Helios 9; More Helioi than Crowned Henrys!

**Tom Paine** · May 01, 2007, 02:38 AM

Thema Devia by enoch
Sports by Ó Cathasaigh [once called Corporal Hicks]
Vestigia Vetustatis by Scorch
Basement by Shaun
Parliamentum by rome ac
Editorials by Oldgamer; Farnan; Silver Guard; Grimsta; Lord Rahl; the Black Prince; Shaun

Welcome to a new, and sadly delayed, ninth edition of the Helios; I hope you are all sitting comfortably, its rather long, as we have grown used to I hope!

First, and this is a new hir[el]ing, I want to introduce all and sundry to enoch, a self-confessed n00b but one who kindly agreed to write on the Thema Devia for me; a rather different style to that we are used to from Seneca, but this is no bad thing, neccessarily.

Thema Devia

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Idiosyncratic? Yes. Poor? No.
Next, we find ourselves welcoming an unfamiliar name, hiding a familiar face... Corporal Hicks, now called Ó Cathasaigh, has become our new Sports reporter!

Universitas Ludus Olympus

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

A nice addition and a wonderful article to introduce himself, diving straight in. Next up we have an old regular (the first regular to be published this issue, though more are later...), Scorch on the VV:

Vestigia Vetustatis

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Well, thankfully the Vestigia Vetustatis, or more simply the VV, is bristling with interesting topics at the moment, some of which I'm going to look at in a matter of moments. One of my favourite threads at the moment to look through is the one regarding history's most critical battles.

Out of all the masses of battles that have been discussed, the ones that keep appearing are those of Tours, Waterloo and Stalingrad - and I'd tend to agree that these are some of the most critical battles ever fought. Tours decided the fate of a divided Europe, still recovering from the fall of the Roman Empire, Waterloo spelt the end for Napoleon, perhaps one of the most successful Generals of that era and finally Stalingrad forced the Axis into a long retreat out of Eastern Europe, and the losses they sustained practically crippled their efforts on the Eastern front.

There are, however, others that deserve mentioning, such as the Battle of Hastings, where William the Conquerer determined the fate of Britain, which in turn spread it's influence throughout the world.

Another interesting topic is that of History's Greatest Leader. To be honest, I'd like to echo the choir of voices and stick my hand up for Julius Caesar. Ignoring the political ramifications of their actions, I think Caesar stands head and shoulders above the rest. No other leader was able to inspire such loyalty and love from those that he led, and not many other leaders could claim to have the success that Caesar had.

If you'd like to consider the perspective of people from different nations, then I think this post would best sum it up:

Originally Posted by Nydirannon

Well let's look at the point of view for each country. It is hard to find an absolute great leader considering that there were some very old civilizations and new countries. Nowadays, the greatest power is the US, but the USA is a country which is less than 250 years old. I'am inspired by the game of civilisation.

Antiquity

Egypt: Ramses II
Babylon: Hammurabi
Persia: Cyrus the Great
Greece, Macedon: Alexander the Great
Rome: Julius Caesar, Augustus

Middle Age

Arabia: Saladin
Byzantium: Justinian, Basile II
England: Richard the Lionheart
France: Charlemagne (Franco German), Joan of Arc
Germany: Charlemagne, Barbarossa
Mongolia: Gengis Khan.

Renaissance and Modern pre industrial Age

Turkey: Mehmet III and Suleyman the Great
Spain: Isabelle, Philip II, Charles V (Habsburgh also)
England: Elisabeth I
Russia: Catherine II, Peter the Great
France: Louis XIV, Napoleon
Prussia: Frederic the Great.
Japan: Tokugawa.

Industrial and Post Industrial

USA: Lincoln, Roosevelt
UK: Winston Churchill
France: Charles de Gaulle
Russia: Lenine, Staline (very controversial leaders since I am not a communist, but I hate to say that they were influential).
China: Mao: same reasoning as above
Germany: Bismark, Helmut Kohl, Adenauer.

I am sure that I forgot some important leaders. I try to be as complete as possible.

Anyway, that's all from me for now, so I shall leave you with a quote that I particularly like:
"History is nothing but a tale agreed upon"
~Napoleon Boneparte

Moving swiftly onwards, Shaun has done some nice work in the Basement for us, putting together, alongside his computer, an article...

Basement

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Hello, and welcome to my basement report for this edition of the Helios.

The first thread that I would like to take a look at is this one, asking what your opinion is on the new quad core CPUs. Spart wrote;

Depends on what you play really. I'm not even considering dual core yet, since I don't play much new games. And the few new games I play (mostly strategy) work fine with my A64 3000+, so.. it's mostly a matter of cash/usefulness ratio.
But whatever floats your boat.

I think I agree with this. If you only play older games, or don’t have much time to play games, then there is not much point in buying into the new dual/quad core CPU hype; yes, they are much, much better and far more future proof, but, if like me, the new DX10 games don’t quite take your fancy, then they are a bit of a waste of money. Furthermore, most applications run equally as well on dual cores and quad cores, with very little difference, if any. Its not until they, as in the developers, learn to actually use 4 cores properly - they can barely even use 2 currently. Different systems for different folks, I suppose; there sure as hell won't be a better feeling than playing Crysis on your QX6700 with top of the range graphics card.

Kshcshbash has very kindly set up a programming academy. This is sure as hell worth a look, even if you are not into programming. Its especially worth a look if you are struggling with your programming school assignments or such.

Which search engine do you use? Asked Lucius Julius. Well, the answer seems to be a resounding ‘Google’! As if it was going to be anything else… hell, I've never even heard of ‘Cox’! It seems Google is pwning the internet search engine market. Yahoo being closely second, and most others being unheard of.

Finally, the useful links that you need to look at when you have a problem, or are planning on building a new PC;

so you want to build a PC?. This is an excellent guide, well worth a look.
PC Hardware Buyers Guide. Put together by Incinerate_IV, and regularly updated, this is, as the name suggests, a guide to the hardware you should buy.
Computer Guides, this is just basically links to all sorts of helpful guides, certainly worth a look.

Up to the usual excellent quality, no? And now for our area-report, some nice politics, sourtesy of now-regular Curial reporter rome ac;

Parliamentum

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Thank you to rome ac for that Marresque report... though without the ears.

Editorials

Before I get to the main set of editorials this edition, I'm going to give you a few others first; one, from Oldgamer, on politics (of course) and the mob - an interesting topic and written on by an interesting writer, here;

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Next, after that tour de force, Farnan, responding to and reviewing a book - which, after this review, one hardly needs to bother to read!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Response to Resurrecting Empire by Rashid Khalidi

It has been over four years now. Four years since the occurrence of the most controversial moves of the twenty-first century to date. Four years since the invasion of Iraq. That war, the reasons for it, and the ensuing occupation have been the subject of great debate across the world. Rashid Khalidi weighs in on all this in his book, Resurrecting Empire though comparison with previous events in the history of the Middle East involving Western powers.
One way he conducts this comparison is using quotes from past conquerors of the Middle East and puts them against those from the Bush Administration. The reasons for this are obvious; it is an attempt to link the events together. This tactic is effective for persuading the masses, but it contains very little substance. It is a mere propagandistic move that lowers the standard of the entire work. Using simple quotes to link together events can be used to link nearly any two events in history together. It is sad that he resorts to such methods while he has the expertise to do much better.
Despite the unprofessional use of quotes, Khalidi’s book has many interesting incites. One of these incites is about the historical relationship between the US and the Middle East. Unlike what some talking heads would like the public to believe, the United States and the Middle East have not always been at odds with each other. Though he glosses over the Barbary Pirate wars, he convincingly reveals that prior to the cold war the United States was well regarded in the Middle East. This was primarily due to the isolationist nature of the US. Most of the Americans the people of the Middle East saw where missionaries, who only proselytized to Christians, and teachers who built universities, such as the American University in Beirut. Both groups treated Middle Easterners with respect and received the same back. Unlike the other Great Powers of the day the United States had little interest in the Middle East and was not clearly aligned with the Great Powers that were. This separated the country from the criticisms leveled against France, Britain, and Russia all of whom were greatly exploiting. Furthermore, the mere disinterests seemed like benevolence in comparison and earned many hearts among the people of the Middle East. The US had an even larger boost in PR following the First World War due to Wilson’s claim to fight for free determination of all peoples. Though this did not pan out for the Middle East, it did change the US’s public image in the Middle East from a benevolent isolationist to an anti-colonial force, thus a potential ally to Arab nationalists. Not even the oil deals with the House of Saud and the support of Israel’s formation destroyed America’s image in the Middle East. It was not until the Cold War started showing its ugly side that America started to be viewed badly.
Khalidi emphasizes mostly the relationship between the United States and Iran as the cause of the souring of the public image of the US in the Middle East. He details the British exploitation of the Iranian Shah in order to receive a very one-sided deal over oil. This deal destroyed the public image of the Shah and showed him as a puppet of the West, specifically the United Kingdom. This resentment, along with mistreatment by the Shah, led to the election of Mosaddeq as prime minister. Mosaddeq then proceeded to conduct anti-Western initiatives, such as nationalizing the oil industry. This move greatly angered the British who were making a good deal of money out of their extremely one-sided deal with Iran. The British responded, with the US, to launch a coup in Iran overthrowing Mosaddeq and placing the Shah back into control of Iran. They then renegotiated the oil deal with the Shah. It was slightly more beneficial to Iran, but it was still one-sided. The major difference in this deal was that the United States became a partner in the oil profits. This move made the United States greatly invested in the future of Iran and making sure it remained within the US sphere of influence. This support of the overthrow of the Shah convinced the Middle East that the United States was as much of a colonizer as its British and French allies. That, along with continual support of Israel throughout modern history, has turned the United States from a potential ally into the Great Satan.
Khalidi does not fall into the trap of stating that Islam is incompatible with Democracy that many talking heads proclaim. He gives examples that include Lebanon and Turkey. Both of those are functioning democracies and both have a majority Islamic population. Also included are the governments of the colonial era. Even those governments had very little power they were still democracies. He actually uses this argument to imply that the people of the Muslim world can form democracies on their own without Westerners to teach them how. The only flaw with this argument is that the will to form the governments is not what is only necessary. What is also necessary is that the governments that prevent progress be pressured to accept it. The current groups in power have no inherent interest in allowing progress to continue. They purposefully retard any progress that is taken through repressive measures. Unless they are forced to change they will not.
The reasons behind the invasion, according to Khalidi, are imperial intentions. He states that the goal of elements within the administration is to set up a new American Empire. The invasion of Iraq was just one example of this nefarious objective. To explain this he uses examples from America’s past treatment of the Middle East. Claiming that America has never fought and supported democracy there, so why should it start now? This viewpoint is one expressed throughout the world, especially by those critical of the invasion. They agree that this invasion is an exercise in neo-colonialism, similar to the efforts of the British in Egypt. That view is supremely flawed, especially considering more current events. Unlike the faux governments of mandate Iraq, this new Iraqi government truly has power. This is clearly evidenced by the United States forces backing down after the Iraqi National Government requested them to in Fallujah and on the hunt for Al Sadr. The Iraqi National Government has also launched into negotiations with Syria and Iran against the wishes of the United States, and has at times been frustrating. Also, unlike the age of European empires, there lacks any political will to create such, especially in the US. Finally, the government cannot keep the smallest secret secret, thus a hidden goal of building an empire seems far-fetched.
In conclusion, despite have some valid points, Khalidi’s thesis does not hold true. While it is good to learn from history, he places too much emphasis on what has happened before. If such was true the American Revolution was doomed, due to precedence even in that time of the military commander taking total control as had happened in England. Also many of his statements seem too textbook anti-war. By that I mean they are used by everybody opposed to the war no matter how much knowledge they have. Many buzzwords such as Neo-Con, Imperialism and such were also used, showing the author’s personal beliefs and defeating an air of objectivity. However despite all of that, the book’s insight into historical relationships between the US and the Middle East was very enlightening.

A book review from Farnan on a political book.

And finally, some philosophy from Setarcos Aneist... by philosophy, I could also say an attack on it. Though there is one factual error in there, its still a nice piece...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

What is it to be wise? Is it to have knowledge? To understand the knowledge you have? Or simply to have a bushy beard and write bestsellers on philosophy? Is it to have common sense? To be renown for your library or perhaps just have the confidence to stand up and make everyone know what you think?
Of course not, it is none of the above. I have never met someone who was truly wise. Recently there was a philosophy conference in Jersey. One of the speakers was the eminent philosopher Steven Law. Half time I went to speak to him about Authority, an idea he hated. We must have spoken for nearing twenty minutes until the break ended. To conclude he introduced me to his book “The war for children’s minds”.
You would have thought of all people likely to be wise it would be one of Britain’s great philosophers, but no, Law fell flat. His book was a reasoning minefield, if you ever strayed from the “authoritarians are wrong” message; you suddenly noticed he was defending someone else’s position… then saying he was right. It was like a broken vase someone reassembled as a lamp, it just didn’t fit together. One of Britain’s “wisest” was a beggar in a suit, his book was a moneymaking item, nothing else.
Another one of the world’s supposed finest thinkers, Alister McGrath, wrote “The Dawkins Delusion” within the last year. The best this pathetic excuse for an intellectual piece of reading could manage was “Dawkin’s points are immature”. If you’re one of those who needs two opinions on every issue please choose a different example then this, your belief in the superiority of man (and ironically, the existence of God) will be shattered by this disgraceful creation.
But if the Earth’s “intellectuals” fail, who is there to replace them? Who really deserves the name “wise”? Obviously not those who deemed “The Dawkins Delusion” fit to be published. But then, are these writers really the great intellectuals? DO they compare to the Dalai Lama for example? Leader of a philosophy of life so widespread it has been branded (a misconception) as a religion. But surely there are others, those more quiet that we, as not omniscient, cannot know of, those who know better then to let their contented and enlightened lives suffer the scourge of advertisement and celebrity. Or maybe they have realised that “the one thing I know is that I do not know everything”, we may never know.
It’s a pity we don’t have a worldwide information sharing system for them to use, isn’t it?

Now, here we come to the meat. Before we go on, I wish you to cast your minds back two weeks, to April 16th. Think about it, and the terrible events of the Virginia Tech massacre that transpired that day. The import of those events stretched almost across the world; certainly their impact did, and our hearts go out to those who lost relatives in the killing. However there is a more practical reason for giving this scene-setting; those of you who are faint hearted, who were affected by the shooting, or simply who do not wish to be reminded of it, should not read the next three editorials - they focus on the matter to the exclusion of almost all else. Any letters of complaint stemming from these editorials should be adressed to me, not the authors themselves, please.
In order, we have Grimsta; Lord Rahl; the Black Prince; and Shaun.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

With the recent catastrophe at Virginia Tech University on Monday, it was only a matter of time before the incident became a political debate. I have not wanted to jump into the debate but I believe that my opinion needs to be expressed.

The main issue, as the incident was expected to become, is gun control. It is obvious that the United States less restrictions on firearms than other nations but the US does have a system in place which includes restrictions. For those of us who have purchased guns we know that there are restrictions. I live in Texas and there are plenty of restrictions on firearms. Currently, there is a law here that prohibits firearms within 1,000 feet of any property which is used by a school and I believe that most, if not all, states have laws similar to this. This means that no one can have any firearms on school grounds. The same can be said for VT. Only the police are allowed to have them on school grounds. Some may say that there is a problem with the gun laws because, if obtaining the 9mm handguns that the shooter had would have been illegal, then the situation might have been avoided. This isn't a very good argument. Although it may sound good it is, in reality, not. When you have someone who is mentally unstable and wishes to kill someone, they will find whatever means possible to do so. They do not care about legality. Because of this there should be no distinction about whether having those guns would be legal or illegal. If he got them illegally, which many criminals do, then there is really no foreseeable way to stop them. If he got them legally then there is no way to stop him either unless we knew he was going to murder someone. I find the argument a moot point. What shall we do, confiscate everyone's guns every time this sort of thing happens? That isn't possible.

The incident at VT isn't really about gun control but some have twisted it to be. Guns are just like alcohol. They are harmless when used correctly but can easily kill if used incorrectly. Should we restrict alcohol some more? I think most members of this forum would think not! I have personally used guns for sport and recreation and did not feel as if what I was doing was overly dangerous or wrong. There are many people who use guns for hunting and shooting without committing crimes so because others abuse the same right does that mean all should have their rights taken away? I don't think so. There are many myths about gun control in the world that I wish to point out. One myth is that severe restrictions on guns leads to lower murder rates. This may be true in some cases but not in all. Making a comparison between the murder rates in the US versus the UK can be made to make a point but it also leaves out information which is contrary. Switzerland has three times the gun ownership of Germany but has lower murder rates. Other countries such as Israel, New Zealand, and Finland also have high ownership and low murder rates. We can see that just because more restrictions are put up doesn't mean that things will necessarily change. The VT shooting was one man with firearms who does not represent the overwhelming majority of other gun owners in the United States. However, since gun control is a hot topic issue certain people have made this tragedy a tool for pushing their agendas.

