Senile Texas Aggie - comic relief for the rest of you

[Baymule]

That looks pretty tall. That would be a LOT of concrete bags. I've seen it done, that's where I got the idea from, but that would take a lot. I like the rip rap held in place by wire, maybe cow panels if the chunks are big enough that they wouldn't fall through. Sheep and goat panels have 4" holes, horse panels have 2"x4" holes, or buy a 100' roll of wire with the size holes that suit your purpose.

 

[Mike CHS]

We have a drainage ditch right by our Mail box that was washing away but I just mixed concrete and poured it on the worst areas. It stopped the erosion and is now building up. I added a lot of decent sized stone with the cement and it has held for over two years. The biggest difference is my area was around 24" and yours looks to be 5' or more.

 

[Larsen Poultry Ranch]

Maybe combine both ideas? Drive in some rebar stakes to help hold some cow panels and fill/weigh down with rocks/stones/cement bags and add cement in strategic areas to combine the whole thing together? The dirt should then accumulate on/around the new structure?

Take my idea with a large grain of salt, I've never dealt with that in real life.

Or find a plant that can grow in that location and the roots will hold the soil and stabilize the hill?

 

[Bruce]

Outta my league but that never stopped me from chiming in before

By narrow at the top, you mean at road level over the pipe? Since there are areas where there doesn't seem to be grass growing I would have to guess there has been some erosion. Some at point B and more at point D.

What to do? I don't know but it does seem like you could "stair step" some concrete bags at point D starting at the bottom near the open end of the pipe and working back toward the road. Maybe overlap the bags by half? If you could build that up to the top of the pipe maybe any dirt you put on top sloping back to the road would be less steep and less likely to erode? And maybe embed some of that honeycomb road stuff in the mix on top?

Bear in mind I have NO experience and NO IDEA what I'm talking about!

If you want to put in some excess rock on the property, I have a LOT I'll be happy to give you
If you have access to rock the rock and wire method might be the cheapest and should work well. You have that nice big strong tractor that could move large rocks to the area.

 

[Senile_Texas_Aggie]

Outta my league but that never stopped me from chiming in before

I always appreciate your comments for their wit and wisdom.

By narrow at the top, you mean at road level over the pipe?

Yes.

What to do? I don't know but it does seem like you could "stair step" some concrete bags at point D starting at the bottom near the open end of the pipe and working back toward the road. Maybe overlap the bags by half? If you could build that up to the top of the pipe maybe any dirt you put on top sloping back to the road would be less steep and less likely to erode? And maybe embed some of that honeycomb road stuff in the mix on top?

I am considering that. I could layer a set of concrete bags, back fill with some dirt, add another layer, back fill with more dirt, etc., using rebar as an anchoring aid.

If you have access to rock the rock and wire method might be the cheapest and should work well. You have that nice big strong tractor that could move large rocks to the area.

We have a good bit of rock here (shale), but on our homestead the rock tends to be about 1-3 feet down. We don't have the much sturdier granite or other harder rock. I don't know how easily rock can be obtained around here, nor what its cost is. I will need to do more checking.

Thanks again, Mr. Bruce and everyone else, for your suggestions.

Senile Texas Aggie

 

[Bruce]

We have a good bit of rock here (shale), but on our homestead the rock tends to be about 1-3 feet down. We don't have the much sturdier granite or other harder rock. I don't know how easily rock can be obtained around here, nor what its cost is. I will need to do more checking.

Go rent a big excavator like Mike Morgan did and dig out your shale
I would think shale by itself might not be great since it too will want to slide downhill. Bring your truck by and I'll fill it with big rocks to put in before you drop the shale in to fill the gaps

 

[Senile_Texas_Aggie]

But I cannot believe that allowing for the government to have such total say so in every aspect of our life is something that you can attribute to the right or conservative side.

Actually, most conservatives I know believe in small government only in some things, primarily economic ones, and a few social ones like gun ownership rights, but on other topics they believe in a BIG government telling people exactly how to live their lives and what they can and cannot do. To provide some examples of the latter:

• Interracial marriage. Was it liberals or conservatives who opposed allowing interracial marriages? It was conservatives. If they consistently believed in small government, they would have supported the right of an interracial couple to marry, but they strongly opposed it, and many still do.
• Gay marriage follows the same reasoning that interracial marriage did. And the broader issue of gay rights also fits this reasoning.
• Transsexual rights. Is it liberals or conservatives who oppose transsexual rights? If conservatives were consistent in their belief in small government, then they should support those rights. But they do not.
• Doctor-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. If conservatives believed in small government, then they should support the rights of terminally ill patients to choose to end their lives rather than having to endure the pain and suffering through the ravages of an illness. That has got to be one of the most personal and difficult of decisions a person can make as to when to end his/her life. Yet conservatives opposed allowing doctor-assisted suicide. Is that a belief in small government?
• Recreational drug use. Has it been liberals or conservatives who have supported legalizing the use of recreational drugs like marijuana? It has mostly been liberals who have supported it and mostly conservatives who have opposed it. If conservatives really and consistently believed in small government, they would support such legalization. After all, what is more personal than what one takes into one's own body, yet conservatives often oppose that right. If three deer hunters sit around a camp fire smoking cigarettes and passing around a bottle of Jack Daniels, many conservatives might not approve of them smoking or drinking but would not believe that the government should tell them that they can't do that. But if three college kids decide to go on a hiking trip and then while sitting around the campfire pass around a joint, a LARGE portion of conservatives believe that the government should intervene and fine or imprison those college kids.

