Culture came to Main Street but not escapism.

When things got complicated in the third act they also got up to date.. The Chinese interrogators  wanted information. The lovely Liu refused to tell them what they wanted.

Puccini's operatic solution: they would threaten her with torture.' We have ways of making you talk'. The Milan audience perhaps smiled indulgently. That Puccini !. An operatic solution to move the plot along.

Waterboarding , I thought but Liu beat them to the punch.

What's happened to us?  How did we get to a place where the highest levels of our government approve something that ten years ago we'd have scorned as a medeival practice or hokey theatrical plot device?  And criticism is classified  at best as a sign of almost culpable  immaturity and more likely as unpatriotic indifference to the welfare of  our troops overseas.

In years of living abroad where, frankly, things were often better run , I could still think fondly of our government as one that was fundamentally decent. Today that seems mostly to depend on which torturer is in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel

Even Puccini couldn't have dreamed up John Yoo.

.

in which John Houseman , on behalf of some Wall Street firm,growled "We make money the old fashioned way. We work for it." 

The Galleon case  and more , the media's treatment of it recalls that piece of hypocricy. The old  fashioned  work that firm, and Galleon , and all of Wall Streets analysts do is obtaining corporate profit forecasts so they can recommend a buy or sell of a particular stock. That's it. The columns of statistics that typically accompany that key sentence are window dressing and treated as such by the readers.

On those few occasions when they can't obtain it directly from the company, a couple of nights spent at the bar nearest to corporate headquarters will produce it from one or another of the  50 people present that night who know it.

Every firm which issues investment advice and every reporter  who covers that activity knows that. When a Galleon case comes along the question is not :Are they guilty.?Of course they are. The question is Why was this particular case  brought ?

Obviously I don't refer to the official forecasts published under  SEC pressure. I refer to the  forecasts in which  the company actually believes. And which  guide its actions.

 Rather than try to restrict such disclolsure  the SEC should  prohibit any sanction for the disclosurers. All those influential  analysts would be freed to go into some legitimate employment as bar tenders or palm readers. . 

The columns of statistics which often accompany that key sentence are window dressing and treated as such by the readers.

Every firm which issues investment advice and every reporter  who covers that activity knows that. When a Galleon case comes along the question is not :Are they guilty.?Of course they are. The question is Why was this particular case  brought ?

.