I've discussed the role of Drugs and Terror and the fact that even with the best of intentions, a US invasion of Afghanistan (which I supported) can lead to unintended consequences of monumental significance. In the aftermath of that invasion, Taliban elements still exist, Bin Laden is still at large, and Afghanistan itself is inching ever closer to becoming a major Middle East Narcostate.

This morning, on"Meet the Press," Tim Russert interviewed Afghanistan President Karzai on the reality of opium production in that country. Russert quotes from the US General Accounting Office.

MR. RUSSERT:"Opium production threatened stability. The illicit international trade in Afghan opiates threatened Afghan's stability during fiscal years 2002-2003. The drug trade provided income for terrorists and warlords fueling the factions that worked against stability and national unity. In 2002, Afghan farmers produced 3,442 metric tons of opium, providing $2.5 billion in trafficking revenue. In 2003 opium production in the country increased to 3,600 metric tons, the second largest harvest in the country's history. Further, heroin laboratories have proliferated in Afghanistan in recent years. As a result of the increased poppy production and in-country heroin production, greater resources were available to Afghan criminal networks and others at odds with the central government. The International Monetary Fund and Afghanistan's minister of Finance have stated that the potential exists for Afghanistan to become a 'narcostate' in which all legitimate institutions are infiltrated by the power and wealth of drug traffickers.'"

PRES. KARZAI: That is quite possible. We have a serious problem because of drugs on our hands. We began to work against drug production three years ago, as soon as we came into government, but the first year of passing the government, we made the mistake. The mistake was that we went and paid farmers in return for destruction. This encouraged everybody else to grow poppies, thinking that if they grow poppies, we will go to destroy it and pay them for it. And if we don't go to destroy it, they will have the poppies. So we made that mistake. And last year we recognized it, and we began to destroy poppies. This year, again, we have gone and destroyed poppies.

But this is not a simple problem. We are talking of a country in which there was 30 years of war, in which there were six years of horrible drought. When I moved into Afghanistan three years ago, I saw with my own eyes an orchard of pomegranates that was turned into poppy fields; that's how serious the problem is. But we recognize and so do the Afghan people that this is a problem that can cause Afghanistan to go into serious danger. This production of poppies supports terrorism. It trivializes the economy. It undermines institution building in Afghanistan. Afghanistan will have to destroy it for the sake of the Afghan people and, also, because of the world.

But we cannot do this alone. We will destroy the poppies, but next year they will come again; therefore there has to be a plan together with the international community to provide alternative livelihood, alternative economy and better reconstruction in Afghanistan on a sustainable manner so that we over time get rid of the problem. The Afghan people don't want it. They know it is illegitimate. Our clergy, our religious community, our tribal chiefs, the government, the institutions are working against it on a daily basis, and we will succeed because we have to succeed.

MR. RUSSERT: But if 80 percent of the 27 million people in Afghanistan live in poverty and the warlords want to maintain their power, why won't the warlords allow opium to be raised because it provides money to the farmers and keeps them in power?

PRES. KARZAI: We began two and a half years ago where there was no government. The institutions were completely destroyed. In two and a half years' time, we have had the bond process. We've had the grand council, the Loya Jirga, to elect a government. We've had the grand council to create a constitution, which we did. We are now going to the next stage, which is elections. This country is moving forward. But this country has problems, too, to overcome, and we will continue to have many, many problems as we keep building ourselves.

Drugs is one of the most serious problems that occur in Afghanistan. Warlordism, as you said, is another serious problem that we have in Afghanistan. We, the Afghan people, want to get rid of them. The common Afghan man and woman that come to see me every day in my office, they ask me to get rid of these difficulties for them, especially the drugs and warlordism. And I hope the international community will stand stronger with us on both these problems.

MR. RUSSERT: But with the warlords and the drug traffickers, but for the United States' government, could you possibly stay in power?

PRES. KARZAI: Without the presence of the United States forces in Afghanistan, without the presence of the international community in Afghanistan, without the presence of the ISAF in Afghanistan, Afghanistan will not be in good shape. That is why the Afghan people keep asking for more of the International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan. That is why the Afghan people are asking for the deployment of NATO coalitions. That's why the Afghan people have embraced the arrival of the United States of America in Afghanistan for its liberation, because they know that we need international assistance in order to build our institutions over time, in order to build a national army, in order to build a national police. And before Afghanistan can stand on its own feet, it will be many years from now.

Whatever the validity of taking out the Taliban, because of its ties to Al Qaeda, it is clear that no thought was given to the long-term consequences of US intervention. The complicity of the US in the emergence of a warlord-dominated Narcostate in Afghanistan to"stabilize" that regime is a sobering lesson. The lessons yet to come from"nation building" in Iraq might make the Afghanistan experience pale in comparison.

However, in a book titled Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom, edited by John V. Denson and published by the Mises Institute, someone did use a measurable basis to rate presidential performance. In the tome’s first essay, “Rating Presidential Performance”, Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway used data on federal government spending as a percent of total output along with size of government and inflation to determine the standing of each President. In their ranking based on federal spending Harding came in third and FDR came in dead last and in the one using size of government and inflation Warren Harding came in first.

