Does the new planet affect your Astrological forecast?

A group of astronomers lead by Mike Brown at CalTech discovered a large object beyond Pluto called 2003 UB313 last summer. They nicknamed it "Xena" after the Warrior Princecess who battled evil for several years on TV. It was later found to have a satellite and turned out to be larger than the 9th planet, Pluto. It has since started an argument amongst Astronomers about whether it should be considered a planet or not or in fact, if Pluto should be called a planet. The jury is still out and it really is just a matter of nomenclature anyway. There are certainly thousands of objects out in the depths of the solar system that are within a factor of 10 of the diameter of Pluto. As we have discovered, the solar system is a very busy place.

Today, as I was reading our local Sunday paper, I read through the "USA Weekend" magazine and discovered under the title "Science" an article titled "Newly Charted Territory" by one Rose Darby. At first glance, it appeared to be a legitimate article about the new planet Xena. Unfortunately, under the guise of science, the article quickly deteriorated into an article about Astrology and how the new planet affects astrological predictions. The astrological mumbojumbo that was attempting to masquerade as science was mind numbing. Astrology is a science like Intelligent Design is science - in short, it isn't, it's pseudoscientific nonsense. Publishing pseudoscientific claptrap of this kind and disguising it as science certainly damages the credibility of a magazine like USA Weekend.

Interestingly, on the same date, Parade Magazine published an article by David Levy discussing not only the new planet, but also the upcoming mission to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt called New Horizons - a legitimate science article while their competitor published its trivial article on the non-science of Astrology.

The results of superstition....

Religion promotes superstitious thinking with the believer linking anything bad that might happen either with the victims lack of or misguided faith or as the vengeance of his deity. Anything bad that happens to himself is simply a test of his faith. The good is a sign of his wonderful god, the bad a test of his faith. The bad that happens to someone else is punishment.... Circular reasoning abounds and the real reasons for things are irrelevant. Take this story for example. Pat Robertson demonstrates his ignorance by blaming Ariel Sharon's current health problems as divine punishment for "dividing God's land." If Robertsons god is so trivial that he would stoop to revenge, It's no wonder that I don't want anything to do with his religion. It's too bad most of Robertson's followers are so blind to his ignorance and hypocrisy.