I just wanted to share this blog by Astrologer Jim Sher on the Uranus-Pluto square, and what is going on politically in the U.S. right now. 

I've shared just an excerpt below.  To read the full article, click here:

http://www.sherastrology.com/2011/08/the-coming-square-between-uranus-and-pluto/

"...on June 24, 2012... Pluto will be at 8° Capricorn and square Uranus at 8° Aries. They will square each other 7 times over the following three years so this transit will be in effect for a long time.

While it will affect the world as a whole, the U.S. will be affected a great deal since in 2014, this transit will link up to the Sun/Saturn square of the U.S. chart. This article cannot go into all of this, but what I want to look at is the question of how what is happening in the political environment might be a prelude to the possible issues emerging in the next few years.

This article is intended to both make observations and ask questions. So, I hope some of you might want to reply with your own thoughts one the matters I will be bringing up.

One of the biggest biases on my part is that the political environment of today is unlike anything I’ve ever seen. Even in the ‘radical’ sixties, the two parties didn’t fight like they do now and were not as extreme either. Let me give some examples:

  • Filibusters were very rare as there was a general belief that in a democracy the party that won the election had the right to govern and that to block it simply because one could do so, was anti-democracy. Now, filibusters are used as a constant threat and are frequently a part of the political process.
  • Governmental and judicial appointments by the President were normally approved since to not do so was to render the government ineffective and unable to carry out it legislated mandates. Now, there are an historic number of blocked appointments which prevent the various governmental agencies from running as they should. Sometimes it seems that the anti-government party wants to make sure that government won’t work by blocking every appointment it can.
  • Many pundits and even some politicians openly state that they want to do as much as they can to prevent the President from succeeding even if it means that the country will suffer accordingly. This would have been conceived of as near treason in the past, since it undermines the very promise of democracy. I used to enjoy the Sunday news programs where Republicans (Nixon, Kissinger, Rockefeller, Lindsay, etc.) debated Democrats (McGovern, Symington, Jackson, etc.). There were hostilities too, at times, but no one questioned the importance of coming to a solution that would serve the American people. In fact, there was a belief that the debate itself would assure that end by making sure that whatever was decided would indeed be the best outcome of that time period.
  • Facts were considered important. When I listened to politicians from both sides of the aisle, most of the facts were not disputed. How they were interpreted was what the debate was about. Today, if one listens to any political discussion, one will not be able to leave the program or article without feeling confused about what is and is not true. It seems that people will say anything.

This is just a partial list, but given all of this, how can any consensus ever be formed? In fact, it is fair to ask the following simple question. Is the present climate one in which the actual intention is to block any effort to achieve a consensus? Is the coming to consensus even a desired goal anymore? What I see is that for many consensus is now something to be fought against with all of its might."

by Jim Sher