Delightful article. I changed my last name, and I'm 99% glad I did. I like my new name. At the same time, I DO miss my 'real' name, and I do admire (envy?) women who just keep their names. It's so stable, continuous. My one regret is that I didn't officially take my birth name as my middle name (so I'd at least still 'own' it!). I think sometimes of officially changing to that, but 1) I don't really want to part with the money to make that so, and 2) I'm kind of a slackass....

Nice post and comments.

Part 2: Aside from the fact that it seems outrageous for AIG execs to accept the money, it's IN the legislation to honor bonus contracts that were set before February 2009. (Perhaps they'd known that had they read it.) So it sucks, but it's legal. (And mean legal-obligatory, not legal-acceptable.) Taxing the bonuses received to get the money back to the government is unconstitutional. I think the situation is simply "done" - and we need to let it go, learn the "don't do this" lesson from it, and move on. (why are other posts longer, but it wouldn't let me....?)

Part 1: The whole scenario is such a mess, it's difficult to get one's brain around it. I know the contracts aren't public, but I thought that I'd be able to find more details on them, but alas. I'm guessing that the contracts involve not *only* the promise to pay bonuses, but an obligation on the part of those executives to stay on until they essentially work themselves out of their jobs. That is, it's unclear to me whether or not those folks had the option to *quit* or of the contracts bound them legally to stay. You could argue that they shouldn't accept the full amount, but if you signed a contract that prevented you from leaving, and staying meant that you expected a certain level of pay, what would be acceptable compromise? Then again, I'm just guessing about some of the facts.