord? Does she get to enter heaven? I think the answer from nearly all corners of pet-owner-land is a resounding YES!

Of course, we have a rather nuanced problem here. I think Molly’s owner, as a representative of all pet owners, is spagging her. So is Father Bill. In fact, everyone is spagging Molly. She is a bitch, after all. She’s accustomed to frequent spagging. Just look at how she is treated: free home, free toys, free food, free maid service, and a wet massage nearly every week. Hell, she even gets a free education, psych therapy and her own stays in a pet hotel. Jesus! All Molly has to do is rollover and allow herself to be spagged. Repeatedly.

So, if an easy bitch can get into heaven, what are you worried about?

Fill the Void

When I was young, I wanted to believe in God and Jesus. It was a warm, fuzzy, exciting feeling to think that some great and powerful entity was out there, watching, interacting, loving. The search for some sort of understanding about this entity helped give purpose to my life. As the years progressed, though, I accumulated doubts about there being an all-knowing, all-powerful deity who bothered with the day-to-day affairs of humans, and I ultimately weaned myself off that world view. But, when a void is made, it yearns to be refilled.

Thus I began a rebound relationship with magic. I collected books and what I thought were magic artifacts (Tarot cards, runes, hematite, daggers). I tried spells and rituals, and I convinced myself that there was some mystical nature to the universe into which I could tap and manifest my will. I didn’t merely believe in magic, I wanted to believe it. And thus it became true and magical for me. Until reality overcame desire.

My efforts to manipulate the world through magic were in vain — spells didn’t really work; the Tarot was too open to subjective interpretation; rituals accomplished little more than wax on the carpet. It was as if my prayers were going unanswered while a fanatic yelled at me that I must be doing it wrong. After years of failed attempts at harnessing something I no longer believed to exist, my hope that there is “something” out there vanished, and my search for some metaphysical truth seems to have ended.

We’re all just star dust.

But not everyone is content to sate their vacuity with materialism. There are many people who want to believe in something, and quite a few of them want to believe in astrology.¹ Gary Goldschneider’s new book, Everyday Astrology, is for those people.

Make Astrology Work for You?

The book’s official pitch indicates that it explores “hundreds of scenarios in areas ranging from work to love to family and friends,” including “how to break up with a Scorpio boyfriend, how to make a great impression on a Capricorn first date, how to survive the holidays with a Pisces parent.” “Whatever the situation,” it claims, “you’ll find practical and specific advice for making astrology work for you.”

Astrology is the realm of belief that the positions of the stars and planets can provide information about human personalities and earthly events. Although scientists call astrology a pseudoscience or superstition,² it’s popular enough that the U.S. is inundated with newspaper and magazine postings of daily Horoscopes, which list the star signs of the Zodiac in chronological order, with tidbits of advice or predictions under each.

The truth about astrological star signs might surprise even some amateur astrologers. Star signs are determined by drawing an imaginary line from Earth “through” the Sun, to one of the twelve constellations of the zodiac. During a solar year, that line points to each of the twelve zodiac constellations in succession along the zodiac “ring.”
(image via Wikipedia)

Because the Earth wobbles a bit on its axis, our perspective changes in such a way as to “shift” the zodiac ring about one degree every 72 years, taking about 25,800 years to complete a full cycle. This is called the precession of the equinoxes, and its relevance to today’s horoscope is that the zodiac has shifted about one full constellation since the original zodiac was discovered over 2000 years ago.

In other words, if Jesus had been born on December 25, about 2009 years ago, his target constellation would have been Capricorn. However, if Jesus were born December 25, 2009, it would, instead, be Sagittarius. Yes, the sign you thought you were may not be the sign under which you were actually born.³

The reality of the shifty zodiac, however, doesn’t dissuade people from asking, “What’s your sign?” in order to determine potential compatibility.

Everyday Astrology contains voluminous details about the characteristics of people, based on the historical zodiac. Similarly to any other horoscope one might read in a paper or astrology book, Everyday Astrology gives bits of advice, scattered with hints about personality and fate. Unlike those other sources, this book changes perspective. It’s not about you and your sign. It’s about someone you know (or want to know). The book is quite cleverly organized such that the reader can choose a target based on sign and relationship to the reader, and then turn right to the section on how Goldschneider suggests the reader deal with that person.

