And you are here why?

Today's rant brought to you courtesy Phibro/Citibank. But first, an analogy Lets just say, for arguments sake, that your parents are loaded. I mean really, really , loaded, to the point that it doesnt even mean anything to them. You have been indulged pretty thoroughly, and at the point of this telling, have decided that the Thing To Do is to wander over to Vegas and play Blackjack. Your parents - remember - are quite indulgent, and your mom sez. "Sure son, but since you are using our money, we just want 70% of your winnings. I mean, we'll cover your losses and all (since we are really, really loaded), but we want 70% of your winnings". Which is great, since all you want to do is play Blackjack. Which you do. High stakes blackjack, and you put around $1M of your own (well, your mom's) money on the table. Over and over and over. (And, for the purposes of this story, it doesnt really matter if you are counting cards or not...) You end up on a lucky streak, a

Or, do I mean the FOX-ization? Take a peak at this wonderful article in the WSJ --> Czar Blocks BofA Chief's Pay . Now you, or I (or frankly, pretty much any clear thinking rational person), would read this headline to mean that Feinberg (the 'Czar') called up BofA, and said 'Nope, no way, nohow do you give Ken Lewis any salary'. Or, maybe, you (yes, you, the wingnut), read this to mean The Downfall Of Capitalism thanks to that Pretend President. Doesnt really matter, in that if you actually read the article - yeah, yeah, I know. Read? Who actually Reads nowadays? - you'd see that a) Ken Lewis is stepping down with a $69.3M package b) There is nothing that the Gummint can do about it c) Feinberg suggested that Ken Lewis forgo his pay d) Ken Lewis, then, volunteered to forgo his pay. Yes, I know, you *could* read Feinberg's suggestion as a 'Do this or else' ploy. But then again, why not read this as Ken Lewis saying "Whoops, I bet