Yes that was sarcasm about officers steering a company, I laid it out there as such to highlight the fact that the letter writer was an officer of the company. Please note the sentence that immediately follows it.

I understand the point you make with regard to VPs not having a lot of say in a company, and that the VP title is a bit inflated. That addresses vice presidents, but not Executive VPs. I realize it is a subtle semantic, but one that makes all the difference at corporations, as I’m sure you are well aware. And given that of the bonuses handed out, the largest single payout was about 6 million. So… 700k (after taxes) isn’t exactly chump change for the bonuses. Additionally, seeing as how CEO Liddy mentioned that the 25 top paid individuals at AIG agreed to take a $1 salary for the year, it seems that dear DeSantis is near the top of the food chain. So I am even less likely to try and feel sorry for this guy, which is the point of his letter.

You say posters are only complaining because the writer made more money than they did. I disagree. I think the posters realize that there are things that the letter writer could have done to help out his company. I think the posters here are rejecting the claim that the letter writer is entitled to the bonus, simply because A.I.G. promised him that bonus. The claim that he is donating the total bonus to charity serves as fodder for notion that the letter writer, by virtue of their own lifestyle is disconnected from the realities that the rest of America has to deal with. In fact, I glean from reading the posts, that most posters seem to wonder why A.I.G. felt compelled to give out bonuses over wages.

It boils down to the bonus, and why was it paid. Why does the employee of a failed company that took government money get a bonus, while tons of Americans that aren’t fortunate enough to get a bailout do not get a bonus? That is the question that Americans want answered satisfactorily. Saying, “because that employee makes more money than the rest of you,” implies that America is only for the rich. I reject that notion.

Why is no one pushing back against this, in Washington? Why are none of her colleagues disabusing her of these ramblings? Why aren't democratic party members reaching out to Bachmann, offering to discuss what it is she fears, so we can air out her ignorance and correct it?

In short:

WHY AREN'T THESE IDEAS BEING REJECTED IN OUR MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS???

I realize that we are yapping about her apparent disconnect from our shared reality, and salonites tend to "get it" about her... but why don't we hear about democratic push-back against this kind of idiocy??

I mean really, REALLY? I'm a tall fat guy with so damn few options when it comes to trying to dress well that I really, really wonder if this kind of criticism is warranted. Because it isn't for women also? Are you also going to write to the fashion chain Torrid to complain that they don't carry big sizes for guys?

Please, disabuse me of any misconceptions I may have, but in Southern California it seems to be a LOT easier to find fashion for plus sized women than it is to find it for plus-sized men. As a big and tall guy, I DON'T WANT TO DRESS MYSELF IN GEORGE FRICKING FOREMAN CLOTHES to look good.

Initial reaction aside, I guess there is one positive I can take from your article. Thank you for at least introducing me to a new option for clothes. I simply am not convinced that there is a "no fat chicks" attitude in this company. Sorry.

This is not a logical statement: "Since colossal clothing only carries mens Big N Tall clothes, and no clothes specific for women, they must be anti-fat chick."

I am sorry, but that is simply an unsupported claim. The facts, as you wrote them, do not support that leap.

I welcome further discussion from you on the claim that this association somehow translates to a "No fat chicks" attitude, given the number of lady's fashion stores and brands that are plus-sized for women, but not for men.

The first paragraph of the article explains the author's grounds for claiming the the head of American Apparel is a misogynist or not a feminist. The author has established that she does not like the head of American Apparel. Understood. Valid, but this still does not point anywhere that says that Colossal Clothing is somehow anti-"fat chick".

The second paragraph is now where the disservice begins. What brouhaha is brewing? The author claims there is one, yet points to nothing but a quote from the founders of Colossal Clothing. They say they are one big and one tall guy, that make their own clothes, people liked them, and they sold them. The author even lauds their goals. Yet, somehow this is still anti-"fat chick". Because the author had to ask, "why not expand the market to larger ladies," that somehow makes them anti-"fat chick"? So... Strip-clubs are anti-women because they don't have male dancers? Does that mean that College X's athletic department is anti-"women athlete" because they do not have a women's only football team, or wrestling team? No of course not.

This kind of logical chicanery has no place on this blog, nor Salon's website. Make the article about the owner of American Apparel, or make it about Colossal Clothing, but by attempting to marry the two you ask your readers to make leaps in logic that would have Karl Rove giving a standing ovation from the sidelines.