I don't really see why people want the federal government of the US to put more restrictions on firearms. Some of us remember that there was a horrible school shooting in Canada where people aren't allowed to have handguns and yet it happened there! The federal government, in my opinion, shouldn't be making any decisions on gun control. It is our right to bear arms and it should be the right of the state legislature to decide whether or not restrictions should be put into place. Buying a gun is a choice and so it should stay. Guns don't cause the crimes, remember, people do. Millions of cases a year involve use of a firearm as self defense in the United States and so one could make the argument that guns can help stop crime. It boggles me how the same people who trust the government and authority the least are those who trust them the most...when it comes to having or controlling firearms. Who has the right to tell someone else that they can't defend their own life? Most people have guns for sport, recreation, or self defense, not murder. Again I will go back to my alcohol comparison. There are some who abuse alcohol and kill people and the same can be said of firearms. Does that mean that firearms should be restricted more?

I really can't find a good argument for restricting firearms more than they are now. It isn't the restrictions that are the problem. We all know that. It is the enforcement of existing laws and the individual who is the problem. We allow women to have the right to have an abortion but at the same time we don't want people to have the right to bear a firearm? Where is the logic in that? If I want to buy a gun then I want to be able to buy it. Does that mean that I am bad? Does the fact that I am buying something that can kill someone make me a bad person? Not in any way, shape, or form. There are more vehicle deaths in the US than firearms deaths every year so statistically a car is more deadly than a gun. I am assuming that we should have more restrictions on vehicles? Please...I don't see anyone making that point every time there is a mutli-car pileup on the highway. I believe I have stated my point quite clearly now that making the statement that more gun control is needed isn't such a clear issue. I wish to send my thoughts and prayers to those affected by the VT shootings.

Lord Rahl

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Aw jeez, not another Virginia tech shooting rant! Well, er, not really. I am not here to complain about America’s gun laws, or to complain about the police’s appallingly slow reactions. I am here to voice concerns over those who died, and their rights.

The second amendment declares "a well regulated militia" as "necessary" to maintaining a free state, and as explanation for prohibiting infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". There is no denying this, that Americans have the right to buy and carry guns. What I am more concerned with is the 32 innocents, and their rights. Do people in America have the right to live a life free from the fear or threat of a lunatic legally buying a gun and using it to shoot them?

It seems that the aftermath of this tragedy has resurfaced the never really buried “should we be allowed to carry guns” debate. Is the second amendment outdated? Could an American militia stand up to a tyrannical government? I don’t care, this is not my point. My point is that we should be more concerned about people’s rights to live a life free from fear of being injected with 9mm chunks of lead. I keep seeing people rambling on about their precious second amendment rights to bear arms. But I have so far only heard on person mention people’s right to live a life free from being blasted by a madman with a legal gun. And she was not an American, she was a Brit on a British show!

In all honesty, I think its these rights that we should focus on, trying to improve them. Can people live a life free from the threat of mad gunmen if anyone can buy a gun? So far, not really, there has been quite a few school massacres in America, not to mention quite a few foiled ones as well. When it happened in Dunblane, us Brits learned our lesson.

So, as I end this short editorial, I ask you to stop thinking about your precious second amendment for a minute, and think of the rights of those who died. Sadly, both the pro and anti gun bandwagons have jumped on this opportunity to support their arguments. The pro gun agenda saying that if all the students had guns, they would have gunned down the gunner, turning the school into the set of an action movie. The anti gun agenda saying that if the gunner never had a gun, no one would have died, because he so obviously would not have used something like, say, a knife. Even the news channels were showing the twisted fella’s video that he made. He is getting more publicity than the people who died. This is not right. He does not deserve to be remembered. However, those who died innocently do.

Once more, I give my condolences to those who lost relatives or friends, and remind you to direct complaints to me, not my reporters - they don't need the hate mail, and its my job to deal with it.

So that's us done here; thanks for reading, see you again in a fortnight, and now go and rep my reporters; they deserve it all over again.

**Libertine** · May 07, 2007, 01:52 PM

This deserves some responses.

Well done guys and its a crying shame no one else is even replying with buckets of praise for us (me)

I cba repping everyone involved but have some metaphysical rep!

Thread: Helios 9; More Helioi than Crowned Henrys!

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Helios 9; More Helioi than Crowned Henrys!

Re: Helios 9; More Helioi than Crowned Henrys!

Posting Permissions