Cheney Profits From Katrina
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on April 19th, 2006
A Notre Dame professor has analyzed Dick Cheney's 2005 tax return and concluded that our fair Vice President exploited a new tax law instituted post-Katrina to save himself several million dollars. It turns out that Smirky Dick used a loophole intended to encourage charitable donations for Katrina relief to write off charitable contribution which went to non-Katrina causes. That alone might not be enough to get irked about, except that it looks like the exploitation of the loophole was deliberate to minimize his overall liability, and he used Halliburton money to do it.
Cheney exercised some of his Halliburton options in late 2005, during which time that company's profits were soaring in part because of fat no-bid reconstruction contracts granted to its subsidiary KBR in the wake of Katrina. Cheney used those proceeds -- $6.8 million -- to donate to charities per his 2001 agreement to use his options only for charity.
Says the prof: "While there's nothing inappropriate about that from a legal
perspective, it does demonstrate how the legislation, which was sold to
the public as providing relief to Katrina victims, provided significant
tax benefits to the VP (and potentially other wealthy individuals) in
situations that have nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina."
Not illegal but definitely soulless, cynical, opportunist, and greedty. So, no big surprise.
Saving Money by Dumping Kids!
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on April 18th, 2006
Accenture, that former consulting arm of the scandal-plagued Arthur Andersen, won a contract last year to operate a call center in Texas to direct children and families to publicly available social services.
Today's story in the Houston Chronicle says "lawmakers once were told the project would save the state $646 million over five years." I guess they should have asked how before privatizing this aspect of their public services.
Turns out accenture is saving the state money by rejecting claims from families attempting to access the state's Children's Health Insurance Progam. The number of kids covered has plunged from 500,000 to 300,000.
I don't think Jonathan swift himself could come up with a more fail-safe modest proposal for saving money.
One Expensive Education
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on April 12th, 2006
Two stories this week, that deserve to be looked at side-by-side:
You'd have had to have been sleeping to not know this before today, but the government had to conduct an expensive investigation to discover to their apparent surprise: "Army Corps overpaid on Katrina classrooms contract." (We are constantly tempted by the news media to start a blog called the "Duh Files," or the "No S--t Files.") Turns out the politically connected winner of that fat contract submitted an estimate, won the contract, then submitted a hugely inflated estimate, while a local Mississippi contractor had submitted a lower overall bid from the start.
So imagine our surprise (read: total lack of same), when PBS discovered that a school district in Mississippi where the well-compensated contractor was to build portable classroom buildings is actually holding classes in travel trailers, while students and teachers alike sleep in tents and cars.
No criminal investigation planned.
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on April 4th, 2006
I was reading this article about Wal-Mart tricking its customers into signing up for a stealth PR campaign to burnish the retailer's image, when this stopped me cold:
Thousands of area Wal-Mart shoppers have been asked in recent weeks to
join Working Families for Wal-Mart, a group headed by former Atlanta
Mayor Andrew Young. Those who did so may not have realized that they
had become the newest recruits in a fierce public relations war between
Wal-Mart and national labor unions.
Andrew Young?! Former program director of the SCLC? Friend and confidant of Martin Luther King, Jr.?!
Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on April 3rd, 2006
Its hard to be a conspiracy theorist when you keep being proved right.
Scotland's Sunday Herald reveals the United States' future plans to engage in world-wide information warfare using everything from PDAs to cell phones, to the web.
But are they really future plans? Our story on the use of poor-man's iPods to disseminate "information" and "education" to the people of Afghanistan would seem to indicate the plan is quite underway. Says the Herald:
"[P]sychological military operations, known as psyops, will be at the
heart of future military action. Psyops involve using any media – from
newspapers, books and posters to the internet, music, Blackberrys and
personal digital assistants (PDAs) – to put out black propaganda to
assist government and military strategy. Psyops involve the
dissemination of lies and fake stories and releasing information to
wrong-foot the enemy."
Of course, some of the pie-in-the-wi-fi plans do strike us as spooky (and kinda cool, in a dystopian horror-flick sort of way):
Thirdly, the US wants to take control of the Earth’s electromagnetic
spectrum, allowing US war planners to dominate mobile phones, PDAs, the
web, radio, TV and other forms of modern communication. That could see
entire countries denied access to telecommunications at the flick of a
switch by America.
That'll teach France.
See No Corruption, Address No Corruption
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on April 3rd, 2006
It seems that not only does the right hand not know what the left hand is doing, the right hand doesn't even knows what it's doing.
Last week the Pentagon, presumably with a collective straight face, finished reviewing its contract procurement system (specifically with regard to its primary vendors), and found that, hey! the system works great!
Never mind that Iraq contractor Custer Battles was found guilty of $3 million in fraud just the week prior. Never mind that the Defense Logistics Agency confessed that it had been overcharged more that $300,000 by its suppliers of such crucial terror-fighting implements as refrigerators and ice-cube trays. ($32,000 for a refrigerator somehow didn't spark suspicion for years, nor did a $20 ice-cube tray; I'm in the wrong business). Never mind that the DLA decided to discontinue contracts with several suppliers deemed to have scammed them.
If it weren't my money, as a United States taxpayer, it would be hard to feel sorry for the feds for getting, er, used and abused. After all, the only way they can avoid being embarassed is to deny that they were suckered. Its like enabling an abuser. Rumsfeld pops up with a black eye, and says "I ran into a door," instead of "I bought a $32,000 fridge." Maybe he thinks deserves it.
Selling Out, or Infiltrating?
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on March 21st, 2006
The news in the past week that Tom's of Maine is being sold to Colgate-Palmolive, and The Body Shop will be acquired by L'Oreal disappoints some ... but creative thinkers might see opportunity where cynics see surrender.
Anita Roddick, a personal friend of mine and founder of The Body Shop, says L'Oreal won't change The Body Shop's core values (environment, human rights, fair trade, etc.), but rather that L'Oreal will be transformed. As she says, "I am, of course, pathologically optimistic. But that doesn’t mean I am wrong.
After all, Unilever bought Ben & Jerry's years ago, and the brand is still free of BGH and antibiotics, and the milk is bought from family farmers. Does it mean Unilever is any less evil? No, but neither is B&J, which is something, isn't it? Two steps forward, one step back is better than three steps back.
Colgate-Palmolive has been criticized for being anti-union, for putting unlabelled toxics in its products, and lacing its toothpaste with borderline toxic ingredients. Acquiring Tom's can be seen either as swallowing an embarrassing competitor, or an acknowledgement that Tom's natural formula works - there's a market for chemical-free products.
L'Oreal, after all, fired a counter clerk in 2003 for not being "hot" enough. And it has joined competitors such as Estee Lauder and Revlon in opposing "safe cosmetics" legislation. Is The Body Shop window-dressing, or is it an admission that doing good can actually be good for business? Guess it depends on how cynical you are. Maybe Roddick is right - maybe a vastly expanded market will be good for the communities from which The Body Shop souces its products. No one has accused The Body Shop or L'Oreal with being OxFam - they sell stuff you don't need. But at least with The Body Shop, if you're going to buy Body Butter anyway, its good to know you're helping women in Ghana feed their families at the same time.
Personally, I get irked at progressives who attack other progeressives for not being pure enough, for questioning any motives that don't keep us marginalized. Seems to me there's a place for open minds and optimism. At least until they are proven to be misplaced.
ABCs of the Custer Battles Scandal
Posted by David Phinney on March 10th, 2006
Here are some answers to some common questions about the Custer Battles federal contract fraud trial and its aftermath:
1. Why didn't the US Justice Department join in the Custer Battles lawsuit?
The plaintiffs invited them. After investigating under closed seal, the department decided against it. BUT, I did notice a Justice official sitting in the courtroom quietly taking copious notes on the proceedings.
2. Will there be criminal prosecution of Michael Battles and Scott Custer now that they have been found guilty of fraud in a federal civil case?
The plaintiffs' attorney Alan Grayson thinks not: "This is a huge embarrassment for the administration and they don't want to do anything to publicize it," Grayson said. "It's just another example of corruption and fraud that the administration does nothing about and willingly participates in. The Bush administration had people running around lining up contracts for contractors who turned out to be people who stole millions upon millions from the taxpayer."
3. Because Custer Battles was largely paid with seized Iraqi Assets, will Iraq be entitled to any or all of the damages?
No. It is considered war booty and property of the invading forces.
Custer Battles Royale
Posted by David Phinney on March 10th, 2006
Our man in DC, David Phinney, has been covering the upstart private security contractor Custer Battles since long before the mainstream media had a clue who they were. Now the company, which has made millions in taxpayer money in Iraq, has been found guilty of federal contract fraud amounting to nearly $3 million. The firm was ordered pay nearly $10 million in restitution.
David has been at the trial in recent weeks, and sends us this post-verdict dispatch:
Scott Custer and Michael Battles discovered contracting business to be so good in Iraq for their new private security firm that they soon paid themselves bonuses between $3 million to $4 million in January 2004.
One month later company managers fired off internal memos warning the two entrepreneurs that the firm was regularly charging for goods and services never delivered or, if they were, at freakishly inflated prices.
That’s just one of the tasty items to come out of the three-week trial that found their company, aptly named Custer Battles, liable for massive contract fraud while working for the Coalition Provisional Authority after the March 2003 invasion On Thursday, a federal jury in Alexandria, Va., determined that Custer Battles must now shell out more than $10 million in penalties and damages.
"What they did is treason," claims attorney Alan Grayson, the lead attorney for two former Custer Battles business associates who filed the fraud suit more than two years ago. "There's no other word for it."
The $10 million judgment addresses only part of the complaint filed by the two whistleblowers, Robert Isakson and William Baldwin, which accuses Custer Battles of orchestrating a sweeping swindling scheme on Iraq contracts with the use of bogus invoices, forgery and shell companies in the Cayman Islands to fraudulently pump up their billings.
Thursday's verdict rules on a CPA contract to protect the multi-billion currency exchange program that replaced money used by Saddam Hussein's regime with new Iraqi dinars. A second trial is expected on a $16 million security contract for Baghdad's airport. Damages for the airport contract could reach $40 million or more if the company is found of wrongdoing.
During the three-week trial, Grayson was able to tease out the tale of the $3-million-plus bonuses.
"On January 2nd, 2004, you took a bonus of $3 million out of the company, did you not?" Grayson asked Michael Battles as he sat on the witness stand.
"I didn't take a bonus necessarily, but I took a draw," Battles, a 2002 Republican candidate for Congress in Rhode Island, responded curtly.
Grayson: "What's a draw?"
Battles: "A draw is a disbursement of funds to the principals.... And I was happy to say that, yes, we were successful enough that I took a $3 million draw."
At one point Battles attempted to deflect any responsibility in the management of his company by insisting he was largely involved with business development and "strategic initiatives." He rarely took a hands-on executive role, he said.
"One thing I learned as lieutenant is that the secret to successful leadership is to surround yourself with people smarter than you are," he said.
Later, Battles shared another lesson: "In retrospect, one of the things I've learned is don't put your name on your company,"
Meanwhile, it looks as though Isakson and Baldwin will be counting their money. Individuals are allowed to sue on behalf of the government when they have knowledge that the government is being defrauded. They may receive up to 30 percent of the money paid by Custer Battles.
Those not counting their money will be the Iraqi people. Much of the money paid to Custer Battles was from seized Iraqi assets. Judge T. S. Ellis III, of the Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., had ruled early in the trial preliminary proceedings that the False Claims Act applies only to bills paid directly from the American treasury.
The CorpWatch Oscars
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on March 3rd, 2006
This year, several big-budget and award-nominated films have dared stray into the subject areas we at CorpWatch cover everyday, validating our sense that we are really not laboring obsessively in the shadows on inconsequential things (don't you get your esteem from Hollywood?). We loved "Lord of War" for its remarkably honest protrayal of the international arms trade, "Syriana" for not trying to make the issue of oil, war and corruption in the Middle East any simpler than it really is, "The Constant Gardner" for daring to take on Big Pharma so baldly, and "North Country" for its impeccable timing and for keeping mining issues in the public eye.
But these films are just the latest in a long line of brilliant anti-corporate films. In the spirit of random lists and Oscar-season bandwagon-jumping, we present you the completely subjective CorpWatch Oscars, honoring our 10 favorite non-documentary films in Hollywood history dealing with corporate malfeasance. Your fave not here? Nominate your own!
In no particular order:
A Civil Action
Wal-Mart Waltons Get All Cultural
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on February 23rd, 2006
Here's a story that will make your blood boil: The Walton family, owners of Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation, are planning a huge art museum in Bentonville, Arkansas. There's nothing wrong with a little culture in the Midwest, right?
Except when you consider how much they are spending on their little hobby, while resisting spending a fraction as much to simply pay their employees a living wage.
Rebecca Solnit's article on the subject will enrage you. She discusses a single painting the family recently bought for $35 million:
The average Wal-Mart cashier makes $7.92 an hour and, since Wal Mart
likes to keep people on less than full-time schedules, works only 29
hours a week for an annual income of $11,948--so a Wal-Mart cashier
would have to work a little under 3,000 years to earn the price of the
painting without taking any salary out for food, housing, or other
Read the article at Alternet.
Beyond Cronyism to Geopolitics in the Port Controversy
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on February 22nd, 2006
As much as this is a story of privatization and racism, it is also about cronyism. The New York Daily News notes that Dubai Ports World has at least two ties to the Bush Administration - Treasury Secretary John Snow who, a year after joining the administration, sold his company's port operations to the same Dubai firm; and David Sanborn, the head of the U.S. Maritime Administration who still runs Dubai Ports World's European and Latin American operations.
But before concluding that this is simply more Bushistic cronyism, consider that almost all of the United States' military supplies headed for Iraq and Afghanistan are channelled through Dubai's ports, at the pleasure of Dubai's government, which in turn just happens to run DP World. This is geopolitical quid-pro-quo. Don't piss off Dubai, and we can still run our wars in the Middle East.
Ports Deal is Not (Only) About Race; It's About Globalization
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on February 22nd, 2006
We were getting all ready to climb up on our soapbox to shout our revelation to the word: the scandal of the Dubai Ports deal is not the knee-jerk reaction that exposes a deep-seated anti-Arab xenophobia among average Americans and Congress alike. No, it's about the little-known fact that major operations of ports in America are sold off in the global marketplace. How would we feel if JFK International was run by a Venezuelan company? Or if our interstate railways were run by Pakistan, or China, or Canada for that matter? We assume too easily that certain basic infrastructure matters are of such national importance that we keep their care in American hands. That's our own naivete. In the global economy, everything's for sale.
Well, that's what we were going to say, but it turns out Joshua Holland over at AlterNet beat us to it:
This deal is about government procurement, one of the hottest
controversies in the trade debate, but one of which the general public
is largely unaware.
The U.S., E.U. and Japan -- the dominant
service economies -- have been pushing hard to get a deal done on
government procurement that would bring public purchasing of goods and
services into the WTO framework. Their goal is to give foreign-based
multinationals "national status," meaning that governments couldn't
favor domestic firms over foreign firms for any reason (except for
security issues, and this case wouldn't be likely to qualify as such).
assume that this UAE port deal was the best one out there -- that they
offered the lowest bid among highly-qualified firms. Under the
framework that we've been pushing, it would be a sanction-able
violation of WTO rules to discriminate against the company because it's
based in the Middle East.
Tell it, Joshua.
Pump and Dump
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on February 22nd, 2006
Great interview with the authors of "Pump and Dump: The Rancid Rules of the New Economy" on the WaPo site today. The book's authors float an obvious theory (to us anyway) of 1990s financial fraud called "pump and dump," in which corporate executives artificially inflate stocks and securities in order to sell
their shares at higher prices, leaving any fall-out and responsibility
on naive investors.
You don't say? We applaud the market timing of the publisher, releasing the book as they did during the Enron trial.
Monsanto's Old Plantation Days
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on January 28th, 2006
Stay Free! Magazine is always worth a read, and the current issue caught our eye with this ad. We forget that Monsanto was a chemical giant long before Round-Up and genetically modified crops.
Allison Xantha Miller's article on the history of plastics the current Stay Free! notes:
Plastics from cotton? The industry didn't always show
plastics futuristically. In some cases, like this 1939 ad from Monsanto,
it reassuringly tied plastics to nostalgia for America's agricultural
heritage and for a racial order in which African-Americans worked on farms
in the South. The ad speaks condescendingly of mysterious processes that
"create new materials from nature's crops," juxtaposing its knowingness
with the innocence and ignorance of children cavorting in the soft white
Bush Defends Mining Record
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on January 23rd, 2006
The Bush administration on Monday defended the government's oversight of the Sago mine and said none of the previous safety problems cited at the West Virginia mine appeared to be the cause of the Jan. 2 explosion that killed 12 miners.
That's sort of like an auto mechanic saying he forgot to tighten the bolts on a customer's car wheels after the tune-up, but the accident that killed him was a seat-belt issue. Just because the Bush administration never cited Sago for the safety issue that resulted in the tragedy doesn't mean it shouldn't have, or that the political coziness of the mining industry to the Bush camp might not have resulted in the oversight.
Not clear how this makes Bush look better: Yep, all of the citations we issued were obviously not as serious as the one we should have!
Do Private Contractors Do Better Work?
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on January 23rd, 2006
Categorically no, if we're to take a lesson from a recent experiment in Fresno, California. Fresno's City Council conducted a year-long competition pitting private contractors against city public works crews to see who did a better job paving their assigned roads in the municipality.
The city crew and two contractors were each given five neighborhoods to pave. The city crew finished its work in September - ahead of schedule and on budget. One private contractor had finished only 20% of its work by September and had its contract terminated. The other contractor hadn't even started paving one of its neighborhoods, and instead asked the city for $750,000 to complete the work.
The mayor still says the competition is too close to call (!). Some council members saw the competition as a waste of money, and illustrative of how city contracts need closer consideration and accountability.
"Awarding these contracts out, the administration is playing Russian
roulette with taxpayer money, and it's been a costly, very expensive
experiment," said Councilman Henry T. Perea.
Time Again to Expose a Mining Company's Safety Record
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on January 20th, 2006
As we write this, two more miners are missing in West Virginia as the result of a fire inside a coal mine. This time, the company that owns the Mine is Massey Energy - a mining giant with one hell of a bad reputation in Appalachia.
In 2000, a coal waste reservoir operated by Massey in Kentucky sprung a leak and dumped 300 million gallons of toxic sludge into local tributaries of the Ohio River. The accident killed more wildlife and destroyed a larger geographical area that the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which amounted to "only" 11 million gallons of oil.
A young investigator named Jack Spadaro was sent by the Mine Safety and Health Agency to investigate the accident. Hew discovered that Massey had been fully aware of the reservoir's likelihood to fail, and yet did nothing. Instead, Massey had poured money into Republican campaign coffers, including Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell's campaign committee and the Bush Cheney campaign. It just so happened that McConnell's wife, Elaine Chao was appointed Secretary of Labor after Bush's election. The MSHA is an agency within the Department of Labor. Furthermore, Bush appointed a former Massey executive to the MHSA's review committee which handles all legal issues related to the Coal Act.
Spadaro recommended that Massey be charged with criminal negligence. His superiors refused. And when Spadaro publicly questioned whether mine safety had been sold to the highest bidder under Bush, he was summarily fired.
Today, another huge Massey sludge pond at a Kentucky mine sits on a hill
above an elementary school. Coal dust blankets the school yard.
Neighbors want the pond decommissioned; in response Massey applied for
and won permits to build coal silos even closer to the school.
The Citizens Coal Council says:
The company also regularly
violates coal truck weight limits, sending monster
trucks weighing 140,000–160,000
pounds hurtling through central Appalachia’s winding
roads. These speeding, overweight trucks damage roads
and kill, on average, four to six people a year in auto
accidents. Recently Don Blankenship, Massey’s CEO,
weighed in with his thoughts on killing innocent motorists:
“The truth of the matter is . . . four to six fatalities a year,
with the number of miles coal trucks are traveling on these highways each year,
is no worse than average.”
In addition to being openly
anti-union (only 5 percent of Massey’s work force is represented by a union),
Massey has been called one of the worst coal companies
in America for miner safety by the United Mine Workers
of America union, who also claim that the company uses
contracted management to avoid paying workers’ compensation.
