FTR, I have a couple of 1.6-gal toilets in my house, the absolute lowest-price models from Home Depot, and they work just fine. With water rates being what they are, to pay for recent piping upgrades (which, btw, have nothing to do with flushing performance), they had better.
If yours don’t, try spending less time whining about the government and more time looking inside the tank to figure them out.
I don’t think ‘City Gent’ is correct anyway. I was under the impression that the low-flow toilet law was a building code law that applied to new construction. Once you live in the house, you can tear that toilet out and replace it with a full-flush one. But I’m not sure if that’s the case everwhere.
Anyway, the notion that the government can regulate anything in any way if it’s connected to a public infrastructure is simply offensive. Sure, don’t allow people to hook something up that could damage the infrastructure, but using that as an excuse to control people’s behaviour inside their house goes way too far. That line of reasoning would allow you to tell me that I can’t watch certain television programs. After all, my TV is connected to the public power grid, so why shouldn’t the government have the right to regulate what I watch?
No one has ever argued that low-flow toilets are safer, or put less strain on the sewer system, or anything else. Mandating them was simply a means to use government to force people to conserve.
City Gent, a question of fact: Is the issue here regulations created by local governments requiring low flow toilets? Or is this a federal mandate (as I thought it was)? If it is the latter, then the supports are knocked out from under your argument. What business does the federal government have regulating a municipal sewer system?
And if it is the former, then, to expand on what Sam Stone said, my tv and radio are connected to the government’s power grid. Ditto my computer, which is also connected to the phone line. My local newspaper is delivered via public roads. Does the state thus have just cause to regulate the contents of any of these things? Heck, for that matter, the state owns the road that leads to my house; can the state force me to abide by its regulations concerning what I do in, say, my own bedroom, by threatening to deny me the use of that road if I don’t?
Stossel did in fact argue the inferiority of the low-flow toilets. His intent was to show the negative effects when Congress delves into issues such as this. That was the theme of the whole segment.
The argument that “the government” has the right regulate what is attached to the “public sewer system” is faulty. The sewer system is typically developed and maintained by local municipalities. In doing so, they have the right to determine what is or isn’t attached to such public utilities, not Congress. If taxpayers from other states are not funding my local sewer, then their congressman shouldn’t be telling me how I can use the system.
So how does one justify toilet specifications implemented by the federal government?
Not to mention unrelated to the topic at hand. Congratulations on copying Stossel’s technique of extending a position he doesn’t like to absurd extremes, then taking issue with the absurdity.
You might also do a better job familiarizing yourself with US law before issuing your judgments from on high about them. In fact, existing toilets are grandfathered, but new toilets larger than 1.6 gpf cannot be sold.
Now, please, everyone, try to look beyond the tips of your own noses. If the marginal increase in aggregate water demand due to new housing starts is lessened, the added strain on the water supply is lessened, as is the strain on the associated plumbing network. The supply strain is especially a consideration in areas where water comes from underground aquifers, many of which are continuing to be drawn down faster than their replenishment rate. The strain on supply and sewage systems is especially acute in areas where housing development is faster than public works development (or the will to pay for it with tax money). If sewage can’t be treated as well, pollution results.
Analogies to the government having the right to control what you see on the Internet because “it” supplies the power are equally absurd. The strain on the grid is related to whether your machine is on or off, not what you’re watching.
So Da Gubmint (i.e. We the People acting collectively) has no right to control any of that? Get real.
Anyone who’d rather have 50 states each having the same law, instead of a single federal one (like highway safety laws) is welcome to that preference, but should explain how it makes a difference.
I know you’re all better than this. At least I think so.
The notion that the government can legislate what kind of toilet I can put in my home because of the connection with a municipal sewer system fails in a case such as mine. I live in a rural area; I do not connect to a public sewer system. My water comes from a private well, so I do not connect to a public water supply either.
So how much water I use is nobody’s business but mine.
Nevertheless, because of laws that make no exceptions, or because of exceptions that are hard to come by, I must go to Canada or the black market if I want to buy a “standard” toilet.
The decision about what plumbing I can use in my private home has been changed from a personal one to a public one. Apparently, I cannot be trusted to make the “right” decision. And this is what Stossel is pointing out.
What plainly makes a difference is that not all states would enact the same law.
Only if your well is the only one in the area. If not, you could use so much water, you deplete the aquifer, thus causing everyone’s wells (besides your own) to go dry. (It’s been known to happen during droughts.) And try to convince people it’s THEIR fault their next-door neighbor’s well has no water. Sometimes, all you need do is to drill a deeper well, but if you cannot afford this…
(Anyone want to take bets on the possibility of this thread being moved to GD?)
