ick, wal-mart.

For those of you keeping track, I still hate Wal-mart. I still don't shop there. I haven't blogged about it in a long time (why didn't I have a Wal-mart tag until today?) I will admit that I do take my empty shopping bags to recycle there, and will continue to until someone tells me if/how they are making money from it.

When I read this article, I didn't know what to think.

"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.

Well, of course they don't need it. I don't want them to have any more money either, but:

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."

Legally speaking, Wal-Mart has a right to the money. Still-- ick:

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.