Helios 56 - God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen

[Jom]

Contents

Political Theories Pt.2: Liberty and Liberalism by René Artois.
Medal of Honour Review by Killerbee.
Foreign Aid by Jom.
To Like The Unlikeable by rez.
Star Wars vs Star Trek or: How Much I Love Star Trek Part III by Lord Rahl.
How important is the Media in shaping the election Outcome? by Major Darling.
Contemporary Political Terminology by Major Darling.
Scottish Nationalism - a non-political commentary by Copperknickers II.
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm, a review by Saint Nicholas.
Forgotten Battles of World War 2: Operation Avalanche by Lysimachus.

---

From the Editor:

Greetings all,

I don't need to tell you what time of year it is. In fact, you are probably sick of being bombarded twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week with adverts, and other visual cues that tell you that yes indeed the largest shopping period is upon us. I'm not sure what the policy is like in your countries but the Christmas lights began to go up here in mid-November, and signs appeared in multiple shop windows declaring to the masses wandering past them "Only X Weeks To Go Before Christmas!" Do people who are over the age of 16 even count down the weeks to Christmas any more? It's nice seeing the family again and gorging yourself on turkey, Christmas pudding, and mince pies before flopping down in front of the television and letting the whole hideous mixture ferment in your stomach with a little help from some whisky or other spirit of your choice, but do we need the constant information overload that it's coming? I get enough reminders from my parents and friends asking what my plans are, what I want for Christmas, when am I going to be back, who's doing what where, when, why, and with whom?

Anyway, before the cries of Scrooge! Scrooge! start to ring too loudly in my ears, I shall cast off my usual cloak of cynicism which I hide behind in these editorials and wish you all the very best for the festive season. I hope that your Christmas or assorted other non-Christian festivals are merry, or any other acceptable adjective which goes with your festivities, and that your new year is happy. I certainly aim to make the most of my holidays and I hope that you do to. Because of the various family commitments and other ones which I have, this will be the last Helios for 2010. I know I only took it over half way through but I hope I haven't been doing too bad a job of it and I fully intend to continue into 2011, if our new Head of Content, Belisarius, lets me that is.

As it is the time for giving, my team and I have pulled out all the stops to give you a bumper holiday edition of The Helios which will hopefully keep you going until we're back up and running around mid-January.

Jom

---

René Artois

René Artois has continued his run of articles political theories for this edition by discussing the issues of liberty and liberalism, two ideals which are at the core of many Western governments, particularly that of the USA.

Political Theories Pt.2: Liberty and Liberalism

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Liberalism is the idea of the importance of individual liberty and rights, and to ensure every individual in society is free. There are several interpretations of liberalism which have developed since the creation of liberalism in the 17th century by John Locke. The main interpretations, however, are classical liberalism and progressive/social/new liberalism, with neoliberalism recently emerging. Each interpretation emerged as a result of the social and economic climates of the time.

Central to classical liberalism is the belief in tolerance and respecting others freedom's, allowing others to make their own choices in life. In other words, a form of minimalist government was desirable for this. Classical liberalism is heavily influenced by John Locke's views, taken from his work's the “Second treatise on government” and “A letter concerning toleration”, which had been written in the late 17th century during the Age of Enlightenment following the Glorious Revolution in 1688. Also central to classical liberalism was the idea of “negative liberty”, which was the idea that one should be free from interference from others. This theory has been associated with classical liberal thinkers such as Locke and Benthem, as well as Hobbes, who said "a free man is he that in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do" in his book “Leviathan”. John Stuart Mill talked of a “harm principle”, whereby one should be able to pursue any kind of happiness as long as it doesn't impinge on others. Mill believed in human progress, taking the view that humans were creative individuals who would maximise their own self-fulfilment with increased freedom. Many classical thinkers did not support popular democracy, believing universal suffrage would bring about the tyranny of the majority, leading to society being governed by lowest common denominator, thus disrespecting the wants of the individual. However, Mill argued that the franchise should be extended to more people, including the working class and women. He argued that democracy should be in place, but that people should be educated so they voted rationally and with greater understanding. One version of classical liberalism, known as the Manchester School, was associated with the writings of Cobden and Bright. It was more working class orientated than followers of Mill, who focused on the middle class and land owners. They believed that free trade would improve society by providing people with cheaper goods such as food. Another variation is “social Darwinism”, which was developed by Spencer (who came up with the term “survival of the fittest”) and Sumner. It was the theory that, as everyone was different, it is only natural that some will fail and some will not, so that those who adapt to what they have will do best. Classical liberal economic thinking was developed by Ricardo and Adam Smith, who believed in a free market, and Laissez Faire economics, as well as the “invisible hand” or the market's self regulating mechanism.

Progressive liberalism emerged in the 1870s. Aiming to distinguish itself from classical liberalism, the interpretation was based firstly on the ideas of T.H. Green. Green accepted the views of individual freedom, however, also said we have the responsibility to consider the needs of others. Green also described what Berlin would later call “positive liberty”, or the theory that social conditions should be those which help an individual to fulfil their own hopes and goals. Secondly, the interpretation was influenced by the social conditions that were developing in the late 19th century as a result of industrialisation and Adam Smith's Laissez Faire economics. National prosperity was growing but the welfare of individuals, especially the working classes, was declining illiteracy, bad housing and poor health conditions, as well as few economic opportunities meant that people did not have the freedom to realise their potential. This led to reforms in many areas, and increased intervention by the government. This can be seen especially in the USA under Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson, who reformed the way government worked and the way the economy was run, by introducing, for example, increased regulation and tariffs. As well as this, there was housing reform, improved working conditions, womens' suffrage and the treatment of poverty. In the UK, similar changes were introduced under Gladstone, Lloyd George and Asquith. Hobhouse, and also Hobson, argued that these changes were needed, as the state needed to take a greater role in creating social justice. They contrast with classical liberal thinkers such as Hobbes and Locke because they saw the state as a vehicle to enhance personal freedom rather than threaten it. This thinking was further developed by Beveridge, who, after the Second World War, introduced social welfare changes such as poverty relief; Keynes, who believed working towards economic stability could enhanced one's freedom; and Rawls, who, in “ A theory of justice”, argued for redistribution of income and welfare based on “equality is fairness”, aiming to benefit those least well off.

Neoliberalism, or neo-classical liberalism has developed since the 1970's and aims to cut down the role of the government through deregulation of the economy, and privatisation. It can be seen in place under Thatcher and Reagan, who sought to encourage more Laissez Faire economics. It has been interpreted as a return to classical liberalism, but differs because it does not seek to cut out welfare completely. Hayek and Friedmen are advocates of the theory, even going so far as to condemn the government's role in the economy. They reject Keynesian theory, stating that “tax and spend” policies encourage governments to increase borrowing and therefore it fuels inflation.

Killerbee

Killerbee has very kindly stepped in to contribute a piece for The Helios. Although he is not a regular writer, I hope to see him popping up from time to time in future editions as he has proven himself to be an interesting and accomplished author, as can be seen in the following piece, which is a review of the latest Medal of Honour game.

Medal of Honour Review

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Medal of Honor is the newest installment in the well-known MoH series. The developers (Danger Close) have left their trusted WWII setting and moved on to modern times, most likely to compete with other games like CoD: Black Ops and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. But were they able to reach that same level after so many years of inactivaty ? Here's my review on this game.

Gameplay

Singleplayer : MoH's Singleplayer is, surprisingly enough, pretty darn good. The action and locations are pretty varied (one moment you're infiltrating in Taliban Camps, next thing you're supressing an MG with you SAW), and there are close to no weak parts in the campaign, causing you to have a fun ride throughout the entire campaign. This also makes for great replayability. In fact, I replayed the campaign 2 times more (to get trophies), and I still had fun. There is close to no story, but I don't think a FPS game that strives to recreate accuracy shouldn't try to create a heroic struggle between good and evil, nor the 'Save the world' kind of story like in BC2 or Call of Duty. I very much liked the story because of how plain it is. The shifting between characters is also great. Never does it feel as if your progress with one character stops abruptly, just so you could play with the different characters. Every character plays his role, and they all sort of come together near the end.

Lastly there's Tier 1 Mode. Now this mode will get on your nerves, because it's soooo hard. But it's never unfair. If you die, it's really because of you, not because of unfair AI. You can no longer ask your allies for ammo, you have no sight-dot without zooming (I mean the white dots that normally show where your gun's pointing at), you heal slower and your enemies hit harder. If you play everything the way it is, it shouldn't be too hard, if it weren't for the fact that it's timed. In order to succesfully complete the mission, you have to finish it below the par time. Now the par time is not unbeatably low, but it always, always presses you. Even if you know you still have plenty o' time, the clock always pushes you to try and speed things up, and it happened more than once to me that I left cover to finish the mission faster, and died soon after, even if I would've beaten par time by justing playing the way you should. Tier 1 mode really forces you to play like as if you were a real character, and where the Normal difficulty levels would enable you to do some reckless manoeuvre, the Tier 1 Mode mercilessly kills you.

One moment you're sneaking around with silent guns in Taliban camps ... Next thing you know you're in the desert with a heavy machinegun

Multiplayer
Now the Multiplayer, surprisingly enough, is the lesser part of this game. Dice really messed up in this game. And their specialty, objective based games (Combat Mission in MoH, Rush mission in BC2) is not as good in this game. The biggest problem is the fact that Dice tried to go for more fast combat, like in CoD, but they failed. The maps are small, but that doesn't necessarily speed up the action. Snipers prime in Combat Mission : They get the highest killstreaks, the highest amount of points and the highest K/D ratio. And there is no negative side to the Medal (of Honor *har har*). While snipers shoot enemies of afar and take close to zero risk, the actual attacking players risk their lives, and they don't get enough reward for it. A kill from over a certain distance, for instance gives you extra points. And then I mean 8 times the normal amount of points for a kill (from 10 to 80). That means snipers get their basic points from long-range sniping, then stack up points for the real powerful killstreaks, and then use these to slaughter almost the entire opposing team. The end result : Defenders lose because of the snipers and their streaks, assaulters have mediocre amount of points and low K/D ratio, and snipers get up to the triple amount of points of the normal players (1000-1500 points, while a normal player gets around 500 in a good round), and a monstrous K/D (I have seen cases like 40/1). And all the snipers had to do was sit back, get a headshot from time to time, and unleash a streak when the enemy is enough bunched up. Because of this, playing as sniper is really addictive - once you get the hang of it you get monstrous bonuses. I, for one, used to really hate those snipers. In order to get a Trophy, I had to play as Sniper. And now I'm often sniper, and it's soo much fun, and rewarding. But it's oh so irritating for those who really want to play the way it should be played.

....................... There's plenty o' Taliban to kill .. ...Could've gotten 80 points if he shot him from afar

The game tries to stimulate fast action by its selection of guns and small maps, but it rewards the slow (= sniper) action. It's as if the game constantly struggles with itself to keep a good balance. When it does find the perfect balance, MoH multiplayer tops even BC2, but it balances not nearly enough to have the same level as BC2. Not only that, the spawning system is desastrous at times. (this only applies for when you're being Assault, Defense spawning is ok) The assaulters have 2 options to spawn : at front or at the base. Picking the front should cause you to spawn near a mate at the front (duh !), but it sometimes fires back, and you actually end up near a camping sniper. Even worse : these snipers often position themselves far behind the lines, to get higher amount of points (the long-distance reward I talked about earlier), and eventually, I've had cases where 'Spawning on Base' was actually closer to the enemy, than 'Spawning on the Front.' But luckily, these cases are rare. Most of the time, the spawning is really good, and only very seldomly did I die few seconds after spawning. Lastly, the killstreaks. I find they are great, and except for the last one, they are definitely not OP. And OP is not even the right term, because the highest streak has to be strong. As for the other streaks, they are strong enough to kill a bunch of packed up enemies, but if you just spawn them somewhere in the enemy camp, you may get zero kills, even with the higher streaks. Unfortunately (surprise surprise), the Offensive actions are so much more benificial than the Defensive ones, but that's not too bad.


Graphics
For me, the graphics in this game were pretty great. There are some truely beautiful moments in SP (going Quad biking in the Wadi desert at night), and MP also has great visuals. There are some inevitable distortion bugs or glitches, but overall, the game keeps the graphic quality high. The lightning system is good, and the explosion effects look neat, even though they're quite modest.

Sound
The sound in this game : Mind blowing. Again, both on MP and SP. You just have to raise your tv's audio to play this game, because it's so awesome. Explosions, gunsounds, helicopter sounds, ... It's got it all. MoH really nailed the audio, and they really deserve praise for that. The voice acting is decent, although the lip-sync was sometimes a bit off - but negligible. If you have surround sound - use it !


Verdict

MoH offers a short but great SP campaign, with plenty of fun and varied moments. Unfortunately, MP doesn't offer the same level of quality. The constant struggle between fast- and slow-paced gameplay ruins the otherwise fun experience. The amount of guns is pretty small, and they're pretty much the exact same on both sides, but just with different skins. Fortunately, the cinematics and visuals in the game are good, and the sound is even better - if not the best I've ever heard on a FPS. It's good to see Danger Close can offer such a high quality campaign (better than BC2's for me) after such long inactivity, and I hope they'll create a sequel - with MP designed by them as well. As for Dice ... I love you for BC2, but don't try something different. Leave the fast-paced gameplay to CoD.

The good

- Great and varied run throughout the entire campaign
- Tier 1 mode pushes you to play the real way
- Good presentation, with some stunning sounds.

The Bad

- Mediocre MP that doesn't live up to the expectations
- Tier 1 mode will get on your nerves

75/100

Jom

I've written a piece this week which examines the thorny issue of foreign aid, talking about why it's given, to whom, and what, if anything, is expected in return.

Foreign Aid

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

At a time when new cuts in public spending are announced almost every week, with the latest swathe of hits affecting English students who will face greatly increased tuition fees, it is often the case that certain parts of the budget are pointed to by the general public who demand to ask why spending has been cut in one area but not another. One particular part of the budget which very often bears the brunt of this criticism is that of foreign aid. After all, on the surface it does not make any sense: why give money away to foreign countries but enforce cuts on your own citizens? The answer is rather complicated and also somewhat depressing.

Several countries in Europe have partnerships with countries in the 3^rd world which are recipients of vast sums of aid. Generally the countries are former colonies who still have lingering cultural and linguistic ties, with the example of French ex-colonies in Africa being a good one to take. France has over a dozen ex-colonies in Africa alone, with whom it maintains certain ties in what is normally termed "Solidarity with ex-colonies", but what is the purpose of these ties? De Gaulle put it best: "The promotion of French culture and the satisfaction of [French] national interest." The former seems to be a fair enough aim but what is meant by "national interests"?

This generally entails the following:

• Contracts for companies from the aid-giving nation
• Favourable deals for raw materials

In the case of the 2^nd interest, the pursuit of it can lead to great lengths being gone to by the aid-giving nation. China, for example, is currently funding huge infrastructure construction initiatives in countries with oil reserves in order to help them to extract the oil; countries such as Nigeria, Sudan, and The Republic of Congo. China aims to increase its oil imports through the construction of refineries, often staffed by its own Chinese labourers, and railways, again very often constructed by imported Chinese labour.

Apart from electorate dissatisfaction or non-comprehension at the purpose of foreign aid, there are several major problems with the initiative. First and foremost is that of corruption, which is rife throughout the continent of Africa. Corruption poses such a problem that the IMF have denounced foreign aid as counter-productive as it does not promote growth and simply goes into the pockets of corrupt politicians and dictators who then purchase weaponry or simply keep it for themselves. Mobutu Sese Seko, for example, who is the ex-President of Zaire (now known as the Democratic Republic of Congo) is said to have taken at least $5bn of his country's money. Other examples of such extreme corruption do exist and are widely known, but countries continue to give aid, in many cases harming the very people they're trying to help through damaging economical growth and funding local warlords. Why do the countries do it? 2 reasons: it's fashionable, and a country can point to the amount of aid which it gives as a way of assuaging its conscience and the conscience of the electorate. It is, in short, a panacea. However, let us not forget that at the base of things, national interests are driving the actions of the aid-givers. If a dictator is going to give a better deal for resources than a democratically elected country, then people are going to go to the dictator, which, unfortunately, is the way that the pragmatic world of politics functions.

Are there any solutions to this? Firstly, aid-giving nations could involve charities more in the distribution of aid, as they are much better at getting the aid to the people who need it. They have workers on the ground and their own infrastructure to distribute aid, rather than relying on the country's own flawed, corrupt infrastructure. Secondly, international observers are needed to ensure that aid goes to the right places and that national governments are diverting aid to the needy rather than towards the army or the president's next villa. Observers do exist but many more are needed. The situation needs to change; whether it will or not is up to the government and how scrupulously they pursue their own nation's interests at the cost of others.

rez

rez has continued in the vein of character analysis which he began when he first wrote about Friends several issue ago. This edition he tackles that fascinating figure who often occurs in the greatest works of literature: the anti-hero. Perhaps the modern archetypal anti-hero is to be found in the person of Severus Snape, who will be familiar to millions of readers and cinema-goers the world over.

To Like the Unlikeable

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The concept of the anti-hero has been around for centuries now and what was in Shakespeare's day a gripping and innovative take on story-telling has become, at best, commonplace and, at worst, a tired cliche. All it takes to be an anti-hero is to be a perceptibly flawed, main character but in mainstream media the flaws generally have to be acceptable enough to the audience for them to want to empathise with their protagonist. Hence my generation has consumed a veritable tidal wave of alchoholic detectives, irritable doctors, arrogant hotshots and guilty warriors. This isn't to say that I don't enjoy these incarnations; I appreciate them far more than cardboard cut out heroes and given the choice between Batman and Superman I'm pretty sure I know who we'd all pick. But I'm not here to talk about anti-heroes in a heroic context nor their villainous counterparts although they do deserve a mention.

The anti-hero is also a term applied to villains who have a measure of relatability that suggests that they aren't entirely evil. The intentional blurring of the line between good and evil is generally the mark of excellent story-telling and whilst there are hundreds of examples this the first one that comes to mind is 'Saren' from Mass Effect. Saren was cast to murder planetary sized populations of humans and yet a concious effort was made to make the player empathise with his cause. This was done, in perhaps the most traditional of ways, by revealing his motives at an advanced stage in the narrative and by having those motives be somewhat noble. This form of evil villain is almost always doing some form of dastardly deed in order to serve the greater good where our hero is inevitably uncompromising on the issue of willful evil.

The use of anti-heroism on either side of the karmic divide is at its root the same thing. The writer creates a character with obvious flaws but not too many to alienate them from the audience such as with 'Legionary Titus Pullo'. Most importantly an anti-hero generally has his heart in the right place. His methods might be excessively brutal or he may be incapable of normal social activity but at the end of the day he's doing what he believes is the right thing and the writer tends to agree. Such is the case with 'John Constantine'. Characters doing what they think is right when the writer doesn't agree tend to be fanatical, megalomaniac villains that don't illicit sympathy from the reader and thus are not anti-heroes. One of my favourite example of this construction is found in 'The Covenant' from Halo. This sort of villain is characteristically religiously motivated since the villain is required to believe something false that we, as humans in possesion of whichever truth you wish to proclaim, can condemn. 'The Covenant' are no different since they want nothing short of a Galactic suicide pact but they enforce this destruction with a species of apparent benevolence since they believe their motives are righteous.

Thus there is a very clear difference between believing what you are doing is right and having those beliefs vindicated by the writer's moral portrayal. Saren's violence is portrayed as intending to save lives in the long run wheras The Covenant hope to extinguish life altogether in a ritual that is intended to appear catastrophically misguided.

All of that aside, standard Anti-Heroism really isn't what interests me at the moment. I'm far more interested in the application of the method in its extreme. A particular favourite of mine is the idea of transposing heroic situations on utterly unheroic people; an idea which is realised so brilliantly in Misfits. Now the reason Misfits takes an old idea to an interesting spot is that the characters, more often than not, have their hearts in entirely the wrong place. I'm afraid to get into too much detail for fear of spoiling it for new viewers but the premise of the show rests on society's undesirables being imbued with super powers. These troublemakers, or 'Misfits', then embark upon a series of adventures which barely help anyone but themselves and indeed hurt a good few people. Why is this entertaining? Because the writer is conciously attempting to make us empathise with the worst aspects of our protagonists as well as what good they manage to do. Where a normal anti-hero is liked despite his flaws these anti-heroes are liked because of their flaws. Simon, a Misfit, and his questionable early reaction to his power of invisibility is something that we openly condemn but in our heart of hearts see ourselves doing something similar. If we're honest anyway...

