Sunday, January 16, 2011


At first glance I’m not so sure that I know what my sign is any more or that I really care all that much. I will admit to once pursuing my daily horoscope over my morning coffee, but that was mostly amusement.

Born on May 24th I have long been identified with the twins Gemini, and all that malarkey (a masculine positive mutable air sign?) that has fed the imagination and coffers of the ancients and provided many an introduction and ice breaker for a seventies bar scene. No, I never did that or at least I don’t remember.

Speaking of that era some are surprised that I did have a John Travolta Disco-era inspired white suit that I thought of wearing to Big Daddy’s in Atlanta. It was right across the mall from the original High Country in Powers Ferry Landing. Saturday Night Fever aside, I never wore it because most of the other guys were wearing the same thing. They thought they were all different, but sadly they were all the same and I just didn’t fit that scene. I was embarrassed and realized I would rather be paddling a river or climbing a mountain.
God, I still love the Bee Gees…

Back to the Zodiac - I still have an antique astrological globe handed down for many generations that dates from the early 1800’s and is more curiosity than prized possession. I am absolutely intrigued with the globe and more so that one of my august ancestors may have paid tribute to astrology?

This week some folks are all abuzz about the revelation that most of us now have new Zodiac signs. Though I was, indeed, born under the twins, its goodbye Gemini, hello Taurus? Frankly, I like the idea of being a Taurus rather than Gemini just by the sound of it - the masculine tone that it denotes. Now in Texas you have that old Longhorn thing – the ultimate Taurus. TAURUS - exclamation point - Aye!

As a Gemini I have always been assured that I was imbued with certain traits and qualities including: the ability to communicate effectively, be an excellent conversationalist (I do love to talk), driven by curiosity and the desire to know and understand all issues and ultimately to think clearly (necessary ingredients for an HR person). I am in a nutshell – a free soul. Never mind that I am also tagged as being inconsistent, restless, easily bored, and unable to concentrate on any one thing for a prolonged period of time.
Some would agree with that…

Now as a Taurus (a feminine negative fixed earth sign?) they tell me I am: realistic, stable, loyal and possess dogged determination. Hmmm, thought I already had those traits though that feminine, negative thing worries me big time. The Taurus sign also represents art, beauty in all its forms and strength (OK), and that I am reliable and practical with a natural ability for business. Things are looking up… My fall to earth as a Taurus, however, also includes not so admirable traits including being possessive, resistant to change, being resentful and inflexible and manifesting a jealous, self-indulgent and greedy persona. Like Icarus, I just landed with a huge thump. This is not good

So why the change? Seems that even the Ancients knew that the Earth's position in relation to the sun was changing and would ultimately affect their zodiac. There are two main Zodiacs and basic approaches to Astrology – one Tropical (based on the seasons) that we mostly embrace in the west and Sidereal or Vedic astrology - with origins in the Hindu culture based on the constellations - that’s mostly followed in India and Asia.

Wikipedia does a better job than most in defining the differences of these two approaches and we encourage a visit to for further details.

“Vedic and Western astrology share a common ancestry as horoscopic systems of astrology, in that both traditions focus on the casting of an astrological chart or horoscope, a representation of celestial entities, for an event based on the position of the Sun, Moon, and planets at the moment of the event. However, Vedic astrology uses the sidereal or fixed or constellational zodiac, linking the signs of the zodiac to their original constellations, while Western astrology uses the tropical or seasonal zodiac.

Because of the precession of the equinoxes whose cycle is approximately 25,686 years long, during which the extensions of the polar axes describe circles, the twelve zodiacal signs in Western astrology no longer correspond to the same part of the sky as their original constellations, due to centuries of change. In effect, in Western astrology the link between sign and constellation was broken in approximately 222 AD, whereas in Vedic astrology the constellations remain of paramount importance.”

While there are other major differences between the two traditions the current controversy as recently reported by the Minnesota Star Tribune validates that over the millennia our moon's gravitational pull has slowly moved the Earth in its axis, creating about a one-month bump in the stars' alignment, hence the current controversy and the proposed changes.

Even though it probably doesn’t matter what space the constellations occupy, I guess I’ll stick with my Gemini legacy only because there appears to be more positives than negatives and Gemini does seem to fit me better. While I may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, I’m probably too old for major modifications in my belief systems noting the Taurus resistance to change. I will admit that I hope to embrace some of the more positive Taurean aspects even those which prompted me to write this post in the first place. Then, I am a little of both or maybe all the signs.

For all you others out there that don’t like your sign, I strongly recommend switching now before they come up with another astral plane or shift in the universe. In retrospect I do wonder if as a fully devout Taurus I would have worn that white disco suit?


Ned Buxton

No comments: