Sky reports that the flooding in England has led to sensational disaster-time perfidy. In the same ominous breath, it mentions looting and (gasp) the sale of bottled water for profit. Why is it that experienced journalists don’t undertand elementary economics? Rising prices for essentials in an emergency aren’t only natural, they’re actually good. They incentivise producers to increase supply, pay for enterprising individuals to get it to areas that are expensive to reach, and limit consumption by those who don’t really need it. The alternative is real shortages, bureaucratic costs and rationing. What would you rather have? Expensive bottled water, or no bottled water at all?

Pieter Dorsman offers a concise, clear overview of Dutch politics. Sadly, the overview is the only thing that’s clear. The murders of Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn, along with many deep fears about the sustainability of the welfare state, European competitiveness in a global economy, and the failure to handle immigration fears, have conspired to a funfair teacup ride for politicians in search of consistency among voter support.

George W. Bush gave what I thought was an important speech yesterday in South Carolina. Speaking to an audience that considered it worth applauding the notion of victory, he directly addressed the surrender camp. A reporter in Baghdad afterwards was surprised that he had to spell out in such detail what to him appeared to be the obvious, simple truth:

Al Qaida in Iraq is a group founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists, and loyal to a foreign terrorist leader — Osama bin Laden. They know they’re al Qaida. The Iraqi people know they are al Qaida. People across the Muslim world know they are al Qaida. And there’s a good reason they are called al Qaida in Iraq: They are al Qaida … in … Iraq.

He made a strong case for the honeypot theory of fighting Islamic extremism and terrorist groups, and why this makes the Iraq war central to the larger war against terrorism. He also repeated that, “…however difficult the fight is in Iraq, we must win it. And we can win it.” This article on the Strategy Page suggests Bush’s comments might be more than just political platitudes:

What most of the troops, and Iraqi civilians, notice is the lower level of violence. Since the surge offensive began four months ago, Iraqi (military and civilian) deaths have declined by more than 50 percent, and American casualties are down by over a third.

Whatever your position on whether or not Iraq was the right place at the right time, the reality today is that precipitous withdrawal would be disastrous for Iraq, and deal a severe blow to America’s ability to combat terror and tyranny in future. It will hasten the “moral paralysis” that Thomas Sowell sees in how the US deals with Iran, for example. His comparison with pre-WWII France has been made before, but it remains an object lesson on the danger of appeasement, and the stupidity of negotiating with leaders whom you know cannot be trusted to do so in good faith. Since the security, liberty and prosperity of the world depends on a strong, able America, these things matter to me.