[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please note that taking the regulatory approach does not preclude ALSO
taking Jim's approach. Through the company he founded, Jim influenced many
others to switch to and accept SI. Through his proselytization of SI, he has
influenced others. The rest of us could do well to follow his example IN
ADDITION TO pressing for appropriate legislation. In fact, many on this list
do so (e.g., Jim Frysinger, Norman Werling, Nat Hager, myself, ...). The
USMA Board also does so, in addition to pressing for legislation (an
activity that is by no means completely straightforward or simple).
Bill Potts, CMS
Roseville, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
A lot is going to do with the makeup of Congress in the next six to eight
years. The presence of those few members adamently opposed (best example is
the troglodyte who amended TEA-21 and directly and personally started all the
problems with the states), if still in power and involved with committees, is
going to be a huge stumbling block -- because while it takes a lot of members
to get something through, it takes very few to stop something, as we have
seen time and time again. Know who they are, know who supports us and who
does not, and vote accordingly. Yes, metrication IS political, everywhere
it's happened, and we have to take this into account. Take into account,
also, how the parties are becoming more and more polarized geographically as
well as philosophically, and consider which one is more likely to make
metrication a priority. It's all going to come down to what the people want
their government to do, or not to do -- which is why constant education is
also important, as our group alone can't elect the Congress.
Carleton