For example, if the reader has a boss, and the boss is a Taurus, the reader can flip to the Work / The Taurus Boss section, and then to any of the sub-sections: Asking the Taurus Boss for a Raise; Breaking Bad News to the Taurus Boss; Arranging Travel and/or Entertainment; Decision-Making; Impressing and/or Motivating; Making Proposals and/or Giving Presentations to the Taurus Boss.

What if the reader wants to ask a Taurus Boss for a raise? Everyday Astrology says that the reader must be thoroughly prepared, make an appointment early, state the case in writing, don’t rush the meeting, don’t exert any pressure, let the facts speak for themselves, voice demands unequivocally, never threaten to leave unless intending to, and never make idle threats to a Taurus boss. That’s pretty good advice for just about any situation where a worker wants to ask for a raise, but the book gives the advice through the filter of the Taurus stereotype: stubborn, bossy, inflexible, insensitive.

Don’t Screw with the Mutable Positive Fire Sign

The book’s margins blast strength, weakness, and interactive style adjectives at the reader, like “Stable,” “Inflexible,” and “Explicit,” that sometimes seem self-contradictory, while each main sign page displays the date range of the sign with a brief description of the sign using astrological terminology that I found unhelpful, since there is no glossary or explanation. Perhaps it’s assumed that the reader would either already know astrological lingo or wouldn’t care enough to worry about it.

For example, Geminis are apparently “mutable air signs… [r]uled by Mercury.” That’s certainly not language for an “everyday” person who hasn’t delved at least thigh-deep into more comprehensive astrological texts.⁴ Although I’ve had some friends and family at some point fascinated enough with astrology to want to have a reading done for me, the terminology here escapes me. Regardless, this doesn’t necessarily detract from the indicated purpose of the book, which is to give specific advice about people with a certain sign.

The two categories of the book besides Work are Love and Friends and Family, which include subcategories like First Date, Spouse, Friend, Roommate, Parent, Sibling, and Child, all of which contain similar insights into the personalities of those types of people based on their star signs.

The Painful Truth?

I try to approach everything as a skeptic, but also without prejudice. My first thought upon opening the book was, “I wonder if any of this is accurate.” The best way, in my mind, to answer that question would be to find my own star sign and see if the entries accurately describe me, and then to see if others in my life are accurately described. Interestingly enough, when I picked up the book and gave the pages a quick flip-through, my thumb landed on my very own star sign. Perhaps a bit of magic remained from my days of old. I read the description, which warned, “Scorpios are best left alone since their capacity to inflict pain is pronounced.” Hah, that pegged me!

Unfortunately, I found little else in the book that corresponded with the personalities of myself or anyone I know. However, arguing about whether or not the book accurately depicts anyone in my life would be akin to me arguing that you didn’t really see the ghost you know you saw. It was real to you, so it’s real, right? Astrology, just like its cousins psychic reading and numerology, titillates our human desire to fit pieces together in a desirable pattern, even if those pieces don’t belong to the same puzzle.

Could there be some truth to astrology? There are so many other factors involved that can explain the perceived correlations between star signs and personality. People could adopt personality traits based on their perception of the horoscope stereotype. We could view others through an astrological filter, subconsciously highlighting horoscope-matching characteristics despite the presence of non-matching characteristics. Sign descriptions could be designed to include as many personality types as possible, but presented slightly differently, and cryptically, so that most people reading them could find a connection and still feel spiritually connected to the sign. If the correlation between the stars and our personalities is so frail, what purpose can a book on astrology serve? At minimum, it can be mildly entertaining and perhaps provide some decent advice that is probably applicable to the majority of the population, disguised as being mystically derived.