But nothing quite hammers my love of the anti-hero home more than its use in a comic scenario. Peep Show is the ultimate expression of the anti-hero because the two protagonists are close to being completely devoid of morality or decorum. They are essentially villains so enthused with the idea of the anti that they don't actually have any hero. They are our heroes purely by virtue of being the protagonists. 'Jeremy' is particularly fueled by selfish desire but we eagerly eat up his morally bankrupt actions in the knowledge that his greed is deliciously similar to our own. The reason this works as entertainment and doesn't drive us all insane with guilt is that the results of our villainous heroes' exploits are either catastrophic for both or slyly victorious for Jeremy whilst the catastrophe is compounded on Mark. We need to see these protagonists fail because it justifies watching their ridiculous take on right and wrong. Moreover, Jeremy's position in life and general talentlessness makes him a constant figure of fun even when he is succeeding.

Now there is also the final of my favourite tools in making the unlikable likable. It occurs in thousands of shows, games and books and we're all aware of it but actually never gets old. You take Character A, A for arse-hole, and make him vent his arse-holery onto character B who is either unlikeable himself or an un-introduced and un-explained figure who exists only to be the butt of character A's joke, insult or physical assault. Nathan, from Misfits, is a particularly good example of Character A as almost every episode involves a case of him abusing an un-named extra or one of his fellow reprobates in a comic fashion. The other end of the spectrum involves bringing a variation of Character A into the group of main protagonists and having him abuse and denigrate our heroes. Importantly this only works entertainingly if character A's insults are cleverly cutting or his delivery is especially humourous. A fine example of this character version is 'Spike' from the last season of Angel. Spike's dialogue is written almost exclusively to disparage Angel and occasionally his crew but its done with a characteristic flair that keeps his humour fresh.

But If Character A is purely attacking the protagonists over and over again without any comedy involved then Character A is just a contemptible, useless addition. Some writer's attempting to create a version of this principle just didn't have the wit to make the insults funny enough and we just get left with an on-screen douche like Jeremy Kyle.

And nobody wants that.

Lord Rahl

Anyone who has been following Lord Rahl's column over the past two issues will by now be very familiar with his love for Star Trek. Well, apparently Rahl as a lot of love to give because Star Trek is once again the theme of his column for this edition of The Helios.

Star Wars vs Star Trek or: How Much I Love Star Trek Part III

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes, yes, yes, I'm going to continue writing about Star Trek. I'm sure that most who read the Helios won't even bother to read my editorials, especially since they're Star Trek related, but if I can have even one person read them and feel a bit more educated or entertained in some fashion then I'm content.

Star Trek is already a semi-exclusive TV show, at least nowadays, but my does not mean I think expressing my love for the franchise to be prone to non-acceptance, if that makes sense. After all, being a (true) Trekkie - or a Trekker (yes, there is a difference but most people know of the former name rather than the latter) but in this case it doesn't matter - means a lot. By that I mean it's not small significance to be a Trekkie. To contrast, it's easy to be a Star Wars fan. The movies were meant to be embraced by the masses and there are only six movies so it doesn't take much effort to "understand" Star Wars. Star Trek, on the other hand, has eleven movies (soon to be twelve) and five series (six if you include the animated series). Because of this it takes much more effort to watch the hundreds of episodes (and movies if you want) to "understand" Star Trek. I'm not trying to say that being a Trekkie is better than being a Star Wars fan (actually...I am! ), but being a Trekkie is definitely much more personal and meaningful from one Trekkie to another. Anyway, it's time to get to my next subject on Star Trek out there!

For this Helios, I will be talking mostly about Star Trek technobabble. Perhaps more than any other TV show, or any (science) fiction for that matter, Star Trek has the most frequent use of technobabble whether it has nothing to do with the plot or not (and 99% of the time it does). And yes, technobabble in Star Trek has such a significance that I can write an entire article about it. While Star Trek: The Original Series can be considered to use technobabble "lite", from The Next Generation on, and especially with Voyager where it became ridiculous, technobabble was used more and more and was often an integral part of the plot. TOS was more about explaining thing very simply. Something would be wrong with the ship, the engines, weapons, etc, and then Scotty would have to go and fix it. It seemed many times that Kirk always needed "more power!!!" and Scotty would be forced to get Kirk that power in a seemingly impossible situation. The phrase, "I'm giving it all she's got, Captain!" comes to mind. But Scotty always got the job done and the Enterprise and her crew would survive until the next dilemma.

The real technobabble came through in TNG. Any avid viewer of TNG knows of the plethora of technobabble that is thrown around in every episode, whether or not the terms used are real or not. Words or phrases that come to mind are tachyon particles, neutrinos, thalaron radiation, phasic __________, chroniton, subspace __________, and of course anything temporal (related to time). As stated in the previous paragraph, technobabble many times became an integral part of the story starting in Star Trek: The Next Generation. It was no longer about Scotty giving Kirk more power for the engines so they could warp out of danger. In TNG, and later series, it was more about - get ready for this - diverting warp energy from the warp engines to the deflector dish so that an anti-neutrino pulse can be emitted to a subspace rift so that a local temporal inversion will be closed that is threatens the Enterprise and her crew, for example. Got all of that? Well, if you didn't then don't fret about it. That's an example, a bad one, of technobabble's use in Star Trek. While my example may seem too ridiculous to accept it being used in a television show, it's not far off, regarding the sheer amount of technobabble used, the real thing (especially in Voyager). For a lot of people who watch a Star Trek series for the first time, they can be turned off by the use, or overuse, of technobabble. But for Trek fans the tech-speak becomes just a part of the show. We get used to it so it doesn't sound overwhelming. I'm not trying to say that Star Trek's use of technobabble makes it a "better" show than others, but it does make the franchise more unique. Star Trek is science fiction and the technobabble is purely "science fiction" is the truest sense of the word(s). It is funny that, sometimes when I see some scientific problem in the show, I can guess how the Enterprise crew could find the solution and there are times when I'm not that far off. So you see how technobabble goes beyond just being...babble. It has become something of its own within the franchise where it its own language and has a science, even thought it's pseudo-science, of its own (so much so that some Trekkies have a good understanding of it)!

A consequence of Star Trek's use of technobabble is the intelligence of the Star Trek viewer. I know Star Trek isn't as popular as a lot of other shows, especially and obviously now since there is no TV series and the franchise isn't "big" right now, but of all the true Trekkies I know, they seem to be all very intelligent people. I think it can be argued, and very well, that your average Star Trek fan is above your average intelligence. Am I biased towards this argument, especially since I'm a Trekkie? Yes, but I think Star Trek is very much a show that is inherently more intellectual than others. Episodes mostly revolve around some moral/ethical dilemma and learning what it means to be human, as mentioned in a previous article, as well as some other dilemma that requires a significant amount of scientific technobabble to resolve. Sometimes all of this doesn't make for a great episode because it feels overwhelming and elitist or that the show is on its "high horse", but most of the time it makes for some very thought-provoking and entertaining TV time. It's very easy to be a Star Wars fan because it is a great space opera with a lot of myth, special effects, epicness (word?), and a great hero story. For Star Trek it is a bit more difficult for the average person to become a real fan because of the..."thickness" of the morals and (pseudo-)science that accompany every episode (and sometimes movies). Because of this Star Trek has a more exclusive fan base, for better or for worse.

