First a non-question. I wanted to write some sort of hypothetical that involved Wall Street companies outsourcing trading as a response to paying outrageous salaries to a select few. I deleted what I had written, because I do not believe it added a lot to the discussion. I mentioned it because I wonder what the titans of finance would think if the penny-pinching they enforce on companies through voting stock came back at them.

Additionally, Why do we accept that Wall Street types deserve huge amounts of compensation for what they do? Is it because they perceive themselves to be a small and exclusive group of people that have select knowledge, and control access to information about their jobs? Is this valid anymore given the diverse electronic data transmission tools available to market watchers? Has the era of electronic trading mooted the need to have Financiers rooted in Wall Street compensation culture? Does Wall Street deserve the monopoly on trading jobs? How do companies overcome the barrier to entry to trading positions?

What about those of us that don't see the connection that the author is making? Are we not allowed to criticize what we see as mis-characterizations?

I wonder how many readers went to the Colossal Clothing line to read the "about us" section? Granted this is where companies do their best to make themselves sound appealing, however there were a number of elements of those "about us" statements that contradict what the author would have us believe about Colossal Clothing. If anyone else read the about us section, did these readers also then discover that there are two founders, and they label themselves as one big and one tall? And that they made arrangements to manufacture the clothing with American Apparel? And that no where on their webpage does it state they are "replicating the American Apparel" line of clothes?

So we learn that the man that the Author, and other readers, has the problem with is... in charge of the company that manufactures the clothing for Colossal Clothing???

How does that make Colossal Clothing a "No fat chicks" store anymore than any other "sizes for men, only" Big N Tall store? The connection was not made in the article, it is not supported on the Colossal Clothing website, and I believe it exists in the minds of people that have something against the owner of American Apparel.

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.

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.

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??