A Child is Born

Does horoscope ambiguity and the reliance some people put upon astrology create a potential danger to the believers or others? Astrology, although taken seriously centuries ago, is now as influential and credible as a psychic hotline. I know of no astrology nuts who try to impose learning astrology on public school children, or try to get our money imprinted with “In the Zodiac We Trust.” I’m quite positive that no astrologer would condemn any non-astrologer to an eternity in hell just for not believing in astrology. Astrologers don’t make human sacrifices. Overall, it’s a fairly innocuous practice that might just be a lot of fun, seeing whether someone you know fits a certain profile, or whether you can predict something based on how the planets are aligned. As long as people aren’t hurting or abusing one another in the name of astrology, there isn’t a problem.

But what about the manner in which a book like Everyday Astrology is being advertised? This isn’t a book solely about whether the cute boy or girl sitting next to you in class will like you based on some two-thousand-year-old stellar alignment. It’s also about how to interact with people who may not place as much faith in astrology as the reader. The boss, the competitor, the spouse, the parent. The child.

A child is born on that day and at that hour when the celestial rays are in mathematical harmony with his individual karma. His horoscope is a challenging portrait, revealing his unalterable past and its probable future results. But the natal chart can be rightly interpreted only by men of intuitive wisdom: these are few.
-spoken by Sri Yukteswar in Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramhansa Yogananda

Besides the fact that Everyday Astrology informs the reader that the majority of spouses, regardless of the sign, are inclined to be unfaithful (both creating a potentially hostile situation in any relationship as well as possibly giving a justification for certain signs to cheat), the book also gives advice on how to raise a child, based apparently not on any peer-reviewed and tried medical or psychological approach, but, instead, on the author’s determination that all children born under the sign of Aries, for example, will react the same way and will require the same parental treatment. When we’re dealing with adults not desiring to wear red on Tuesday because that’s what the horoscope said, that’s a sad case, but only detrimental in the sense that the person is perpetuating a delusion that is fairly harmless at the time. However, when that delusion (of astrology telling it like it is) is applied by parents to children, my spider sense starts tingling.

Is there any parental “advice” in Everyday Astrology that deviates from the generic “this applies to everyone, but you’ll see it as applying directly to you because it’s under your sign” advice into the realm of misguidance?

My first thought in examining the Aries child entry is that a parent who believes this stuff might unintentionally impose the book’s listed personality characteristics upon a child. For example, the Aries child is, according to Goldschneider, constricted, criticized, and sad.

In the 1960s, researchers studied the effect of giving school teachers false information about students picked at random, to see what effect the teachers’ expectations of the students were. The researchers concluded that the behavior of the teachers that accompanied high expectations actually caused accelerated intellectual growth in the targeted students.⁵ It’s unquestionable that a parent exerts an even greater amount of influence. With expectations and guidance, a parent can shape a child’s personality.

An author of a work meant to guide parents in the disciplining and development of children has a duty not to suggest actions that are equivalent to child abuse. Fortunately, despite being set in the realm of mysticism, Everyday Astrology does not appear to breach that duty. Indeed, the sections on children could quite easily be interchanged and applied to just about any child.

The lessons are muddled in methodical verbosity, needlessly and repetitively invoking the star sign, but seem applicable to every parent and child relationship — don’t be too negative, understand that your child might be very demanding, some children have trouble expressing emotion, some stages of childhood can be troublesome, offer your child a range of experiences, older siblings might be a hindrance or might even be helpful, children depend on their parents, children like fantasy. I don’t perceive any harm against children coming from this book, which is certainly better than ancient and even modern religious texts that advocate instilling fear into their hearts.

Pisces, the Final Sign

If you enjoy horoscopes and think there might be something to them, but you feel that you’re still grounded in reality, then this book might be an entertaining way to pass the time with friends and family to see how much of it is accurate. If, on the other hand, you are at the skeptical end of the spectrum of doubt, I would suggest buying the book only if you want to debunk it — it certainly isn’t a book to be shelved in the “rational” category. Finally, if you’re the kind of person I suggested this book was written for — the person who wants to believe in astrology — how could you not at least take a look to see what you’re getting into? The author’s 40 years of astrological study, plus his experience writing very popular books about “personology” will make this book a must-have for budding astrologists and fans of all things spiritual.

I know at least two or three people to whom I would seriously consider gifting this book, based on their studies of astrology or their belief that there’s something spiritual or supernatural out there that is at least somewhat accessible. The cover is well-designed and the navigation easy and quick. If you’re into Ouija boards, Tarot, runes, or any other sort of mysticism or party games, this might be a good book to keep on the coffee table.