But Star Trek has gone beyond the television screen and, most likely more than any other show, has had an effect on our daily lives. "How can this be?!" you ask. Well, if you watch the show enough then you will understand this. It's almost so obvious that you can't tell. I'll provide two glaring examples:

The Communicator/Cellphone



Now, I'm not saying Star Trek: The Original Series was the first show to have some sort of wireless communicator, but I don't think anyone can say their use in TOS (in the 60s, not counting the 70s and 80s with TOS movies) did not influence cellphone development.

PADD (Personal Access Display Device)/iPad



This is one of the most obvious and current of examples. I mean, just look at the names! While I do not think anyone, except for the writers or technical consultants for the franchise, know the extent of the PADD's capabilities, that is beside the point. The similarities between the PADD and the iPad are plain as day, although I'm sure Captain Picard did not play Plants vs. Zombies HD on his PADD. Now all us Trekkies need is a fully functioning iPad, or other similar technology, that uses the LCARS UI!

If anything, these two examples make Star Trek feel all the more real and believable as something science fiction becoming a reality. This shows the influence and impact of the Star Trek franchise even more. Those are not the only examples of Star Trek-to-real life technologies that have become a reality or closer to. For example, NASA's Deep Space 1 probe uses an ion propulsion system, a technology that was first mentioned in TOS. Fax machines were used in TOS too, years before they were used in real life. In Star Trek the main propulsion system used in starships is matter-antimatter. Recently scientists have been able to contain antimatter! While transporters as we see in Star Trek are not yet real, I know that scientists have been able to transport light. As my fellow Trekkie, although he considers himself a "Trekker" by definition, Oldgamer said about the subject,

[Still,] it is exciting to have lived long enough to see the possibility of some of Mr. Scott's technology to be in the offing. I'm one of the few people you will meet who has confidence that the human race will overcome its failings, and someday travel to the stars.

So, what does all of this mean? I'm trying to further explain why Star Trek has made such an impact on me and why I think others should pay it some attention. Even if you don't like technobabble, or even Star Trek as a franchise, it should be evident now that Star Trek has a very real and very personal influence on your daily life. Enjoy it!

Until next time my fellow Trekkies, Trekkers, and non-Trek types!

Major Darling

Major Darling has chosen the theme of British politics to write about for the next few editions. In this issue of The Helios, he writes about a crucial factor in any British General Election: having the media on-side and what kind of boost that can give a political party. For his second piece, he writes on some current pieces of terminology that are used when speaking about British politics, building up a glossary over the next few issues.

How important is the Media in shaping the election Outcome?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In a world dominated by technology, the relationship between politicians and the media have become increasingly crucial to understanding in depth British politics. With a ready availability of Internet blogs, TV talk shows, Newspaper Op-Eds and Television satire, the media is forever in contact with the British people and forever giving an influence on the politics of the time. Some say the British media is always there to hold something to account for the government or politicians, it also allows voters to have understanding views on the issues in the public eye and make informed decisions based on it. It also true that free and independent media is a major component of true liberal democracy. For instance, the UK has no law on Freedom of Speech but does on Freedom of the Press and Expression.

In 1997, the Sun, the newspaper with the 2nd highest readership in the UK decided to “Back Blair”. (For those outside the UK, the Sun is a red-top paper and famous for it's Page 3 Girls and shockingly large titles.) This was monumental, the Sun had not supported a Labour candidate for many years. This was a sign of changes to come. Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the Sun and Newscorp has rightly predicted the Prime Minister through the Sun correctly since he took over as owner.^[1] With such a high distribution, the message of the paper is likely to carry soem influence especially to those who do not have an interest in politics. This was again shown in 2010, when the Sun backed David Cameron, the Sun had supported Labour (Correctly) since 1997 and their headline this year again was put to the millions of it’s readers. With such a close election, you could argue that the Sun did have an influence on the election itself taking previously Labour voters based on their paper, and making them Tory voters. This is also similar to the very Anti-Kinnock headline released by the Sun in 1992.

It is because of media that we can be there whenever an MP or Party makes a mistake. We saw it on Sky News with ‘Duffygate’ and in 2009 with the Expenses Scandal. With things like ‘Duffygate’, it hurts the level of trust people have with their politicians, it ever increases the thought that they say one thing and do another. The Expenses Scandal brought an all time low for all parties, no one was safe from the blitz that the Daily Telegraph inflicted on Westminster, every day a new MP came under the Expenses Spotlight, this must have had an influence on the election due to the record number of MPs standing down and not choosing to run again, most likely due to the expenses scandal. It could be argued that the Daily Telegraph opened people’s eyes to how the MPs really spent the taxpayer’s money.

With most people having a favourite newspaper, and not usually changing that through their adult lives. Papers not necessarily force something upon a reader, there are exceptions (Daily Mail), but they gradually put across opinions throughout the paper. The Sun for instance in 1997 became radically anti-Tory in their articles, this puts the reader in the same mindset. Much like the Telegraph within each normal Politics article, there is usually something relating to the disadvantages of the Labour party. If for years, this reader consumes this information daily, it can be guaranteed it will have an effect, even subliminally.
The Internet, only really a major factor in the last 2 elections has come heavily into play. With News sites having 24 hour coverage, graphics and other multimedia, they can reinforce their message. The same is with Internet Blogs, they offer usually biased views and attract sometimes substantial leadership. These became very popular in the run up to the 2010 election and could be said tohave a significant influence on the readers.

It is also the language of the media that commonly causes issues. We only need look at some references in papers to Trade Unions, whereas more Socialist swinging papers alluded to them making, “Requests”, more Conservative papers alluded them to making, “Demands”, this is a small but significant difference. It highlights the group in 2 totally different lights dependant on the media.^[2]
What can be argued against the media making a substantial difference in in fact the ability of rational people to make their own decisions Although this can be argued, it can also be said that some people really are not intelligent on politics and therefore rely on others to help them make their decisions.

In conclusion, it can be said that the Media holds huge sway over people. Not necessarily the educated general public but those who not entirely capable of making a totally independent decision of their own. It is obvious that certain papers are liked more than others within the General Population and these influential papers have a huge amount of paper in their own right.


[1] BBC Article on Sun’s Influence

[2] Glasgow Media Group, Mid 1970s

The Sun's Frontpage, widely attributed to Major's 1992 Victory



The Sun's first public support for Labour since the 70s, again influential in the 1997 Blair Landslide.



The Sun returns to the Tories, showing the damage Labour has done.

Contemporary Political Terminology

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Cash for Honours

In 2006 and 2007 several Labour nominations to the House of Lords were rejected by the applicants committee. These people who were rejected, it turns out they had loaned very large amounts of money to the Labour party. The suspicion of a quid pro quo cash for honours issue was referred to the Metropolitan Police and Labour fundraiser, Lord Levy was arrested. Tony Blair was questioned and in the end the Labour party was ordered to repay the loans in full, this led to them being in financial difficulty. At one point, the Attorney General, a Labour Cabinet member tried to get an injunction to prevent the BBC reporting the issue. The CPS in te end, due to the lack of direct evidence did not press any charges. This is widely believed to have led to Blair’s early resignation and had a wide ranging impact on the political landscape of Great Britain.