ElvisL1ves: Apparently you didn’t read my message very carefully. And you know, it really wasn’t that long. Let me quote from it:
I acknowledged that the government has an interest and a right to tell you what you can hook up to the water system if it can demonstrate that the thing you want to hook up will cause problems with the infrastructure. That’s clearly not the case here. You came up with a hypothetical case wherein 5 gallon toilets will strain the infrastructure. Do you have any evidence of this? What about all the other things we hook up to the water system that use far more than 5 gallons of water? Like my washing machine. Or my Jacuzzi tub.
The clear intent of the legislation, as stated by PROPONENTS of it, was to enforce water conservation. Not because the sewer system can’t handle the water, but because politicians in Washington think that water conservation is a good thing in and of itself, and therefore forced citizens to comply with it.
If you agree, fine. Defend it on those grounds. But this back-door argument that these toilets are needed to protect the infrastructure is a strawman.
And anyway, don’t blame me for the extremeness of the argument I put forth. I was directly responding to this:
There was no argument there on the merits of these toilets, just “Hey, you’re connecting it to the public system. If you don’t like it, tough noogies.”
While I sort of like Stossel (and I didn’t see the show in question), this idea of the big bad environmentalist is bizarre. Really, any objective measure you can give will tell you that the environmentalists are the extreme underdogs. They are unquestionably out-spent, out-advertised, and out-lobbied by the corporations.
Not that environmentalists are always correct, or even remotely balanced in what they say. They shouldn’t be. They represent the environment. Corporations represent their own interests and no one expects them to present a balanced picture. Anyone who bashes the environmentalists for being environmentalists without similarly bashing the corporations is being intellectually dishonest.
I saw a good show on PBS last month on genetic engineering. It was well-balanced, showing both that it was needed, and that it was dangerous. I wonder is Stossel’s show can compare.
I’m too lazy to quote at this hour. Anyway…
Homer, nobody is saying that you don’t have the right to dissent. The fact that people can still influence the government through voting and letter-writing and whatnot is what gives government its legitimacy. As long as the government is listening to its subjects, it shouldn’t cause you too much heartburn to obey some laws you don’t wholly agree with. I’d rather the government stopped using my income taxes to subsidize the overseas marketing department of the McDonalds Corporation, but I’ll leave the rock-throwing to the anarchists, God love em.
Now…people are saying that the 1.6 gpf rule is a federal regulation. If so, I would tend to agree that such a one-size-fits-all law is probably overkill; it ought to be left to whoever operates the sewer system. But this thread is about John Stossel, not poop chutes. What I remember most about the toilet segment is that it was a simpleminded appeal to a simpleminded audience, and I daresay that characterizes most of his reporting. You don’t like a particular regulation, fine, but he’s never met a regulation he liked. His brand of libertarianism is as ideology-bound as anything from the loony left. He seems to be an intelligent person, but he doesn’t use intelligent arguments to back up his positions; he turns the IQ meter down about 30 points and starts telling you, Limbaugh-style, “how it should be”. I’ll never forget the “horror” in his voice as he reported his startling discovery that pro wrestling is fake, right before Big John Studd mopped the floor with him.
He has this way of stating things so slo-o-owly and cle-a-rly so that airheads like me can understand whatever he’s selling. He also has a way of editing interviews to make himself look good and avoid the tough questions.
I think Mercutio was saying, in his first post to this thread, that another Stossel technique is to set up a “straw man” (which may or may not represent the actual views of the people he’s criticizing) which he can then discredit by ridicule. I think Mercutio hit it right on the head.
Tell me sump’n, y’all: every time I state something on these boards that I feel is common knowledge, or cite anecdotal evidence, I get fellow posters haughtily asking me, “Where’s your cite?” Well, why hasn’t anyone asked Stossel for his cites? He states “facts” on TV but doesn’t list the source. Where does that stuff about Siberia and 1/2 degree - 2 degrees increase in temp. come from anyway? Who were those 17,000 scientists Stossel claimed signed a letter debunking global warming? (Yes, I watched the show.)
The level of meek, adulatory “Stossel Said It Wuz So” gullibility I have seen in this thread is frightening.
Here’s a trademark example of Stossel Style: he’s interviewing a Native American couple, and he tells them real-life Indians in the old days didn’t have straight white teeth like in the movies – In fact, Insufferable Know-it-all Stossel claims, “they wouldn’t have had any teeth at all.” Stossel’s Native American interviewee asks him, “How do you know that?” Stossel doesn’t answer.
