There is this habit of some astrologers to come out every two weeks with a chart depicting the constellation at the time either of the New Moon or Full Moon. This then serves as a template for the author to ruminate about events and tendencies that are ‘in the air’ or to be played out in the near future. And surprise, surprise! What you find in the analysis are exactly the current world (US) affairs put into astrological parlance. The authors have the chutzpah to hold the finger into the wind (i.e. read the New York Times) and then ‘find’ astrological correspondences. Isn’t it amazing how true these forecasts always are? In recent months we were told to be aware of ‘fake news’ and ‘rogue leaders’, that we have to contend with ‘dangerous brinkmanship’ in world affairs and 'ugly violence' erupting locally. The intention behind such efforts is, quite obvious, to give astrology (and the author) more credibility. But you are taken for a ride. This being done in bad faith by practitioners who should know better only compounds the general mistrust towards astrology.
Already logically there are deep flaws in this practice: (1) the moment of New Moon or Full Moon happens at a certain moment in time. But any chart you draw for that moment depends on the geographical position you choose. It is a different chart for New York, a different one for San Francisco, and again different for Beijing. A different chart calls for a different reading. (2) the extent of viability is - by its own concept - only two weeks, a meek amount of time for anything to unfold until the next Solar/Moon interaction occurs, shifting things in a new direction but two weeks down the road… (3) even if entertaining the thought that certain Sun/Moon positions would portend certain tendencies, are they the same for all agents and countries of the Earth, Georgia, Finland, Uruguay, Seychelles...