Cash for Questions

In the 1990s, the Cash for Questions Affair took a lead role in the end of the almost 20 year Conservative government. It was said in the early 1990s, Parliamentary lobbyist, Ian Greer bribed two Conservative MPs in return for them asking questions in Parliament. This was also said that Mohammed Al Fayed, the owner of Harrods was one of the people that Ian Greer lobbied for on behalf of the Harrods Owner. The Guardian revealed that MPs would accept £2000 per question and Tim Smith, MP resigned immediately. PM, John Major tasked a committee to make an inquiry to the allegations this was called the Nolan Inquiry. Smith was found to have taken around £20,000 for each question that he had taken from Al-Fayed. It was later found in a 1997 report that Greer, Hamilton and Smith who were accused were in fact innocent and it was Al-Fayed who had attempted to get questions through another third party.

Copperknickers II

For this edition of The Helios, Copperknickers has chosen to write about the national identity of the country that both he and I reside in: Scotland, and where that identity comes from: the languages and the history of the country, with even geography playing a role.

Scottish Nationalism - a non-political commentary

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

To any of you who follow my articles, you will notice a change this week, in that instead of dealing with a physical natioanl conflict, I am dealing with a non-physical and more personal issue - that of the Gaelic language, spoken in the windswept Eilean Siar (Western Isles) of Scotland, kin to the Gaelic of Ireland, or Irish (known as Gaeilge, rather than the Scottish Gaidhlig, which are properly pronounced 'gey-lik' and 'gal-lik' respectively), and the Scots language.

Scots is a Germanic language, descended from Old English, through Middle Scots. It has had something of an influence on English, though it is a slightly one sided relationship these days what with America's influence over all of us here in Britain. Really it's a continuum, with English at the one end and full Scots at the other. Not many people today can claim to be near the full Scots end, other than old people in rural areas, although Glasgow in particular still carries the torch of Scots with its own special brand (known as 'the Patter').

Despite not being of largely Scottish background and not having been born here, I live in Glasgow and I have grown up hearing Scots. I was born on Robert Burns' day, so it's a sort of tradition for me to have a Burns' Supper on my birthday, with my (English) dad reading Burns' poem 'Address to the Haggis' in an... 'interesting' imitation of the local accent. I advise those of you not familiar with the poem to look it up by the way - it was a favourite of Hitler apparently, because of the line 'great chieftain o thi puddin race', (which is properly translated 'greatest of the puddings') being rendered in German 'mighty fuhrer of the the sausage people'. Anyway...

I have been trying to learn some Gaelic myself, however I feel that Scots is a more important part of my culture, whereas most of the Scottish nationalists out there feel that Gaelic should be our national language, as it identifies us with the Celts, and separates us from the Germanics.

Ask most normal Scots however, and you'll get the following:

"I cannot imagine Scotland without Scots, Gaelic is just a nonsense language on a comedy channel: 'siochd na wochty bloch television, quich na gooch na gong Barack Obama, richy meichymichy woch'. I've never heard anyone speaking Gaelic, it seems as distant and inconsequential as Norwegian or Basque to me."

Those people, and I daresay most of you reading this, are woefully ignorant of Gaelic. At the start, my Scottish passions arose through a sensation of brotherhood towards my adopted nation and the shamrock-green blood that runs in my veins. At first I realised how similar Scots was to the Hiberno-English of the Irish. Furthermore, I had never really realised that we were still a Celtic nation like Ireland nor, as I discovered upon further research, that Gaelic was the language on which Scotland was founded. William Wallace spoke Gaelic, in fact, so it is less 'Freeedooom!' and more 'Saooorsaaa!' Gaelic was treated very harshly during the Highland Clearances; after the Jacobite Rebellion of the Scottish Catholics, the traditional highland culture was banned, including tartan, the kilt, and the Gaelic language itself. It was slowly forced out of its old holdings across the country back to the West from whence it came 1500 years ago, and is spoken by just fifty thousand people.

However I then went back to where this all began - Scots. Where did it fit in to all this? I found out that both the EU and the Scottish Parliament class it as a regional language. I knew all along that it was not a mere English dialect - a dialect is a subordinate, a linguistic little sister which depends on its older better established linguistic sibling, the Standard, and I think Scots has enough of a case, despite its similarity to English, to be classed as a language of the Scottish nation, even if it was originally founded on Gaelic.

Besides, there is no scientific consensus or mathematical formula on how to distinguish between a language and a dialect, the only thing that does so is how much of a support base it has. Look at all the different dialects of Italian - in reality they are more different to Standard Italian than Scots to English, but Italy has a relatively strong sense of national identity so they are all dialects. Then on the other hand look at all the different Indian languages, like Hindi and Urdu, in reality very similar but because of the massive cultural divide between Pakistan and India you wouldn't dream of calling them the same.

I think that just because Scots and English are similar that doesn't mean we have to relegate Scots as being English. I have a bit of perspective on this compared to a lot of my countrymen, being in part from an entirely different culture, and it has led me to believe what all the rest of you already know: that the Scots and the English are really not that different from each other, even Celtic vs Germanic. Scots has a lot of literature, a pretty large speaker base (even at an extremely conservative estimate of 70,000 or so, that's still more than Gaelic, and potential speaker base within a generation or two would be twenty fold that) and it occupies the central belt and the cities, i.e. the powerhouse of Scotland.

The highlands, beautiful though they are, are little more than Scotland's back garden, and a good thing too since they've managed to avoid the ravages that have befallen the beautiful lowland countryside. With current technology highland cities are looming ominously on the horizon, and though I'm a city boy I'd hate to see it destroyed. The lowlands in the south are home to three quarters of our population, they are the beating heart of our country, and they are the heartland of Scots.

Go to a touristy area in Edinburgh or Stirling, and you are much more likely to come across one of the tea towels and mugs with a Scots word or phrase on them, with which you're all familiar I'm sure, than something in Gaelic. Most foreigners, including ardent American Caledonophiles, do not have any idea that Gaelic exists, so its loss would be of considerably more consequence to us than to the rest of the world. Even those who have some vague conceptions of Scots speaking a different language, would be hard pressed to name it, and some I've met are under the impression that we don't even speak English here at all.

In conclusion, both Gaelic and Scots are important, but by concentrating on our Celtic nature and our differences with England, we are alienating the majority of the country to whom Gaelic is simply a foreign language, and it simply will not do to say that Scots is not a perfectly legitimate national symbol that is as proud a part of Scotland as are the braes and lochs and the Gaidhlig itself. Scotland is not a monogamous culture, it is a diverse and rich nation, and Scots represents that: it is not merely a 'dialect' of the great linguistic bulldozer of English, but a distinct standalone language. Whatever the politics, the oil, the dry bickering of old men, Scotland will continue to flourish, and the possibility of independence is always hovering above us, where, should we feel want of it, history has shown that we have the determination and the vigour to pursue and seize it.