—

Dear Procrustes,

First, does this book really try to convince people that astrology is something that can manipulate the world, or is it just something to satisfy the cravings of the superstitious?

Second, can I start a tax-exempt astrology church? Please! I mean, out of all the supernatural-based beliefs out there, I find this one mildly relaxing and not so vicious, at least with regard to people trying to pry my rights away. Why can’t we have more churches of astrology?

Finally, Who is Gary Goldschneider, and what’s it take to become an “expert” in astrology?

Best,
Astro

Astro,

Thanks for your questions. I think the author really believes there’s something out there that has a connection, and that people have personalities that correlate to zodiacal interpretation. I don’t think he’s trying to scam people, but I also don’t think any rational person could believe that a book about stereotypical personalities will, as the advert says, improve your relationships. I think this is really just another “this description could apply to 70% of the population, which is good enough to convince people with spiritual inclinations.”

Even if the author were completely serious that personalities and star signs are causally intertwined, there is no explanation in the book for how it is supposed to work. This isn’t a book on astrology theory; it’s a book meant for the reader to assume that the author knows what he’s talking about, has done all the dirty work, and now is giving the reader simple to follow instructions on ground-level application.

As for the astrology church, I discovered Friends of Astrology, which is apparently a non-profit organization meant to teach about astrology, so I guess you can!

For more about Gary Goldschneider, here is his author bio:

Gary Goldschneider, author of Gary Goldschneider’s Everyday Astrology, is an astrologer and the author of several best-selling books, including The Secret Language of Birthdays, The Secret Language of Relationships, and The Secret Language of Destiny. He has studied astrology for forty years and frequently lectures and writes on the subject. An accomplished pianist and composer, he has performed in concerts and recitals worldwide. He lives in Amsterdam, where he writes a regular astrology column for AvantGardemagazine. Visit him on the mypersonology.com and goldschneider.com.

Sincerely,
Procrustes

—

After the break is an excerpt from the book:

How to Work With Your Boss by Their Astrology Sign
By Gary Goldschneider,
Author of Gary Goldschneider’s Everyday Astrology

ARIES
March 21-April 20

Strengths: Inspiring, Dynamic, Trailblazing
Weaknesses: Unheeding, Stressed, Unaware
Interactive Style: Confrontational, Commanding, Blunt
The Aries Boss
Aries bosses are born leaders, so there will be little doubt as to their wishes concerning the direction the group should take. Explicit, clear, and demanding, these fiery individuals will ask for every ounce of commitment and energy their employees can muster, and then some. Because they are so comfortable in this role, they are eager to make decisions and see them implemented. True individuals, they naturally respect individuality in others and are surprisingly open to and even expectant of their employees acting on their own, once they understand what is expected of them.

TAURUS
April 21-May 21

Strengths: Stable, Attentive, Careful
Weaknesses: Bossy, Inflexible, Insensitive
Interactive Style: Concerned, Instructive, Explicit

The Taurus Boss
Many people have described the Taurus personality as bossy. Indeed, the Taurus boss is comfortable in this role, but prefers to stay behind the scenes and let things run smoothly on their own. This, of course, assumes that employees have been well coached and know what to expect from a Taurus boss. Such assumptions are not always justified, although Taurus bosses usually take the time and trouble to spell out how they want their employees to proceed. Rules and regulations are usually kept to a minimum but are written in stone, at least as far as the Taurus boss is concerned.

GEMINI
May 22-June 21

Strengths: Lively, Communicative, Interesting
Weaknesses: Distracted, Superficial, Nervous
Interactive Style: Forward, Adaptable, Logical

The Gemini Boss
Most Geminis are not comfortable giving orders or running an organization day to day. They are basically types who enjoy being part of a team and sharing experiences on an equal level. Thus, although they are quite capable of taking on the work involved in being bosses, they are not born leaders themselves and would much prefer to hang back and let things run on their own. Gemini bosses are very good at delegating authority, relying on a few capable employees to oversee the activities of their company. Such individuals are usually well rewarded and given a wide range of responsibilities. However, the Gemini boss likes to make the final decisions on all important matters.

