Not living in the USA, I’m not quite so excited by the appointment of a running mate to the old man who looks like he will lose the next presidential election. But Sarah Palin (born 11 Feb 1964) does have Sun-Mars-Saturn conjunct in Aquarius, square to Neptune. There was a batch of people born in 1964 that has that signature. My take on it is progressive, humanitarian idealism with an unacknowledged undertow that is evangelical and intolerant and ideological. Now of course not all people born with this signature are like this. But Ms Palin is a politician and an American and a Republican, so I think a few years down the line and we will begin to see it. Once hall-of-mirrors Neptune has finished conjoining her Sun-Mars-Saturn.
I think this signature is classic for the progressive, ‘enlightened’ leader who cannot see their own shadow. I’m not saying this makes her better or worse than anyone else: it is just how she is built, and what she has to deal with. The path to hell is paved with good intentions: that’s what she needs to remember. With Sun in Aquarius, it is natural and basic to her to want to better humanity. But then add in the drive and self-certainty of Mars, the ambition and control of Saturn, and the rigidity of this fixed sign, and you can see what I mean. Humility and doubt and self-awareness ain’t her, at least not very readily.
She's a bit of a babe - or at least used to be - which will make it hard for some men (most men?) to see her as she is.
She was born in Sandpoint, Idaho. If she was born after 8.30am, then she has Moon in Aquarius, which would emphasise the above points. Otherwise she has Moon in Capricorn, which would describe her conservative qualities and ascent to high position. (Remember that Aquarius is co-ruled by Saturn, so can paradoxically also be a conservative, even right-wing, sign. Ronald Reagan was an Aquarian. So was Ceaucescu, the Communist-era dictator of Romania. And so is Dick Cheney.) If Sarah Palin does have Moon in Capricorn, then it is Void!
I don’t know if this means anything or not. A Moon is Void when it is at such a degree in a sign that it will not make any more major in-sign aspects until it enters the next sign. Traditionally it is said not to be good time to start something. Some astrologers are anti-Void Moon, I don’t see why, it is symbolic, just like the rest of astrology. But I don’t know what it might mean in a birth chart. Anyone with any ideas? The following were born under a Void Moon: Princess Diana, Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill, Robert Kennedy, Jimi Hendrix, Neil Armstrong and Billy Graham.
Meanwhile in the UK, the news still includes the Chancellor’s assessment that the country is facing its greatest economic difficulties for 60 years. At least, that is how it got reported, and it seemed to contribute to yesterday’s plunge in the value of sterling. Listening to him today, his comments made more sense. He was quoting the IMF, who had originally made comments to the same effect, but saying that it was the whole world that faced these difficulties, the worst since the 1930s. The difficulties are produced by the unique combination of credit crunch and high oil, commodity and food prices.
Alistair Darling (who comes from a long line of Chancellors with prominent eyebrows) thinks that Britain is well set to meet these difficulties. This contradicts the assessment of the OECD, who reckon that Britain will fall into recession in the 2nd half of 2008.
All the same, the IMF’s assessment of world economic conditions is fully Pluto in Capricorn. No Sagittarian talk of growth (‘negative growth’ is a term I would like to see vanish), but a realistic assessment of obstacles. In the longer term it would be nice to see this deepening into a new economic model, based on sustainability rather than on endless and unnecessary and wasteful ‘growth’. This is the positive economic promise that Pluto in Capricorn holds out before us over the next 16 years.