Post #3166 J

Television (continued)

Well, this post format has provided me an alternative to flesh out my opinions on popular culture, some brief ad hoc commentaries, personal reflections, etc. There was one newer/ongoing television series (Lucifer) that I had intended to discuss in my most recent rant on television

Familiar readers know that I was born and raised Catholic  In fact, part of the reason I chose a Catholic college for my undergraduate studies and made philosophy one of my majors is because I was seriously considering a religious vocation at a priest; there were a number of reasons I did not choose that path in the end, including a counterproductive "progressive" tilt to the hierarchy, nuns/sisters, etc. I always wanted a principled Church to stand against cultural moral relativism.

There are a couple of incidents that stood out: I had attended a parochial school for a few weeks in fifth and sixth grades. (Dad had gone ahead to secure family housing on two assignments.) My southeast Massachusetts class had "adopted" a poor family in the DC area: you name it: groceries, clothes, etc. But one checklist item particularly disturbed me: the father's favorite brand of cigarettes. (In fact my Dad used to smoke the same brand, a bad habit he picked up while serving in Korea, until he quit cold turkey early in my childhood.) Even during my youth, I had a sense of moral hazard and did not approve of subsidizing this man's deadly habit.

The second item was probably the clincher, something I've mentioned in passing in the blog. I was attending Sunday mass at the University of Texas (grad school) when the priest based his homily on a recent hit by pop singer Olivia Newton John: "Have You Ever Been Mellow?" Curiously enough like a number of Catholic libertarians or conservatives, like Napolitano, Tucker, and Santorum, I have a love for traditional liturgy, music (Gregorian chants), and the like. I am not a reactionary; even Edmund Burke accepted change. I do think, though, the nature and extent of change have been counterproductive. I think the Catholic bishops have shown weak leadership combating the sexual revolution and, as if things couldn't get worse, there were the sex abuse scandals.

Many more conservative Catholic media sources spoke out against Lucifer as mockery against the faith (e.g., here). I tend to be more tolerant of free expression, particularly involving the interpretation of religious symbolism. I will say, though, that I halfway expect to hear the Stones belt out "Sympathy for the Devil" during the opening credits.  Lucifer/Satan is played by a suave, sophisticated James Bond-like actor, who for some reason befriends and yearns for some separated female detective and also has a female  therapist to explore his "Daddy" issues (and repays her with sex, which is wrong on so many levels). It's not exactly clear why Lucifer wants to help bring the bad guys to justice, perhaps motivated to prove his Daddy wrong. He himself feels wronged by a vengeful Daddy (God) Who has unjustly condemned him to playing a despicable role for eternity and hence rebels by leaving hell. In the meanwhile God dispatches a black brother archangel to chase Lucifer back into hell, but it's murky exactly who is the bad brother. For example, the "good" archangel has sex with Lucifer's female demon minion. To add to the divine family soap opera. it turns out that Lucifer has a Mommy, who God cast into hell not long after Lucifer began his reign there. Mommy Dearest escapes from hell not long after Lucifer to find him, taking on a seriously sexy form (not much older, if that, than Lucifer, who is mortified to see Mommy disrobe after he criticizes her slutty dress). Add to the mix that Lucifer discovers that his feelings for the detective to some extent humanizes him, e.g., makes him vulnerable to pain (he bleeds when shot by a bullet). In fact, there's a storyline about killing the more human Lucifer as a way of returning him to hell. (There are some horrible puns along the way like how a divine God the Father and Mother gave birth to the universe as the "Big Bang".)

I don't particularly care for this empathetic portrayal of the "wronged" devil. It's not just the stereotype of God as a vengeful, unloving being; I also think this nuanced portrayal muddles the classic tale of good vs. evil makes for poor, uninspired story making. And some of this flatly doesn't make sense. For example, does anyone really buy that womanizing Lucifer suddenly cringes at the sight of his Mom's nude assumed human form?

