The answer in 1952 was, of course, to go on a frenzy of manufacturing and usage and newborn creating...and to elect as president a retired general who heritage suggests would rather golf than govern (although some historians celebrate the generally laissez-faire Eisenhower for not breaking everything, such as the peace). It is now fashionable to disparage the values formed with the advent of Ike's election as selfish but, dammit, everybody was war-weary, nervous, and ready for the fork out-off promised by victory in WWII - The Huge One. It was about time for life to provide a nice car or truck, and a decent payment schedule, and an interstate freeway system to facilitate suburban residing and personal adventure. So where do we go this time close to? Does a less promising environment for economic growth force our hands? Do we have to become socially-concerned citizens because we've operate out of things...or maybe even the desire for stuff? Is social concern where we have to go inevitably, whether we want to go there or not? Now a actually wise person might suggest that the issue of the nodes is not a case of either/or but, rather, one of equally. May we not simultaneously be wise stewards of our personal desires and our social obligations? Is the hybrid automobile a kind of religious object? In any case, the suggestion here is that McGovern may possibly be best understood as a symbolic step back again toward Leo, and that Obama could be a symbolic step toward Aquarius. But really don't rely out Hillary just yet. As Tucker Carlson was prepared to concede, "Hillary Clinton is the toughest person who has ever lived...she's been attacked for everything since 1978 and she's still a game fighter who expects to win." My websites: jordan sc-1