You may not like Wal-Mart - indeed, you may even actively dislike the world's largest retailer - but what the state of Maryland is trying to do in forcing the company to either increase spending on employee health care or pay a similar amount in higher taxes is simply, well, unfair and discriminatory.

The law, which was written so that it applies only to Wal-Mart, is nothing less than extortion.

Creating a tax penalty in order to punish the company for failing or refusing to acquiesce to state-mandated expenditures on health benefits is nonsense. It would set an outrageous precedent for other states if a federal court finds the state law valid.

If the law is upheld, we would be surprised if it isn't gradually expanded to include all larger corporations and eventually smaller companies as the state seeks ways to reduce its growing Medicaid bill. Where would such state mandates for company health-compensation packages end?

Requiring Wal-Mart to provide increased health-care benefits for employees not only could drive up the expense of doing business for the retail giant everywhere, but would force consumers in other states to pay more for the products they buy from the company's Supercenters and stores. That is unfair. The Maryland law should be stricken.

Wrong stand

We believe Republican incumbent U.S. Sen. Jim Talent and Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill are both wrong in giving their support to a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban flag burning.

Thankfully, the proposal has died, though we are sure it will be brought up again during another election cycle. Still, there seems a genuine difference in the positions of the two Missouri senatorial candidates.

Sen. Talent has a track record of supporting the flag amendment. He apparently believes that making a federal offense of burning Old Glory would serve as a deterrent. And, according to The Associated Press, he regularly brings up the issue in his appearances around the state.

McCaskill's prepared statement smacked of political opportunism. She says she opposes flag burning and supports the amendment. But then she criticized the GOP-controlled Congress for scheduling a vote on the amendment because the issue "is not even close to a pressing problem in this nation."

We agree with her that flag burning is not a big problem and that the amendment proposal is hardly at the top of the nation's priority list. We also think the amendment is unnecessary, overkill and an invitation for more wackos to use the courts as a forum for what Andy Warhol described as everyone's 15 minutes of fame.

One would think, however, that a genuine supporter of the amendment, as McCaskill suggests she is, would have applauded the prospect of a vote and hoped for its passage.