I'll have to admit I've always had some issue with this traditional idea of the devil duping people into making bad judgments; It logically seems to suggest people are not responsible for the choices they've made, that they are victims of the wily devil.

On a separate note, there are rumors of American Idol coming back as early as next year, perhaps moving networks to NBC. NBC, of course, has done phenomenally well with competitions like The Voice and America's Got Talent. Right now the courts are reviewing things like intellectual property rights for the series. We'll need to see how NBC would refresh the show's stale formula. Let's keep in mind that the show's post-pop success is mostly due to Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood (for a top 100 ranking of American Idol hits, see here.) In a competition which in the first few years yielded a sure #1 hit for the winner, the last winner, Trent Harmon, didn't even crack the country Top Twenty (never mind the pop charts) with his first two singles.

Keeping a Little Bit of Surprise in Pregnancy?

Of my 21 nieces and nephews, I so far have 16 grandnieces/nephews (some of the nieces are still in their teens and a handful of newly married ones (over the last 2 years) haven't started their families yet). One of my nieces, who attended my doctoral graduation at 8 months (and joyfully yanked down on my gold tassel), is expecting her second child (she also has a 10-year-old stepson from her husband's former relationship). She seems to be pulling for a little girl after her firstborn son (who has inherited her blond blond hair and big blue eyes. Her girlfriends are speculating on the baby's gender (I don't really know all the old wives' tales, but for example one of them claimed that the baby's strong heartbeat was indicative of a girl's.) So one of her friends asked her when she's going to find out, and my niece replied early April. I said something like "Don't you want to be surprised?" She said no, she wanted to start planning.

Sigh. Now I don't have an issue with a parental right to know. But I'm the kind of guy who likes a little mystery in life, whether we are talking about unopened Christmas presents, the wedding night or what's for dessert. I do have an issue, not with my niece, but with others do with prenatal information--including gender-based abortion (particularly in China and India) and genocide against Down syndrome babies.

Investments and the Trump Bump

I have to say with my retirement accounts at near an all-time high, (Let me first give a standard disclaimer that I don't give financial advice and invest at your own risk.) I guess I should be grateful. To be honest, though, I've made some mistakes over the past few years, a little too conservative (large cash position), probably not enough in the S&P,  too concentrated in certain industry sectors (e.g, the health sector--no, not insurance companies); sometimes I didn't pull the trigger fast enough on bad picks, and I didn't exercise patience with some winners.

Sometimes stubbornness can be a virtue in not selling a losing position. One example was a water utility which boasted a low PEG (but operated in some highly regulated states. I had accumulated a significant number of shares in reference to my account--but I rarely invest more than 5% in any one position). For most of the time I owned the position, I was seriously underwater (no pun intended). There is a psychological  tendency to sell if and when you finally get back to breakeven. If and when I finally sold, I netted a 70% gain. In another case (a developmental pharmaceutical company), I saw a jarring, demoralizing 66-70% drop over my investment for much of the past year. I don't have a miracle story here; I'm now down about 17%. Of course, tons of companies never get back to breakeven. You really need a good story behind the stock.

The biggest disappointment I have is with a highly regarded, very cheap biotech company. I loaded up to my limit, and it's gone down maybe a third over the past year. A big hint: it has a huge well-regarded hepatitis drug/drugs, but multiple competitive drugs have hit the market, hitting revenues and profits. Of course, this company is not a one-trick pony; it has a significant presence in the HIV drug market and a substantial drug pipeline. It's not clear where the company will bottom; I think analysts want to see the hepatitis drug revenues stabilize, maybe see the company make some key acquisitions, etc.

Currently I'm looking at more diversification in foreign securities (ETF's traded domestically), Big High Tech, certain REITs. Of course, I am well-aware the US market is looking a little long in the tooth, and I am genuinely alarmed that Trump may stumble his way into a global trade war.  We need to be more globally competitive in business taxes. But there's always a risk that the Fed could trigger a recession with one too many interest rate hikes. And I'm not sure global growth is in great shape given struggling oil prices.