It's science.

I have an unusually good memory. I dare say it is close to photographic. If you ever watch Jeopardy with me, I can guarantee that you will become alarmed over how much I know about ornithology, or nomadic tribes in the Sahara, or historic sports figures, or potent potables. All because I did a report on owls in the seventh grade, or read an article on Tuaregs in a 1977 issue of National Geographic that I found in a trunk at my Grandma's when I was nine, or showed up to my History of Sport in America class in college with uncharacteristic frequency thanks to a large hot-baseball-player-classmate contingent, or drank a lot. You know how they say we only use 10% of our brains? I'm fairly certain that I disprove that theory, because at least 50% of my is occupied with useless and obscure factoids. Trust me: you want me on your trivia team. And you do NOT want to play Cranium against me.

I mention this not because I like to brag (in fact, I'm not always pleased with myself over it, especially when I accidentally freak people out by referencing comments they made in passing, possibly under their breath, eight months ago when I appeared to be engrossed in appraising the state of my manicure). It's just that once upon a time, a good decade or so ago, somebody told me that the Zodiac calendar is based on the position of the stars and planets thousands of years ago, and if we were to recalculate our signs based on their positions today, most of us would be a different sign. I don't, however, remember who told me this. I suspect it may have been my crazy modern dance teacher (sorry, Jenn) - it sort of stands to reason that the type of person who would take groups of impressionable children, outfit them in a mess of spandex and chiffon, and choreograph dances for them to perform on mountaintops might indeed be knowledgeable about the origins of astrology. But I don't know when she would have had occasion to tell me that, so iit just as well could have been someone else, or I could have dreamed it and thought it was real, which has been known to happen. In subsequent years, while engaged in conversations on the subject, I would occasionally enthusiastically bust out this tidbit, in keeping with my general tendency toward screeching enthusiasm, only to be met with indifference. Nobody cared! And my Google searches for scholarly texts that would back up my position proved fruitless.

Imagine my elation when, this afternoon, Jezebel directed me to this page : http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/your-astronomical-sign.html.

I am, at long last, vindicated. I would be thankful that I never went ahead and got that Leo tattoo that I briefly, incorrectly thought would make an attractive tramp stamp (does ANYTHING make an attractive tramp stamp?), but indeed I am one of the lucky few whose sign remains the same. Not that that's surprising. I mean, you all read my blog. Could I possibly be anything else besides a Leo? Not that I'm one of those people who checks my horoscope five times a day and won't date anyone whose birthday isn't compatible with mine according to both tarot.com and Cosmopolitan's Annual Totally Idiotic Pull-Out Forecast of Eternal Luv. (Have I mentioned that I hate Cosmo? I hate Cosmo. It caters to the lowest common denominator and assumes women are codependent flakes. Also, it's predicated upon "Sex Tips You've NEVER Heard Before and Could Not Imagine in Your Wildest Dreams!", "1006 Brand-New Ways to Drive Your Man WILD in Bed - Doughnut Not Included!", and "732 Ways to Seduce Him Away From Guitar Hero!" Um, guys? There is no such thing as a new sex tip. We're not talking about cancer research here. I don't think scientists are discovering new positions. The Kama Sutra is pretty comprehensive and that was around long before you were telling us to use our heirloom pearls and DOUGHNUTS - yes, doughnuts, use your imaginations if you must - in completely perverse and retarded ways. Also, I would never seduce a man away from Guitar Hero. More like the other way around.)

ANYWAY. Some people are pretty upset about this, because it shakes the foundation of their very persons. Which to me sounds a little dramatic, for a few reasons. One, I doubt that astrology.com is going to start changing up the dates for each sign and adding horoscopes for Ophiuchus, which is a cutting-edge new sign that falls between Scorpio and Sagittarius. Two, while it may be science - astronomy, that is - astrology is most certainly not. I mean, any given horoscope can be interpreted to mean whatever you want it to mean. Mine did not say "You will wear a skirt that is bordering on inappropriate despite being adorably flouncyand get an excellent haircut after work" when I opened up iGoogle this morning. No, it said "You may find yourself way ahead of others now, yet someone may attempt to slow you down and try to get you back into the pack. It really doesn't matter how high-minded your intentions are; gently apply your own brakes so no one else has to do it for you. Self-restraint can preemptively save the day." It could be telling me to restrain myself from wearing a skirt that could possibly result in frostbitten thighs (I did), it could be telling me to restrain myself from getting Victoria Beckham's asymmetrical nod to Simon LeBon as my new hairstyle (I didn't), it could be telling me to restrain myself from eating an entire pound bag of M&Ms for dinner (I didn't) or buying an awesome cashmere sweater from Theory at Poor Little Rich Girl (I did) or copy-editing all the brochures in the marketing closet for proper American English (a daily conundrum, to be sure, but thus far I have not). Totally devoid of concrete meaning, totally interpretive, totally fill-in-the-blank.

However...I'm still a Leo. Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah.