Last night the Rosemead Planning Commission held its annual review of Wal-Mart. It snuck up on me; since the store opened in late September, I assumed the review would be in late September instead of mid-August.

$27.6 million settlement for violating environmental laws in California. Meanwhile, a potentially massive sex discrimination suit against the retail giant moves forward.

Wal-Mart is allegedly considering opening a store in El Monte, so the San Gabriel Valley Tribune is beating the Wal-Mart drum, again.

So they can sell them caskets. Yes, nothing says, "I love you" like a casket from Wal-Mart.

The stupid "balloon boy" story has been all over the news. What a bunch of nutjobs. And, hey, guess what? They shop at Wal-Mart. Yep. Check out the sixth paragraph of this story from the Los Angeles Times.

Article in Time magazine about Wal-Mart's Project Impact. Apparently, when you compete against Wal-Mart, there's no such thing as peaceful co-existence.

Sort of like the previous post, this story won't tell long-time SOC readers anything they don't already know: The "benefits" that Wal-Mart promises are often not as great as they appear.

No surprise here: a city (Rialto) approved a Wal-Mart supercenter without an adequate environmental impact report. Looks like judges in San Bernardino County are better than Los Angeles County judges on enforcing the Brown Act, and the state's environmental laws.