Massey has been sued by its employees for overexposure
to coal processing chemicals and has been investigated
by the Mine Safety & Health Administration for chronic
health and safety violations at its mines.
In the past 2 years, the Massey mine where yesterday's fire broke out was cited by the MSHA 204 times for safety violations, but paid less that $50,000 in fines.
So we have Sago, Part Two. Cronyism kills.
The Old "When in Rome" Excuse
Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on January 19th, 2006
Great article by Richard Cohen in today's New York Times about Microsoft's recent willingness to cave in to the Chinese government and shut down an MSN blog by a Chinese journalist that criticized the current regime. They, of course, follow Cisco Systems, which sells the equipment the Chinese government uses to censor the Web and Yahoo, who revealed the contact information for a dissident who is, as a result, now in a prison camp doing 10 years hard labor.
This is just the same old birthday suit on a new emporer. The Gap, Nike, Disney, Wal-Mart and scores of other corporations who farm out manufacturing to subcontractors in developing nations have used the same tired excuse: Sure, the working conditions are bad, the labor and evironmental laws are nonexistent, and the pay is paltry - but that's how everyone does it in (insert country here). It's a positively Clintonian splitting of factual hairs - we're not breaking any local laws, we're complying with the local custom. They conveniently ignore the moral implication if, say, the local custom is to whip children who don't meet their quotas. The same semantic jig is on display whenever one of these multinationals falls back on the old reliable "we don't own the factory, so we can't be held responsible for what a factory owner does."
It is remarkable, and remarkably sad, that companies like Microsoft who have grown incomprehensibly huge and prosperous precisely because of certain freedoms and ideals that make America great, yet they choose to sell out other freedoms and ideals when it is convenient. For shame.
The Wal-Mart Image War
Posted by CorpWatch on January 18th, 2006
In this morning's email was a press release from an organization called American Rights at Work. Normally, we don't pimp for activists - we're an investigative journalism outfit. But dammit, they made us laugh.
They've launched a new Wal-Mart-bashing site (Yes, they're a dime a dozen; the form is the Google maps mash-up of 2006). This one features Garth Brooks - the spokes-singer who recently agreed to make his latest album available only through Wal-Mart - thereby pissing off and financially screwing many an independent and even chain record store. In a smirky flash movie, the grotesquely caricaturized Brooks prances about inside a Wal-Mart, singing a knock off of his old hit "Friends in Low Places"; here he warbles "I've got friends with low wages, their health care plan fits on two pages ...". The message, the form, the content are not new, but this is a clever execution that deserves a look. It evokes (one might say steals directly from) Jib Jab's monumental viral "This Land" during the 2004 presidential election. But it does touch on some legitimate issues.
Meanwhile, of course, Wal-Mart has been stocking its arsenal against the growing chorus of such loud-mouth critics who would question its angelic, altruisitc ways. A few months back it was revealed that the company had hired former campaign consultants from the Bush and Kerry campaigns to burnish its image in the halls of power and among the public at large. Things being what they are, what with Maryland's decision last week, perhaps these consultants are sleeping on the job (Kerry's image consultants certainly proved given to fits of narcolepsy).
Then of course, there was the dust-up earlier this month in which a San Diego blogger discovered that Wal-Mart's website featured pages where one could by the DVDs of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "Planet of the Apes" which also recommended similar items - except that the "similar items" on these pages were all films about African-American history. Wal-Mart claimed a malfunction and denied racial malevolence. You goatta think that made those high-priced consultants shotgun the Kaopectate.
So I checked out Wal-Mart's charitable arm - the Wal-Mart Foundation to see how wrong these snarky yahoos - including the entire Old Line State - are. The website desribes how the store improves every community in which it operates, from educating kids to saving the environment. But what stumps us, is the site's downright peculiar slogan: "Wal-Mart Good. Works." Someone either has a severe verb deficiency, or Wal-Mart is tailoring its message for the caveman constituency (not sure this is a departure from usual). "Wal-Mart Good. Union Bad!" Wal-Mart say get your club, aisle 11. Always low-brow.
Wal-Mart critics 1, Wal-Mart 0.