Well, let’s think about this question. Did Lewis and Clark submit reports describing a toothless race of people? No, I don’t think so. Did most people routinely lose all their teeth before fluoride was invented? I doubt it. Right now I’m reading a book, “The Year 1000,” whose authors, Robert Lacey and Danny Danziger, claim that archeological evidence shows that Englishmen living a thousand years ago (before they were stunted by feudalism and industrialism) were about as tall as we are. And not only that, but:
Is it not reasonable to suppose that many Native Americans had an equally healthy diet, and equally strong teeth?
I don’t know how reliable Lacey and Danziger are as forensic historians, but i believe in this matter they are more reliable than Stossel.
Typical Stossel-Style is also to mention true facts, out of context. OF COURSE, our air was dirtier 30 years ago – because that was before most of our environmental-protection laws took effect! (Did you notice, the Cuyahoga River hasn’t caught fire in quite some time either.) OF COURSE, America has more forest cover today than 100 years ago – because that was before John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt jump-started the modern-day environmental movement.
Somebody should start a “Stossel Correction Bulletin,” similar to the “Flush Rush Quarterly” that used to expose Rush Limbaugh’s errors and misstatements. Stossel is a ripe, juicy target for debunkers!
The problem with Stossel — although it’s not limited to him — is that he starts out with a stance (i.e. “Your Kids Are Being Brainwashed by Environmentalists”) and then finds those sources and facts that will support his conclusion, ignoring contradictory sources and facts as inconvenient.
It’s a common enough problem in journalism. And those with opinions on the left are just as guilty as those to the right and even in the center.
Reserve your praise for journalists who start out with a earnest question such as “Are our kids getting a balanced presentation of environmental issues?” and then present opposing view points and facts that support those viewpoints.
As a reporter, I’ve found that often, when I’ve gone into a story without a particular point of view, that after I’ve talked to both sides, I can see the value of each argument and am really torn as to whom I agree most with.
[ASIDE]The low-flush toilet regulations are indeed a Federal mandate, included as part of the 1992 Energy Policy Act. There have been attempts to repeal or amend the portions of the act dealing with water flow (most recently HR 623 in 1999), but none have been successful so far.[/ASIDE]
I have a suspicion he’ll show up in next week’s edition of this conservative-bashing (but funny) site.
Perhaps, Jab, you made the same assumption that lies behind many of the laws Stossel is talking about, that we all live under the same conditions. We do not. For example, my 300-foot-deep well is located a pebble’s throw (literally) from Lake Michigan. I doubt if my single household could draw down that source even if my pump ran continuously.
And the sand surrounding my septic field provides ideal drainage, so the effulent is not likely to harm my neighbor. So the “you connect to the municipal system so you must conserve” argument has no validity in this case.
Clearly, conservation policies need to change with the circumstances. The Saudi’s are awash in oil, I am awash in water. Oil is cheap and plentiful to them, water is cheap and plentiful to me. I conserve oil products; they conserve water.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
I acknowledged that the government has an interest and a right to tell you what you can hook up to the water system if it can demonstrate that the thing you want to hook up will cause problems with the infrastructure. That’s clearly not the case here. You came up with a hypothetical case wherein 5 gallon toilets will strain the infrastructure.
[quote]
Please. Which of these proposition meets common sense:
A. Reducing toilet water usage by 2/3 reduces strain on the infrastructure.
B. Reducing toilet water usage by 2/3 has no effect whatsoever.
If you want to claim B, go right ahead, but the burden of providing evidence clearly belongs to you.
Likewise, you can argue that conservation and pollution are the business of “politicians in Washington” (and why are you omitting Ottawa, btw?), but that’s also a marginal view - those are values held by the majority of us real folks down here. Maybe not in your home of Canada, possibly.
Doesn’t the argument that the Federal Government has no power to pass laws regarding low flush toilets becuase everyones circumstances are not the same preclude the passage of any federal laws because this is necessarily always true? That is, the effect of any law will affect each person and their own circumstances differently.
That was one of the major factors behind the tenth amendment, and if you take a strict view of it,(which the supreme court has never been inclined to do), then it is absolutly true that many federal laws are innapropriate.
Elvis: Um, why exactly does the burden need to be on me? Do you have ANY evidence that sewer systems have design limits based around toilet bowl flow?
I’ll admit that I don’t know a damned thing about sewer design. Does waste flow through the same lines as storm water? If so, I’d think that the volume of water from toilets is completely irrelevant. Also, does the increased concentration of waste products vs water have an effect at the treatment plant? I have no idea.
But the burden of proof is on YOU, because you are using this argument as a justification for new law. I’m simply asking you to show me why that is necessary. Why should I be on the defensive and have to continue justifying the status quo against meddlers who want to change it? As in science, the burden of proof is always on those who are proposing new things.