Reliability of Mainstream Horoscopes

LIBRA (Sept. 23-Oct. 23). The one who suggested that “you can’t be a friend to everybody” just doesn’t know you very well. You give people a rare quality of attention. It doesn’t take a lot of time to make a person feel seen and understood.

– The Washington Times, Daily Horoscope

Horoscopes are predictions of peoples near futures based on the positions of the stars on the day they were born. I believe it’s fair to say that this “astrological practice” is fairly popular amongst the general public since newspapers and most magazines have a horoscope section. The fact that it’s commonly included indicates a certain demand for it. I wonder how accurate horoscopes really are, especially since some people will base their life decisions on them. Personally, for me horoscopes have always been either a hit or miss, either they are spot on with their prediction or they literally have nothing to do. Can a few lines of a horoscope really apply to the multitude of people that fall under the same sign? Yes, maybe we were born in the same time frame but there is no way that we are all living the same life so how can a horoscope accurately always apply. The answer is it doesnt, modern horoscopes are based on the sun signs making them semi accurate, if one really wanted to know an accurate astrological prediction they would have to get a birth or natal chart done which are individual specific meaning that even if both participants are libra their natal charts will be very different from one another’s.

City of Rhetoric: Introduction Analysis

In David Fleming’s book: City of Rhetoric, Fleming argues in his Introduction that built environments that promote conflict and in turn language matter because our current anti-urban society promotes movement to superficial spaces where uniformity has painted conflict as the root of inequality, when if allowed conflict fosters harmony amongst inequality. In discussions of the relationship of language and the built environments in contemporary United States, one controversial issue has been how anti-urbanism has lead to privatism or communities of what the author calls the “like-minded” and how it has made cities anti-political and anti-rhetorical impoverishing political discourse.  One the one hand, anti-urbanists argue that as long as individuals with different views stay segregated conflict does not need to occur which means that they argue that avoiding diversity means harmony. On the other hand, Fleming contends the need for a public philosophy that says that difference is good and not bad and encourages conflict and enriches public discourse which brings us harmony.  In his Introduction the author not only outlines the three main sections of his book but he exposes that in order to achieve a political and rhetorically built environment current built spaces (which history demonstrates have exhibited plasticity over the years) must be re-designed to break privatism so that not only is public rhetoric encouraged but we have environments that make it unavoidable.

City of Rhetoric: Preface Analysis

In David Fleming’s book: City of Rhetoric, Fleming argues in his Preface that the revitalization of civic life or the redesigning of built environments is an essential project that will correct our increasingly impoverished political discourse. In discussions of the revitalization of civic life, one controversial issue has been the trend of anti-urbanism where people act on their secessionist impulses following the line of thought that a space should be apolitical and politics ageographical.  One the one hand, anti-urbanists (people who fled urban centers) argue that the urban forms of human contact, which promote sameness instead of difference, are the answer to the increase in “chaos” that the diversification of cities brings. On the other hand, Fleming contends that the anti-urbanist trend was and is a mistake because in order to “fix” the “chaos” it encourages built environments that are stratified by family status, race, age, and ethnicity and in turn this discourages collaboration and hinders public discourse which Fleming argues is ignoring the responsibility that we have towards the world and the people we cohabitate with.  Fleming maintains that for public discourse to flourish a space cannot be apolitical and politics cannot be ageographical because public discourse flourishes in built environments or spaces where individuals learn to deal with the chaotic world they hold in common collaboratively instead of separately. In his preface, Fleming sets the stage for his book by demonstrating the important connection between public discourse and built environments by explaining to the reader how the anti-urbanist movement is the cause and effect of our progressively impoverished political relations with each other and how the revitalization of civic life (redesigning diverse urban built environments that manage social differences without separation or assimilation but collaboration) is the way to correcting this impoverishment.