Yet, it seems that to the majority of the historical profession if America was at peace and the people were prosperous then the President must have been a bad one.

NOTIFICATION OF BAGGAGE INSPECTION

To protect you and your fellow passengers, the Transport Security Administration (TSA) is required by law to inspect all checked baggage. As part of this process, some bags are opened and physically inspected. Your bag was among those selected for physical inspection.

During the inspection, your bag and its contents may have been searched for prohibited items. At the completion of the inspection, the contents were returned to your bag, which was resealed.

If the TSA screener was unable to open your bag for inspection because it was locked, the screener may have been forced to break the locks on your bag. TSA sincerely regrets having to do this, and has taken care to reseal your bag upon completion of inspection. However, TSA is not liable for damage to your locks resulting from this necessary security precaution.

Robert H. Ferrell has exploded many of the popular myths about the Harding scandals in his well-written and balanced book, The Strange Deaths of President Harding. It is an excellent starting point for scholars who want to learn more about the much maligned Warren G. Harding.

Just yesterday, while watching the Capitol Rotunda Memorial Service for Ronald Reagan, I was very touched by a stirring rendition of"America the Beautiful" by the Air Force's Singing Sergeants. I remembered being touched like this before upon hearing a very different and deeply soulful rendition by the great Ray Charles.

Another day, another passing. Ray Charles, 73, an American institution, a vocalist and instrumentalist who spanned jazz, pop, gospel, blues, early rock 'n roll, and country, has died.

I'll miss you, Brother Ray.

Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan, I found this story on a group of fundamentalist Christians who are trying to get 12,000 followers to move to South Carolina in order to change the political face of the state and eventually secede, creating their own little Christian country.  (Do they have enough literary sense, and too little sense of irony, to name it Gilead?) Two quick comments:

1.  Reading this story is a good reminder of what some folks on the Christian Right really think about how the world should be.  Gays, alcoholics, fornicators, and secular humanists beware:

"Well on one hand I kinda favor a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. But should homosexuals speak up, they should be deported, sanctioned, or held in jail," said one person, discussing whether their new "country" should endorse or permit lifestyles they believe go against biblical teachings.

Other visitors had ideas on what laws might be applicable in their new South Carolina home. "No alcohol sold on Sundays at all. All entries into the town would be policed with random checks for alcohol abuse, breathalyzers mandatory. No places of business open on Sundays. All schools, public, private or otherwise would teach creation, have the Ten commandments placed and say prayer before classes start. No landlords allowed to rent to couples just living together ... Abortion would not be legal in any circumstance."

As the news report is careful to note, these sort of views were not uniform among those discussing this idea, but those folks are out there.  When I teach first-year students how to use and evaluate Web sources when doing research, I tell them that because they can only know so much about who's behind a website, they should always assume the worst until they have evidence for the better.  That's my attitude about the Christian Right as well, and it's why I've never understood for an instant why libertarians/classical liberals see anything to gain by cultivating relationships with those folks.  (Okay fine, I'll give you school choice, but that's about it.)  When I hear "Christian Right," I'll think of those who want to "deport" gays from their new country until I see convincing evidence to the contrary.

2. As the reporter also notes, this is very similar to the Free State Project where libertarians are moving to New Hampshire in order to remake it in their own image.  One difference is that the Free State folks don't want to secede from the US (yet?), while the Commanders and their Wives do.  Still the parallels are there, and the Free Staters might have been an inspiration.

I've never found the Free Staters' argument the least bit compelling.  As deeply as I care about making the world a better place by making it a more libertarian one, what ultimately matters for creating a meaningful life is one's family, friends, and work.  I'm not about to uproot from a job I love, with co-workers and friends who mean much to me, in order to try to make a political statement of that sort.  I respect those who have made that commitment, but count me out.

It does, however, say something interesting that the Christian Right and radical libertarians both feel so disaffected from American politics and policies that they would contemplate such eerily similar solutions.

I recall perusing this text and reading in it that one of the benefits that Ronald Reagan enjoyed during his first term as president – a benefit that eluded Jimmy Carter – was that the gasoline shortages that marked the 1970s stopped occurring in the 1980s. Shi and Tindall wrote of this fact as if it were a merely lucky happenstance for Reagan’s presidency.

I agree completely Arnold Kling (at http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/000486.html) that “Reagan's greatest economic policy was the decontrol of oil prices.” Reagan decontrolled oil and natural-gas prices almost immediately upon moving into the White House. No sustained shortage of these things has since reared its ugly head in the United States.

Anyone who writes of these shortages, and their disappearance, as if these phenomena were forces of nature is an economic ignoramus of the first fiber. Reagan, for all of his imperfections, saved Americans from the wholly unnecessary and extraordinarily costly and counterproductive price-caps that juvenile minds believe to work magic.