CANCER
June 22-July 22

Strengths: Low-key, Easy, Harmonious
Weaknesses: Overly demanding, Expectant, Particular
Interactive Style: Persuasive, Feeling, Empathic

The Cancer Boss
It can be a mistake to deny or underestimate the dominant qualities of the Cancer boss. Extremely particular about how things are done, Cancer bosses can be very demanding, albeit in a low-key manner. They expect their employees to understand their wishes and even to anticipate them. It is not so much rules and orders that count most for Cancer bosses, but the fact that everyone is on the same emotional wavelength. Not fond of trouble, Cancer bosses want things to run smoothly, and this fact underlies the importance of their dominance being unquestioned rather than power tripping, per se.

LEO
July 23-August 23

Strengths: Fair, Proud, Commanding
Weaknesses: Egotistical, Power hungry, Self-centered
Interactive Style: Friendly, Open, Generous

The Leo Boss
Born leaders, Leos exult in assuming the top positions of any company. Ownership is not the most important thing for them, however — so as long as they are CEOs or directors, they are happy to be employees. Leo bosses try to be fair and impartial, succeeding in doing so as long as their authority is not questioned nor their job threatened. As they see it, they are simply representing everyone under them, trying to get them the best possible salaries, working conditions, opportunities for advancement, and benefits. Leos take great pride in their work, so when the company is being congratulated by stockholders, boards of directors, or owners, they are happy to accept for everyone else.

VIRGO
August 24-September 22

Strengths: Pragmatic, Realistic, Matter-of-fact
Weaknesses: Unresponsive, Unsympathetic, Cold
Interactive Style: Literal, Concise, Economical

The Virgo Boss
Virgo bosses are highly pragmatic and are generally realists. Thus the intent or ideals behind your actions are not nearly as important to them as the results. Facts and figures play a large role in their thinking, so be sure you have these at your fingertips when you are summoned to their offices. Excuses will be accepted only if they can be backed up with logic and acceptable evidence. Do not seek to arouse Virgo bosses’ sympathy or understanding, and keep your interactions as unemotional as possible. Virgo bosses highly value their time, as well as yours, so try not to waste it in idle banter.

LIBRA
September 23-October 22

Strengths: Popular, Charismatic, Likeable
Weaknesses: Conceited, Needy, Self-defeating
Interactive Style: Agreeable, Charming, Magnetic

The Libra Boss
The only things Libra bosses value more than being liked by their employees is being well liked by them. This intense need for popularity often betrays them and can even undermine their efforts. Instead of keeping their eye on the ball and striving for positive results, too often they are interested in their own personal gratification. At times their need for admiration seems boundless; those who know this are able to manipulate them through alternately giving and withholding praise. The struggle of Libra bosses to create successful companies is often against that most difficult of enemies — themselves.

SCORPIO
October 23-November 21

Strengths: Well-directed, Protective, Powerful
Weaknesses: Inflexible, Unforgiving, Harsh
Interactive Style: Serious, Hard-driving, Dominant

The Scorpio Boss
Scorpio bosses are serious individuals — hard-driving and dedicated to the company’s success. Consequently, they set extremely high standards for their employees and expect them to give the very best they have on a daily basis. Scorpios do not accept excuses for shoddy or slipshod work, preferring a frank admission of failure over attempts to explain it away. Powerful and dominant, Scorpio bosses sit in the driver’s seat at all times and do not allow their colleagues and fellow workers to question or undermine their authority. When reporting to their superiors or owners of the business, they seek to protect their own employees from unreasonable demands and insist on adequate and often abundant reward for their workers’ dedicated efforts.

SAGITTARIUS
November 22-December 21

Strengths: Intuitive, Forceful, Quick
Weaknesses: Uncommunicative, Unclear, Unsympathetic
Interactive Style: Independent, Individualistic, Impulsive

The Sagittarius Boss
Because of their high degree of independence and individualism, Sagittarius bosses are not always suited to this role. Sagittarians are prone to go off suddenly and often precipitously in their own direction under a full head of steam, so it may be difficult for their employees to keep up with them. Furthermore, they may not take the time to communicate their thoughts clearly to other members of the company, preferring to let their own actions speak for themselves. Not really team players, Sagittarius bosses assume command and then follow their hunches rather than carefully mapping out a campaign and relegating duties carefully.