Saint Nicholas

Firmly installed on The Helios's team as the resident technology author, Saint Nicholas has penned a review of the latest expansion to Blizzard's hit MMORPG World of Warcraft: Cataclysm, which sees the level cap raised to 85 and the world of Azeroth torn asunder by Deathwing's explosive re-emergence on scene.

World of Warcraft: Cataclysm, a review

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The World of Warcraft has forever been changed...

Watch in 1080p HD and full screen mode

Yes it has arrived! World of Warcraft: Cataclysm went live around the world on the 7th of December at approximately 7pm. Blizzard Entertainment's latest offering in the World of Warcraft franchise, this being the third expansion pack released to date. After months of waiting and years of planning, Cataclysm has come. Deathwing, the legendary dragonkin has emerged as the latest evil to confront players, all new challenges await for those brave adventurers of Azeroth. Many new features are included, new parts of the world have been opened and the old world has been torn asunder, devastated by a great evil.

So exactly what is the big fuss over this game? Is it worth shelling out $40 for? The answer is hell yes. Players of the franchise will know what I'm talking about already, but for those that are unaware of exactly what this game is about, I'll explain it some. For starters, the level cap has been increased from level 80 to level 85. In previous expansions, 10 more levels were added each time, however Blizzard decided only 5 levels would be added with Cataclysm. For me this is both good and bad, good in the sense that you won't have long before you reach maximum level again and can therefore start to raid the end game dungeons and focus on achievements. The downside though is that in less than a half day after Cataclysm went live (approximately 5 hours!) a player made it to level 85. See the announcement here. So after waiting so long for the new game and content and looking forward to leveling again, we're at the level cap in less time than it takes to go to sleep and wake up the next day, a shame that it can be done so easily but quite an achievement anyway.

More excitingly though is the introduction of two new races to the game. On the Horde side you have the Goblins. For a long time we've seen them as NPC's in the game world, received quests from them, flown in their zeppelins and other contraptions, sold things to them and even used them to bank our money and items. Finally we are able to play as one of them, it's about damn time! The addition of goblins makes sense, from a lore point of view. Goblins have a long history of being the bad guys, which is how the Horde is generally perceived. Orcs and Goblins have a special relationship going back decades in many of the fantasy worlds such as Lord of the Rings and the others so the inclusion of them in WoW isn't a big stretch at all.

On the Alliance side, we have the Worgen. Basically werewolves or lycans, everyone should know who these guys are. We've been bombarded with the concept of werewolves and wolf men in many popular films and TV. This new race doesn't make as much sense as the Goblin's addition, there are npc's in the game which are of the same family or species who are enemies to all who approach, even the alliance. However the lore surrounding the Worgen is quite in depth and it all kind of makes sense if you read through it.

Moving on, there have been some pretty big changes to the world. New zones have been opened up for questing. These zones were previously inaccessible, but now we can finally explore them and discover what secrets and quests lay hidden. Entirely new zones have also been created for the highest level players, lots of new dungeons and raids to conquer. Many more bosses and highly advanced and valuble loot, as with all new expansions. Toss away your old gear and be prepared for a new look and feel.

The artwork and graphic design has been significantly improved over previous expansions. Textures are clearer, more detailed and the world looks a lot more colourful and varied. More effects such as lighting and dynamic physics affecting the surrounding terrain can be seen. The overall effect is quite impressive, but it does take its toll on your machine. Setting will need to be lowered and tweaked to perfection for those using the same computer they used to play the original WoW.

The world is a lot busier as well, at least that's what I've experiened so far. Level 80 questing is filled with pvp encounters, you'll be fighting alongside your own faction and players of the opposing faction. Things can get dicey, lots of monsters are around and there isn't much room to move or escape at times. It can be a little overwhelming, especially for those of us who haven't played the game for a time and are coming back to it. It really is a new world, ready to explore. One of the most exciting parts to this is the ability to use flying mounts in Azeroth, previously flying mounts were only available in Northrend and Outland. (the setting for the previous expansions, Wrath of the Lich King and The Burning Crusade) But Blizzard has made a good decision and allowed us to train to ride flying mounts all over now, allowing us to see the world like never before and rediscover the old places we used to frequent.

Everything about the game is fresh. Seems like a silly statement but you can find some expansions to games are just more of the same, with perhaps a few extra features or changes. Blizzard knows how to make expansions, and it certainly shows with Cataclysm. These are only some of the features I've highlighted, there are many more that are yet to be implemented or even thought of yet. No doubt in the coming months we'll experience more changes and additions to the game, this is the way Blizzard works: big release then lots of patching and testing and tweaking. It can be a long tedious cycle but it works out for the best in the end usually.

So for those who are into the Warcraft universe, I hope you've picked up your copy of World of Warcraft Cataclysm already, I'll see you in game! (or not, depending on which server you play on) For those who've never played before, now is a good time to start

Lysimachus

Continuing his series on lesser known battles of World War 2 for The Helios, Lysimachus has written about Operation Avalanche, which was the codename for the invasion of the Italian peninsular itself, after Sicily had been secured. This saw the Allies struggling to establish a beachhead at Salerno against bitter resistance from the Axis powers.

Forgotten Battles of World War 2

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Italian Campaign


Part 2: Operation Avalanche
　

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

　

"The sea is like a mill pond. I hope we have as calm and peaceful a day tomorrow for our work in Salerno Bay..." ~ Major-General Fred Walker, 36th Infantry Division
　

Continuing from the previous part of this series (located HERE), the Allies had just finished the first stage of their offensive in Italy by securing the island of Sicily; now they had a springboard for the inevitable invasion of the mainland. Unfortunately for them however, the odds were heavily stacked against them. Firstly, they had enabled the German forces to escape from the island in their clumsy and unimaginative strike against Sicily, and secondly the terrain facing them consisted nearly entirely of hills, rivers and mountains which were a defender's paradise; the last time Italy had been invaded from the south was over 2,000 years ago in 280BC when Pyrrhus of Epirus defeated a series of Roman armies arrayed against him in a number of extremely costly battles which eventually forced him to concede defeat in the strategic sense with his army battered and broken. In fact, this route was so undesirable that even Hannibal had decided to cross the Alps and invade from the north than from the south!

The invasion of Italy however, would be a three-pronged assault. Around Salerno, the 36th 'Texas' Infantry Division along with the British 46th 'Oak Tree' and 56th 'Black Cat' Infantry divisions along with American Rangers and British Commandos would land in said sector in the early hours of September 9, 1943 (4:30AM to be exact) with the aid of darkness. This would be Operation Avalanche. North of Reggio di Calabria however, Operation Baytown was taking place. The aim of this operation would be for Eighth Army to advance up the toe of Italy and link up with the Allied forces around the Bay of Salerno. Around Taranto, another offensive, Operation Slapstick would be launched. 1st Parachute Division would be landed at Taranto and after securing key points would make its way westwards.