I can go on for a lot longer, but you get the idea. Neither liberals nor conservatives are consistent in their belief in small government. They believe in small government when they want to do something and thus don't want government interference, but when other people are doing something they don't approve of, then they want to government to get really BIG to stop those other people from doing those things of which they themselves don't approve. The only groups that I think are consistent on that philosophy of small government are the libertarians.

In my journey through life I have progressed through the initial phase of being a political conservative as well as a fundamentalist Christian. I held those views primarily because others around me did so. As Mark Twain once observed, "Most people get their religious and political views second hand and without reflection." That certainly applied to me. While I was a fundamentalist Christian I certainly got my views second hand, i.e., from other people, and I held those views without reflection, i.e., without thinking about WHY I held those views.

That changed when in 1983 I read the book The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff. The book is about the parallels between the pre-Nazi Weimar republic of Germany of the 1920s and the United States as of the book's date (early 1980s). It was a really scary book and a lot of what he wrote made sense. The book led me to the writings of Ayn Rand, whose brand of libertarianism she called Objectivism presented challenges to my conservative ideas and beliefs. I then read a lot of Ayn Rand's writings and after reading and thinking then became a libertarian, as her ideas seemed logically consistent, unlike the ideas of conservatism.

I was a hard core libertarian for many years, but in the past few years have begun to soften my views in regards to whether/how the government assists those in need. So today I would call myself either a liberal leaning libertarian or a libertarian leaning liberal.

Miss @thistlebloom, you once said that "[t]he left is determined to destroy what this country was founded on and they are relentless." If forced to choose between the labels "left" and "right", I would choose "left", although I find the left/right labels too restrictive. Do you think I am "determined to destroy what this country was founded on"? I don't think that (most) conservatives are trying to destroy what this country was founded on, nor do I think (most) liberals are trying to do that either. I think instead different groups have different visions of what the country can be. Is it so wrong that we have different visions? Must we demonize those with whom we disagree? Sadly, I see so much hate on both sides toward the other. The hate seems to come more from the right than the left, but both sides are guilty of such hate. I wish this cycle of hate would end, that people would actually put into practice the Golden Rule rather than simply giving lip service to it and would seek to understand others and points of view rather than simply labeling them as the "Other" and thus deserving of suspicion if not outright hatred.

So, to those of you who have read this far, first, THANK YOU. Second, I ask you to consider what you believe, whether politacal, religious, or some other issue and ask your self WHY it is you hold such views. Is it because your views were acquired second hand, i.e., from other people? Have you reflected on those views to see if they really made sense? Have you looked at other points of view to try to understand what and how and WHY others think the way they do? If you have done all of that, I commend you. If you have not, then I think you need to reflect on the idea that you might be wrong. I try to remind myself of that, namely, that I might be wrong.

Mother Teresa once commented "We cannot all do great things, but we can all do small things with great love." Are the things you say and do motivated by love or by hate? By seeking to understand or not? By seeking to find our common humanity or by giving into our base nature of hatred? Only you can answer that.

Senile Texas Aggie

 

[frustratedearthmother]

A million times "LIKE!" You put that so eloquently - I thank you for the thought and time that went into it!

 

[thistlebloom]

Senile Texas Aggie, I appreciate you taking the time to flesh out your religious and political journey. I'm sure I will not satisfy your query. I am not particularly articulate and don't want to get too wordy.
I do not come to these forums to engage in political arguments, so I will not go point by point through your assessments and views of where you may think I am coming from and how my worldview differs from yours. I am not ashamed of my worldview, beliefs and convictions. But I do refuse to get pulled into a debate. That is because I don't see the back and forth arguments of any subject that takes place on these forums regarding core beliefs as an agent of change to any one persons system of beliefs. People "discuss", display their chosen proofs and people go on believing what they had already made up their mind about.

I will say though, that your examples of big govt. vs small govt. scenarios do not make sense to me and I will leave it at that.
That you have swung from one side of the spectrum to the other is an interesting observation and duly noted. I know people who have gone the same direction as you and some who have swung the opposite.

The hate seems to come more from the right than the left, but both sides are guilty of such hate.

Again, I find this an interesting statement. I guess it has everything to do with your perspective.


As to your urging me (and others) on farmerjans journal to read certain books, I respectfully decline to use my time to explore certain writings, particularly something written by a human responsible for the death and torture of so many millions of other humans.
My time is better spent reading truth.
I'll finish with a quote from the Bible, Phillipians 4:8.
..."whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."

 

[Mike CHS]

I enjoyed reading your point of view but I will avoid discussion on most of the points since I do like reading your posts but won't argue any of them. I have read some of Ayn Rand's writings but I have to put them in the same category as Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.

I question how you can ignore all of the rioting and looting/burning of cities by left leaning folks and ignore gatherings of supposed right leaning events with nothing happening and consider the right as more hate filled.

I probably should not have responded at all but your post made absolutely no sense to me and I felt I needed to say something to say that I have a feeling that many can't see any logic in your post although I could be completely wrong.