CAPRICORN
December 22-January 20

Strengths: Dominant, Determined, Self-assured
Weaknesses: Insensitive, Unheeding, Stubborn
Interactive Style: Authoritarian, Commanding, Firm

The Capricorn Boss
Capricorns are dominant personalities, and therefore bosses born under this sign will want to be obeyed without question. Moreover, they will insist on maintaining their position as bosses of the department or company, and under no circumstances will they allow you or anyone else to undermine their authority. “Never outshine the master” is a good rule to follow when working for a Capricorn boss. Not necessarily hungry for advancement, Capricorn bosses are more likely to hang onto their rung on the corporate ladder having once reached and, in most cases, intending to remain at that level as long as possible.

AQUARIUS
January 21-February 19

Strengths: Quick, Bright, Open
Weaknesses: Impatient, Erratic, Elusive
Interactive Style: Immediate, Unpredictable, Ungovernable

The Aquarius Boss
Since Aquarians are not particularly suited to be bosses, they are, generally speaking, rather few and far between. There are several reasons for this, among them their erratic and impulsive behavior, need to act on their own, lightning-quick moves, and general disinterest in holding power over others or setting up a dynasty. That said, if you have an Aquarius boss, at least you have been forewarned. Actually, they are often fun to work with (when you can catch up to them) and treat their employees quite generously. Their impatience is legendary, so do not try their quick tempers or frustrate them with your absence or tardiness when they really need you in the clutch.

PISCES
February 20-March 20

Strengths: Affluent, Fluid, Empathic
Weaknesses: Easily manipulated, Oversensitive, Overprotective
Interactive Style: Relaxed, Adaptable, Influential

The Pisces Boss
For some strange reason Pisces are thought of as being bad with money. Yet in history, and also in one’s own circle of friends, money seems to come easiest to those born under this sign. In the same way, a Pisces boss too frequently invokes the mistaken picture of an ultra-relaxed and indecisive fish flopping out of its depth, but in fact those born under this sign frequently make excellent bosses, even dynasty builders. Money making comes quite naturally to them, as it is a fluid medium that they totally understand, and nurturing Pisces bosses are more than capable of guarding the interests of their businesses and employees, bringing profit to all concerned.

The above is an excerpt from the book Gary Goldschneider’s Everyday Astrology by Gary Goldschneider. The above excerpt is a digitally scanned reproduction of text from print. Although this excerpt has been proofread, occasional errors may appear due to the scanning process. Please refer to the finished book for accuracy.

©2009 Gary Goldschneider, author of Gary Goldschneider’s Everyday Astrology, Quirk Books

DISCLAIMER: The book I have reviewed was sent to me free of charge by the publisher’s PR firm, FSB Associates, for the purpose of allowing me to review the book. I have not received nor will I receive any compensation from the publisher, author, or PR firm for my review. I do not work for, nor have I worked for any of the companies or persons involved in the production or distribution of the book. My views are my own.

1. According to a 2003 Harris Poll, 31% of those polled believed in astrology, most between the ages of 25-29.
2. See Carl Sagan on the pseudoscience of Astrology
3. If you’re interested in learning more, see the Table of Dates on the Wikipedia Zodiac page, and a more thorough explanation of how the zodiac works at Space.com
4. Wikipedia says that a mutable sign is a subgroup of the Zodiac whose members include Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius and Pisces. Apparently they are in this group because they each straddle “temperate zone seasons.” The “air sign” associated with Gemini refers to the classical elements of fire, water, air, and earth. And, of course, being ruled by Mercury refers to the visibility of the planet during the time in which the star sign is in alignment. All clear? I’m not, either, and based on my foray into Wikipedia to come up with even the slightest hint of what these things mean leads me to believe the author merely lacked the space in his book and patience to explain each and every term.
5. See Expectations and Student Outcomes, Kathleen Cotton, November 1989.