Quotulatiousness

July 19, 2018

Mucking around with Stonehenge

Filed under: Britain, History, Religion, Science — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 06:00

Many people are still under the impression that Stonehenge was built by the Druids (debunked in this video by Siobhan Thompson). At least as many people think that the modern day stone circle is an undisturbed historical relic, and that the stones are standing today as and where they have for thousands of years. All the way back in 2001, Emma Young did a quick debunking of that theory in New Scientist:

An early photograph of Stonehenge taken in July 1877 by Philip Rupert Acott
Via Wikimedia Commons


Photo from a similar angle in 2008 showing the extent of reconstruction.
Via Wikimedia Commons

Most of the one million visitors who visit Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain every year believe they are looking at untouched 4,000-year-old remains. But virtually every stone was re-erected, straightened or embedded in concrete between 1901 and 1964, says a British doctoral student.

“What we have been looking at is a 20th-century landscape, reminiscent of what Stonehenge might have looked like thousands of years ago,” says Brian Edwards, a student at the University of the West of England in Bristol.

Stonehenge isn’t the only ancient site to have been transformed in recent years, he says. “Even many of the local people in Avebury weren’t aware that a lot of the stones were put up in the 1930s,” he told New Scientist.

[…]

English Heritage says it is now considering covering the Stonehenge alteration programme in detail in the next edition of its official guidebook to the site. A decision not to include the work in official guides was taken in the 1960s, says Dave Batchelor, English Heritage’s senior archaeologist.

The first restoration project took place in 1901. A leaning stone was straightened and set in concrete, to prevent it falling.

More drastic renovations were carried out in the 1920s. Under the direction of Colonel William Hawley, a member of the Stonehenge Society, six stones were moved and re-erected.

Cranes were used to reposition three more stones in 1958. One giant fallen lintel, or cross stone, was replaced. Then in 1964, four stones were repositioned to prevent them falling.

The 1920s ‘restoration’ was the most “vigorous”, says Christopher Chippindale of the Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. “The work in the 1920s under Colonel William Crawley is a sad story,” he says.

As I commented on a post back in 2010:

I imagine, given how many times Stonehenge has been mucked about with by earlier enthusiasts, there must be much misleading data has to be sifted and re-sifted before any definite discoveries can be announced. Stonehenge has been fascinating people for centuries and there are probably lots of amateur investigations that may well have made the situation more confusing (think of a sixteenth century equivalent of Indiana Jones or Lara Croft with a nose for treasure).

Atlas Obscura recently had a set of photos of Stonehenge taken in 1867 likely featuring the family of Colonel Sir Henry James, of the Ordnance Survey. There’s also a watercolour by John Constable from around 1835 showing a very different, more ruin-y monument:

Crony capitalists of the military-industrial complex

Matthew D. Mitchell comments on some of the problems with government contractors and their all-too-cosy relationship with the government officials who hand out the public’s funds:

… as economist Luigi Zingales explains in his book, A Capitalism for the People, governments contracting with private interests has its own set of risks:

    The problem with many public-private partnerships is best captured by a comment that George Bernard Shaw once made to a beautiful ballerina. She had proposed that they have a child together so that the child could possess his brain and her beauty; Shaw replied that he feared the child would have her brain and his beauty. Similarly, public-private partnerships often wind up with the social goals of the private sector and the efficiency of the public one. In these partnerships, Republican and Democratic politicians and businesspeople frequently cooperate toward just one goal: their own profit.

When President Dwight Eisenhower warned against the “unwarranted influence” of the “military-industrial complex,” he was concerned that certain firms selling to the government might obtain untoward privilege, twisting public resources to serve private ends. It is telling that one of those contractors, Lockheed Aircraft, would become the first company to be bailed out by Congress in 1971.

