Panel of astrologers predicts Obama victory
A rather vacuous and credulous article by USA Today.
Let's see what they have:
NEW ORLEANS – It's unanimous: A panel of renowned astrologers predicts President Obama will win re-election in November.
Who says they're "renowned"? I've never heard of any of these people.
That's the word from the last day of an astrology conference here that also forecast earthquakes, explored the impact of lunar cycles on U.S. stocks and demonstrated how to use planetary charts to find a job.
Could you be any more vague about these predictions? Where and when will these earthquakes occur? What is this supposed impact of lunar cycles on U.S. stocks? How exactly does using planetary charts help you find a job?
The highlight of each conference is the presidential prediction. At the last conference, in May 2008, six panelists unanimously predicted Obama's win over Sen. John McCain.
That's nice, but in May 2008 most publicly available opinion polls also predicted that Obama would win, and the same is true in 2012. Hardly a bold prediction.
The astrologers also warned that a Mercury retrograde — an alignment of Mercury, the sun and Earth — begins on Election Day and could lead to voting irregularities. The last time a Mercury retrograde appeared on Election Day was on Nov. 7, 2000 — and it took a Florida recount and Supreme Court decision to finalize a winner.
Weasel word noted. If there are voting irregularities they'll claim to have predicted them. If not, they'll claim it wasn't a prediction.
Besides bringing astrologers together to exchange ideas and techniques, conference organizers say the gathering adds legitimacy to a field often grouped with palm readers and horoscopes.
What, aren't horoscopes the main product of astrologers? Who else should we associate with horoscopes?
Unlike astronomy, the science that deals with the physical study of planets, astrology explores how the positions of planets and suns affect human behavior.
Trying to imply that astrology is also a science like astronomy?
Absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever in this article. Credulous and vacuous from beginning to end.