　
"When we arrived we were neck deep in water, it was really cold. A lad who'd been behind me on the landing craft - I never knew his name - when we got on to the shore at last, said to me, 'When the sun comes up this will be sunny Italy', and he immediately trod on a land mine; next thing he's dead." - Jeffrey Smith, British 46th Infantry Division
　

Things would not be going to plan however. While the landings on the whole went without a hitch, when the Allied forces attempted to push inland, things went horribly wrong. The Germans reacted quickly. The Herman Goring Panzer Division along with 15. Panzer Grenadier Division rapidly advanced to face the British troops to the west of the bridgehead while 26. Panzer-Division and 29. Panzer Grenadier Division deployed rapidly to face the 36th Infantry Division to the east of the bridgehead (soon reinforced by the US 45th ID). Thanks to the success of this quick reaction, von Vietinghoff was able to launch an offensive on September 12 in between the American and British landing forces and push them closer and closer to the beaches. Thanks to the 504th Parachute Regiment having been dropped prior to this however, though the Germans came excruciatingly close to destroying the US troops (Clark nearly orders a withdrawal back to the ships), they're able to put up fierce resistance against the armoured assault thanks to fire support from both their landed artillery and off-shore support. For four days this battle raged on, and despite the sheer chaos in the Allied lines, morale is successfully restored and the line maintained.

The two other operations as part of this offensive however would be pointless. Operation Baytown failed to draw German troops away from the Salerno bridgehead which meant that British troops had to trudge across mile after mile which thanks to German demolition work would actually be hampered after the engineers ran out of bridging materials. Nonetheless, by September 16, they had made contact with the 36th Infantry Division and the Axis forces involved in offensive actions around the bridgehead were required to disengage, withdrawing three days later. Operation Slapstick despite its goals of securing the ports of Taranto and Bari however would end up as another trudge through hills and mountains to reach the beachhead as well just like Baytown.

Despite the Germans having been defeated in this offensive, in a sense they were actually very successful. At one point they were literally on top of the Allied division's positions and were four miles away from the beaches. They were so close that you would have been able to actually see the beach, and were nearly able to get the US troops to withdraw. Close fire support and air support saved the Allies however. This would be a common trend throughout the latter years of the war with German success being stymied by these two factors which had helped them so much during their Blitzkrieg offensive of 1939-1942. It was reassuring that they had been able to inflict ~9,000 casualties on the bridgehead however, with themselves losing less than half that number and as well as this to have been able to take 4,000 prisoners so as compared to the 630 the Allies were able to take.

In the aftermath of this, the combined Allied force would advance further up the Peninsula with the conquest of Foggia on September 27 and Naples on October 1, 1943. Unfortunately for them, their troubles had still not come to an end. With more and more German troops being deployed on the Italian front, they would once more be given a mauling in 1944 and beaten to a standstill at the Gustav Line which was almost impenetrable thanks to the nature of the terrain it was created in. In muddy conditions troops would have to make their way over hills, climb up steep cliffs exceeding 1,000ft, and where the terrain was more open there would either be a river or a carefully prepared defensive position where there were clear German fields of fire or blockhouses consisting of tanks, guns and soldiers to cause havoc on the Allied advance.


To be continued ...

I hope this is okay with you guys, feel free to criticise

That’s all from The Helios for this edition. As always, I have my entire team of excellent writers to thank for putting in the time and effort to come up, once more, with a publication of the highest quality. It's great to constantly see fresh faces putting their names down and their time aside to bring you an interesting and informative edition of The Helios.

Happy holidays, all!

After reading this edition, now would be an excellent time to pay a visit to one of the other TWC publications, which can be done by clicking on either of the images below.

[Hektor27]

Great jobs, people! Keep up the good work! And happy holiday to you all!!!

P.S.Just so you know, Lord Rahl, I have been and will continue enjoying your Star Trek articles.

[Lord Rahl]

P.S.Just so you know, Lord Rahl, I have been and will continue enjoying your Star Trek articles.

Ah! At least one person is reading my Star Trek articles! That makes it worth it.

[M D]

Warp Speed, Mr. Rahl

ENGAGE

[Stavroforos]

Excellent review of Cataclysm, Nick.

I think it's also worth mentioning that the entire 1-60 questing has been updated, revamped, and made completely awesome. Especially if you start off a fresh character from one of the new races, I don't think you'll be left unimpressed. Compared with the tedium of leveling in Azeroth from vanilla until now, this is probably the best addition in WoW for me. Leveling is fun.

[Killerbee]

This is really great stuff !

[René Artois]

Great job Jom!

[tofudog]

Ah, food for thought... nomnomnomnomnomnomnomnomnom

[y2day]

Very good edition guys.

y

[tofudog]

Hello again Monsieur Artois,
I hope that with the information that your article is more or less "out of shool and for school" I can answer more appropriately to it.
And answer to it I will, because liberty is close to my heart .

To start out with a nitpick - in your introductory paragraph you write ... emerged as a result of ...
How does ... emerged in context with ... change the feel of that paragraph?
Better? Worse? Any difference at all? Just an idea of mine.

In your paragraph on the "classical" thinkers, Mill reminds me of Socrates with his "You have but to show people what the good action would be and they will do it." - Just an observation

Now to the meat of your article.
You show how the pendulum swung between the "freedom for money" and "freedom for people" sides of liberal thought and without actually mentioning it, also that there
is a faction of liberal thinkers that postulate the need for a strong state to promote individual freedom (which for the classical thinkers and their "neo-liberal"
descendents of today seemed such an impossibility).
Something that school likes to do is the neglect of the impact the common people can have on the development of political action and the supporting theory.
A german example from the second half of the 19th century (the timeframe of the progressive liberalists) is Bismarcks politics.
Bismarck on the one hand illegalized the social democrat party (then truly composed of working people), but to prevent civil war (nothing less) he fulfilled some of their demands
like medical and old-age insurance (conforming to the liberal notion of a strong state protecting its citizen´s ability to achieve happiness).
Another fact school likes to neglect is the chilean connection of the neo-liberal school, who installed their economic ideals in Pinochet´s Chile first (through chilean Chicago-school graduates).
Among other things this was proof that Neo-Liberalism is very compatible to dictatorships and yes - a strong state.
There are some who attribute the initial success of neo-liberalism in Chile to the virtues of the neo-liberal school of thought, there are others who point out the end of the US-sanctions against
Chile and the increase of Chile´s national debt by 300%, made possible by renewed international lending as influences that make evaluation difficult at best.
The final argument is correctly labelled as "they state", for taxation is in no way at all related to public deficit or surplus, as can be seen in the chilean example.

To sum it up, the so-called "neo-liberal-policy" of today picks and chooses from Friedman´s thoughts as they please or as it pleases their lobbyists.
And, judging from your article, school supports this.
Or did you actually discuss the (imo) extremely important "negative income tax" idea of Friedmann´s and its conspicuous absence in Realpolitik?

Keep up the good work.

[tofudog]

Ooops, just seen that iq-related quote in your signature.

I do hope that guy is not on this forum (anymore).