Category Archives: OPINION/REVIEW

Need A New Toilet? Here Is My Experience And My Final Decisions; By Michael R Honig

Leave a reply

Shopping for a new toilet is one of the most challenging things you can do for your home. You have a primary expectation: Successful flushes in all usual circumstances with one flush. But you ultimately have no way to tell if a new toilet will perform in its hoped-for fashion until it’s installed, and then it’s really too late to change your mind. You can’t simply return it like an ill-fitting garment or a defective device.

I searched on and off for weeks and weeks for a new toilet to replace an old cracked one. There are so many variations and claims that it’s hard to sort through and know what to believe or expect.

I settled on a 1.6 gallon flush because I feared that less water would not perform to expectations. I then relied on reviews, both good and bad, and tried to draw consensus conclusions. But then I had to find a product that could be delivered to my area, and that added additional challenges.

I settled on a TOTO Drake Two-Piece Elongated 1.6 GPF TORNADO FLUSH Toilet with CEFIONTECT, Cotton White – CST776CSG#01. This is a standard-height 2-piece product (tank and bowl are separate pieces). There is a taller option. So far, it has performed admirably. Flushes are short, but powerful and thorough. The short flush still gives me concerns, but that’s a result more of habit.

This is not described or designed as a “dual flush” unit, but you do kind of have that option. A quick activation of the lever is actually adequate for all flushes (so far), but if you feel comfortable with a longer and stronger flush, just hold the lever down a second or two longer.

The bowl is described as having a non-stick coating of some sort, and so far (it’s been several months) performs as advertised.

Toto advises against using chlorine bowl cleaners and says that soft bristle brushes should be used with gentle swipes of the bowl.

Keeping the bowl clean of mildew has also been a concern. I have long used chlorine tablets (I hate blue water cleaners), and they have performed admirably, but I’ve had to get used to periodic changes of the flapper and become inured to watching the tank bolt heads corrode. Given the caveats by the manufacturer against chlorine tabs, and the atypical flush/flapper design, I didn’t want to invite early parts replacement challenges, so I looked for an alternative.

I’m hoping that the warning against using chlorine bowl cleaners is more of a legal CYA than an actual warning, but be advised.

For the new toilet, I went with the Fluidmaster 8300 Flush ‘n Sparkle Automatic Toilet Bowl Cleaning System with Bleach Cartridge. (That system has a “blue water” septic-safe option.) When properly installed (pay attention to the water going into the fill-tube and not the tank), It has the advantage of sending chlorinated water directly to the bowl while totally bypassing the water in the tank. Again, so far, this has worked extremely well. The only drawback so far is knowing when the cartridge must be replaced. With a tab, you just lift the tank lid and look. The Fluidmaster cartridge must be removed (a simple twist) to be examined. That’s not necessarily a big deal (I haven’t tried it yet), but I can see it being an annoyance. The Fluidmaster claim is 90 days of typical use as they define it.

An alternative I’m looking at for other toilets in the house for using up my current supply of chlorine tablets is Kaboom Scrub Free! Toilet Bowl Cleaner System, which works with a similar logic to the Fluidmaster, again bypassing the tank water. (This system also has a “blue water” septic-safe option.) It uses what appears to be a smaller tablet than the ones I’ve been using, but I think that can be adapted by quartering the current tabs.

I hope that this review has been helpful and that it eases your purchasing choices.

NOTE: I’ve included Amazon links for ease of reference, but I do not receive anything if you purchase through these links.

The New Music of the New “Doctor Who”: Two Takes

Leave a reply

Funny. I enjoyed the episode “Rosa” and thought it bodes well for future episodes.

Perversely, though, I very much dislike the new main theme and musical underscoring for basically the very same reasons that the author of the article, “As the long-running science-fiction television series begins a new chapter with a woman in the lead role for the first time, its theme tune more or less restores the original musical conception,” prefers them. I feel like the main theme has been orchestrally eviscerated and abbreviated, and the aimless underscoring so enjoyed by the author reminds me of the musical underscore work Dennis McCarthy did on “Star Trek: The Next Generation”, which was aimless, meandering, athematic, amelodic work which I loathed.

Some people apparently appreciated McCarthy’s work, and I’m told that his style was deliberately chosen by the producers, but I always felt that it made the series seem cheap and cheesy. What I enjoyed of the series was in spite of his work, or especially among the episodes he didn’t score. (The memorable Borg theme, for example, is not McCarthy’s but is the work of Ron Jones.)

I miss Bernard Herrmann, but at least we still have luminaries like Danny Elfman and the great John Williams for memorable film and TV scoring.

The article referenced can be accessed below:

“As the long-running science-fiction television series begins a new chapter with a woman in the lead role for the first time, its theme tune more or less restores the original musical conception.”

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-music-of-doctor-who-makes-a-glorious-return-to-form

REVIEW: The Curious Case of Anthony Scaramucci’s ideas on Interest Rates, Deflation, and Tax Policy

Leave a reply

“ ‘Google before you tweet’ is the new, ‘think before you speak.’ ”~ Jonathan (Jon) Parker, via Joe Newton [Best attribution I can find – Mike].

As a layperson, I have serious doubts about the ‘Big Picture’ economic, tax policy and financial opinions of Anthony Scaramucci. (The Curious Case of Negative Interest Rates, By ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI (NY Times Dealbook), MAY 8, 2015)

Notwithstanding that Mr. Scaramucci is richer, more famous, and better-looking than I am, I still think his premises are flawed or simply wrong, and his conclusions are thus similarly wrong.

My eyebrows first rose when his new definition of “negative interest rates” began to sound a lot like the old concept of “deflation”.

“Negative rates imply that the money in your pocket today will buy more goods tomorrow. Think of money as just another fungible asset: A $20 bill today is still a $20 bill tomorrow or two $10 bills a year from now. Interest rates, on the other hand, reflect the opportunity cost of spending that money today relative to tomorrow. When rates are negative, the $20 bill is still worth four $5 bills in the future, but its utility value (i.e. what it buys) increases with time.”

This is actually a classic example of a deflationary ‘vicious cycle’; not ‘negative interest’.

My doubts were further fed by this absurd-on-its-face statement:

“John Keynes, you see, was actually wrong. His famous utterance, “In the long run, we are all dead,” isn’t true. Like it or not, the long run is upon us, and we are all very much alive (aside from Keynes).”

Mr. Scaramucci obviously misses the point here: In the long run, Mr. Keynes died. In the long run, Mr. Scaramucci will die. That he fails to grasp this point does not bode well for his further ruminations. Continue reading →