For the Democrats.

…of Zimbabwe:

Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket of southern Africa, is crippled by foreign currency and fuel shortages, unemployment of over 80 percent and the highest rate of inflation in the world.

“Year-on-year inflation, which stood at 1,072.2 percent in October last year, rose to 1,281.1 in December and has risen to 2,200 percent by March,” Gono said in a televised statement.

Emphasis mine. It doesn’t take long for socialist thugs to destroy breadbaskets. The Venezuelans may be on the verge of learning the same lesson.

But hey, what’s the problem? Just print more money!

Seriously, this is a tragedy, in which the neighbors, particularly South Africa, are culpable, in their unwillingness to isolate and denounce Mugabe, who is vying to become one of the worst leaders in the world.

I get a little tired of hearing all the whining from Democrats and other faux defenders of civil liberties over how we treat terror suspects, when the War on (Some) Drugs has had far greater atrocities on civil liberties, like this one, described by Radley Balko, for decades now, and for a much less worthy cause. The cynicism and corruption that this has generated in the nation’s police departments and federal enforcement agencies, as they make war on their own citizens, is frightening, and its depth unknown.

As Glenn says, I’d take the Dems more seriously if they’d denounce this war, which truly is “failed,” a “quagmire,” and one that we have “lost.” But that would take political courage.

The demented dwarf from Cleveland has introduced articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney. Dana Milbank has the (hilarious) story:

A reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer encouraged USS Kucinich to contact planet Earth. “But Nancy Pelosi says this is not going anywhere,” she pointed out.

“Have you talked to her today?” Kucinich shot back.

“Yes, I did,” she replied.

Kucinich had not expected that answer. “Then I would say I have not talked to her,” he acknowledged.

It was not an auspicious beginning for the impeachment of Richard B. Cheney.

At least not in Illinois. Or New Jersey, or other states, apparently:

The Illinois statute, modeled after a New Jersey law, requires anyone selling or producing halal food to register with the state for a $75 fee and fill out a disclosure form by checking off boxes indicating how the food was obtained and who certified the product as halal. Since New Jersey passed the nation’s first halal law in 2000, similar laws have taken effect in nearly a dozen states.

How in the world can this be constitutional? The state is not, or at least should not be, responsible for enforcing religious dietary laws. Do they have a similar requirement for what is, and isn’t kosher? If they do, it’s just as bad. Somehow, the Jews have managed to keep kosher in this country since its founding without having to involve the government. Why can’t the Muslims? This seems like creeping sharia to me.

Where’s the ACLU? I thought that they always came down with both feet over this kind of thing? Or is that only when there’s a Christian creche on a lawn?

[Update at 3:30 PM EDT]

OK, reading the comments, I’m scratching my head.

No, this is not just about enforcing against fraud.

In order to enforce against fraud, the government must prove there was fraud. In order to prove that fraudulent halal foodstuff was purchased, the government must prove that said foodstuff was not halal. In order to do that, the government must provide a legal standard as to what is, and what is not, halal. In other words, the government must put its imprimatur on whether or not a particular foodstuff meets a certain religious dietary restriction, in effect playing the role of a (in the case of the Jewish religion) Talmudic scholar.

Do you folks really want to open up that can of worms?

Church A promises me that if I attend it and give it money, and subscribe to its beliefs, I will live a happier life. Does anyone here propose that the government should prosecute that church for fraud if in my opinion it doesn’t meet its promises? Whose definition of halal (or for that matter kosher) should the government choose?

Sorry, but to me, this is nuts. Not to mention completely and thoroughly unconstitutional. At least if you believe in the concept of “separation of church and state.”

And to the poster who asked why Good Friday is a state holiday, beats me. I don’t think that the government should be granting religious holidays, either. Though at least in that case there’s a much better consensus on what day Good Friday is, and there is a huge majority of people who celebrate it, so (like Christmas) it makes sense at least on practical reasons.

[Wednesday morning update]

I’m properly corrected in comments. I should have written “observe Good Friday,” not “celebrate” it.

And the resistance of the media to point it out:

In each of these cases a killer is stopped the moment he faces armed resistance. It is clear that in three of these cases the shooter intended to continue his killing spree. In the fourth case, Andrew Wurst, it is not immediately apparent whether he intended to keep shooting or not since he was apprehended by the restaurant owner leaving the scene.

Three of these cases involved armed resistance by students, faculty or civilians. In one case the armed resistance was from an off-duty police officer in a city where he had no legal authority and where he was carrying his weapon in violation of the mall

And it takes a female press secretary to finally slap down that demented moron, Helen Thomas. Men can’t get away with it, because they can’t be seen as beating up on an old lady. One silver lining of Tony Snow’s cancer recurrence.

Mark Steyn, on VPI:

I think we have a problem in our culture not with “realistic weapons” but with being realistic about reality. After all, we already “fear guns,” at least in the hands of NRA members. Otherwise, why would we ban them from so many areas of life? Virginia Tech, remember, was a “gun-free zone,” formally and proudly designated as such by the college administration. Yet the killer kept his guns and ammo on the campus. It was a “gun-free zone” except for those belonging to the guy who wanted to kill everybody. Had the Second Amendment not been in effect repealed by VT, someone might have been able to do as two students did five years ago at the Appalachian Law School: When a would-be mass murderer showed up, they rushed for their vehicles, grabbed their guns and pinned him down until the cops arrived.

But you can’t do that at Virginia Tech. Instead, the administration has created a “Gun-Free School Zone.” Or, to be more accurate, they’ve created a sign that says “Gun-Free School Zone.” And, like a loopy medieval sultan, they thought that simply declaring it to be so would make it so. The “gun-free zone” turned out to be a fraud — not just because there were at least two guns on the campus last Monday, but in the more important sense that the college was promoting to its students a profoundly deluded view of the world.

Thank goodness we have smart and gracious celebrities generous enough to take time out from their busy lives to fly around the country in executive jets and provide the little people like us with proper instruction on wiping our @sses.

I wonder if she’ll use a whole roll herself, but buy teepee offsets?

Thank goodness we have smart and gracious celebrities generous enough to take time out from their busy lives to fly around the country in executive jets and provide the little people like us with proper instruction on wiping our @sses.

I wonder if she’ll use a whole roll herself, but buy teepee offsets?