For many observers, the George W. Bush administration’s “no-bid” contracts to Halliburton and Blackwater appeared to exemplify the sort of deals that Eisenhower had warned of. It is true that federal regulations explicitly permit contracts without open bidding in certain circumstances, such as when only one firm is capable of providing a certain service or when there is an unusual or compelling emergency. In any case, a report issued by the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in 2011 estimated that contractor fraud and abuse during operations in Afghanistan and Iraq cost taxpayers an estimated $31 to $60 billion. This includes, but is not limited to:

    requirements that were excessive when established and/or not adjusted in a timely fashion; poor performance by contractors that required costly rework; ill-conceived projects that did not fit the cultural, political, and economic mores of the society they were meant to serve; security and other costs that were not anticipated due to lack of proper planning; questionable and unsupported payments to contractors that take years to reconcile; ineffective government oversight; and losses through lack of competition.

Governments may also award contracts to perform a service that has more to do with serving a parochial interest than with providing a benefit to the paying public. For example, Congress may order the Pentagon to procure more tanks even though the Pentagon itself says the tanks aren’t needed. Paying General Dynamics hundreds of millions of dollars to produce unneeded tanks in order to protect jobs in particular congressional districts may be an abuse even if the underlying process by which the contract was awarded is legitimate.

“Sustainability”

Filed under: Economics — Tags: — Nicholas @ 03:00

At Coyote Blog, Warren Meyer explains why it makes little sense to push for higher and higher levels of recycling when the costs of recycling are greater than ordinary disposal:

Sustainability is about using resources in a way that can be reasonably maintained into the future. This is pretty much impossible to really model, but that is not necessary for a decision at the margin such as recycling in Washington DC. When people say “sustainable” at the margin, they generally mean that fewer scarce resources are used, whether those resources be petroleum or landfill space.

Gosh, if only we had some sort of simple metric that summarized the value of the time and resources that go into a service like recycling or garbage disposal. Wait, we do! This metric is called “price”. Now, we could have a nice long conversation about pricing theory and whether or not prices always mirror costs. But in a free competitive market, most prices will be a good proxy for the relative scarcity (or projected scarcity) of resources. Now, I am going to assume the numbers for DC are correct and are worked out intelligently (ie the cost of recycling should be net of the value of materials recovered, and the cost of burning the trash should be net of the value of the electricity generated). Given this, recycling at $75 a ton HAS to be less “sustainable” than burning trash at $46 since it either consumes more resources or it consumes resources with a higher relative scarcity or both.

The problem with using a common-sense metric like actual real-world prices is that we’ve had two generations of westerners raised to “believe” in recycling the way their forebears used to believe in the Holy Ghost. It’s not a matter of economic efficiency, it’s a moral and quasi-religious belief inculcated from the time they first started kindergarten. Explaining that it’s worse for Mother Gaia to try to recycle 100% of the waste our society produces is — if you’ll pardon the expression — a waste of time, because they were never argued into believing the virtue of recycling, so you’ll never argue them out of it.

How to Make Trestles Episode 2 | Paul Sellers

Filed under: Tools, Woodworking — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Paul Sellers
Published on 29 Jun 2018

Paul assembles the legs of the trestle. Then the posts are marked out and fixed in place to make a sturdy reliable trestle, using gussets for additional strength and rigidity.

Cutting list, drawings and tool and hardware lists can be downloaded here:
https://paulsellers.com/trestles-drawings-and-cutting-list-download/

Music credit:
Henry Horrell (https://soundcloud.com/henry-horrell)

For more information on these topics, see https://paulsellers.com or https://woodworkingmasterclasses.com

QotD: Ladies first

Filed under: Politics, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

You men must learn your place in the progressive pecking order.

“On television interviews, on platforms and political meetings, at any presentations — if there’s no woman speaker, then the event does not take place,” says Professor Haiven. By which she means, such gatherings should not be permitted. She’s quite emphatic on this point. Professor Haiven is also keen on punishing people who say things of which she doesn’t approve, and which she casually conflates with acts of violence. And this great thinker can denounce the evils of an alleged male “monopoly” in an environment where women outnumber men by quite some margin, and while sitting on a panel with no male participants, and with no-one willing to argue a substantively different view.

David Thompson, “Reheated (48)”, DavidThompson, 2016-09-27.

Powered by WordPress