"Our relevant data are the movements of the planets within a zone defined by the relationship between the Earth and Sun."

the new astrology push back begins. as i read brezsny's post, his point seems to be basically this (not quoting, summarizing):

the "new astrology" is a scam because it assumes that modern astrologers still think that peoples' fate is determined by distant stars. of course that seems crazy, because it is crazy! instead modern astrology holds that peoples' fate is based on the relative positions of objects within this solar system.

um, why is that not also crazy?

(via tripp on FB)

UPDATE: susie posted a link to an even more detailed defense of "old astrology". but still there's no attempt to explain why "the zodiac of signs" can predict the future any better than "the zodiac of constellations",or, for that matter, better than "the zodiac of food splatters on the walls of my microwave".