Aggressors exploit pacifists. Rockets and reputations. Freedom can still have a price. Is Godot coming? The price of popularity. "We are all migrants" and its implications. Integration by government policy: who is adjusting and to what?

1. If no one wants war and therefore, all are determined to do their outmost to avoid one, then the party that does not recoil from bloodshed has an advantage. Prior to the conflict it is willing to accept, its threats will produce political concessions that will improve its chances once the guns speak. Furthermore, it will be prepared for war while its chosen opponents will be less ready physically and mentally. It is likely that preparations for the worst have been intentionally avoided by doctrinaire pacifists. Demonstrative unpreparedness is thought to prove "good will" and "trust." Preparation does not only involve having physical means but also includes the will to throw all one has into the struggle. Lastly, the swaggering conflict-oriented power that faces a herd of sheep will be able to choose the time and the conditions under which the fists do the speaking.

2. Some time ago, realism caused this writer to mention the probability that Washington would drop the missile defense project designed to shield Europe. Now that it happened, we are witnessing an event that is presently only a run-of-the-mill news item. It is likely to be rated as a major affair in view of what will happen in the future. Russia's Eastern Europe policies made her oppose the project with all her means. A reasonable exchange for canceling would have been Moscow's effective support of sanctions to make Iran abandon her nuclear project. After all, that venture provoked the planned missile defense. So far, this is not happening.

Canceling an unserious Russian project to deploy rockets in western enclave of Kaliningrad/Königsberg is meaningless. The missiles there would have protected Russia against what? In short: their purpose was to serve as a psychological lever against Western defense plans and also as an excuse to justify US retreat. The latest is that the Kremlin is not even willing to cooperate in creating in southern Russia a joint missile defense against Iran. Russia has even communicated that in her view the non-stationing does not represent a concession. The return to be expected for nothing is zero.

While the mindless and security-deluded Western public will hardly care about the retreat, nevertheless, two potentially damaging conclusions emerge. The West's defense requires the approval of those whose comportment make it necessary. Furthermore, again the US has been proven an unreliable ally. In this instance of exposed countries that were willing to provoke near-by Russia so as to cooperate due to their shared interests with America.

3. Italy is shocked that its soldiers are killed in action in Afghanistan. The population's reaction reveals the current softness of the West. Again, as in the election that gave power to Zapatero in Spain, the anger is not directed against the terrorism of the enemy. In the political arena, the grief takes the form of criticizing the government and that culminates in the demand for a withdrawal. The inconsistency does not carry a specifically Italian fingerprint. Germany also is reacting in similar terms to the costs of an undersized participation in the conflict. The terrorists' threatened punishment for voting "wrong" in the coming election supports the inclination.

It seems that some claim to want to defend their civilization while their commitment to that project is weakened by relativism. So guaranteed loss-free engagements are demanded. Preferably, they are to involve no greater risk than the troops face during the marching of an honor formation on a national holiday. Such events might celebrate with heroic words an independence that more are willing to commemorate by staying at home on a holiday, than actually defending.

8. Ms. Longoria, who is reputed to have attractive features, is probably not about to become famous for her reasoned views. Her analytical assessment, the core of which is that "historically everyone has immigrated," happens to be essentially correct. Her implied conclusions are, however, less than waterproof. With the statement, she intended to equate the rights of those who are already residing in coveted regions with the rights of those that want to join them there uninvited.

Let us begin at the beginning — which is always a good place to start. If everyone has immigrated and this is to be a criteria then, of course, rights claimed under entitlements extended as in "native American," or aboriginal in Australia, are to be dismissed as invalid demands. This is obviously not what fashionable Ms. Longoria had in mind. The implied support for uncontrolled immigration might sound good if you have not yet arrived. It becomes less attractive in case you are already where you wish to be and, furthermore, once there you are making it on your own and not on welfare. If all are to be allowed to go and settle anywhere they desire then the movement of people from advanced countries, let us call it the North, to the South is not to be opposed either. Certainly, such a process, applied to the past, is labeled as "imperialism."

If everyone can go without the consent of the local "squatters" then, the reaction of the temporarily indigenous — the less mobile of recent centuries – should still be given some consideration. Furthermore, the principle, if extended, opens fascinating implications regarding the right to move into other already occupied spaces. Such as houses. This is probably the point at which Ms. Longoria would be inclined to draw a thick red line around Wisteria Lane.

9. Some letter-to-the-editor writers manage in a few lines to express fundamentals with a greater punch than many long studies can. The background of this one is that religion as a school subject is replaced with a non-denominational "Religion, Culture and Ethics" project. The plan aims to integrate the children of traditional residents with new Muslim immigrants.

The writer happens to have visited a culturally attractive church. Apparently, the aforementioned program also brought a school class there. The children were made to enter the chapel. The writer noted that two kids stayed put before the entrance. To his question why they stayed outside, they responded that they just happen to have "another" religion. They are Muslims. He then told them that in the past, although not a Muslim, being curious, he had visited Islam's places of worship. The argument did not impress the teens. The writer concluded: "How is integration to be achieved if
Muslim parents forbid their children from even tourist visits of Christian churches. In addition, how can the project work when the school does not dare to implement its duty to enlighten even non-Christian students about Western culture?" Indeed, some integration projects seem to focus only on teaching majorities to accept their way of life's rejection by immigrants.