My response to Eddie's question (below) follow the quote of his question.
> From: eddie lechat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [USMA:13096] Re: Pulling Together (was Jim Elwell on wrong list)
>
> So...
> we hope that Congress will mandate metrication
> but for any member of Congress who says that he
> wants metrication to be a purely "voluntary"
> thing, we are satisfied with that. Is this
> the message from Reid and Potts and Elwell?
No, I am not satisfied with that. As I read Reid and Potts, I'm sure that
that is not their messsage either. I even think Elwell might not be
completely satisfied with that. (However, we clearly need to let these
people state their own positions rather than my putting words into their
mouths.)
But, getting back to this hypothetical Congress Person; if he or she were
otherwise friendly toward metric, I surely would not want to kick him or her
out of Congress.
And HOW CAN THEY BE FRIENDLY TOWARD METRIC if they won't vote for complete
compulsory conversion? That's a fair question (that Andy Johnson keeps
asking), but it has been oft answered.
There are many steps that can be taken leading up to complete metric
conversion. Some people see compulsory conversion by Congressional mandate
as the ONLY step that will work. Many of us believe there are many other
steps that can help until the possibility of total mandated conversion can
become a political reality. Those who would opt for total mandated
conversion or nothing are getting NOTHING (right now at least). Those who
opt for trying as many avenues as possible are making small but steady
progress. I believe this will eventually lead to the total mandated
conversion that most of us feel is desirable.
And what are some of those small steps?
Some of them require Congressional action and we have some real
possibilities that some of these may be forthcoming in the reasonably near
future. They include making it legal to label consumer products in metric
only, ALLOWING (without requiring) those who wish to label in pure metric
(with no non-metric equivalent) to do so.
There already have been revisions of federal regulations to allow metric
labeling along with with the non-metric, and in the wine and liquor industry
to package and label everything in rational metric sizes only.
Another "small step" would be to persuade local (and national?) weather
reports on TV to be given partially or wholly in metric. This is one that
our friend Andy Johnson is doing here in Jacksonville. In spite of Andy's
frequent statement that you have to support federal mandated metric
conversion or you can't call yourself a metric proponent, he is willing to
expend some effort on "smaller steps", too.
Other's pro-metric steps are the persuasion of business people to use metric
to describe their products. Small victories in this area have been reported
in this list within the past day.
Still others small steps are awareness raising letters to the editor that we
write, the metric awards we give to students at hundreds of science fairs,
the efforts to persuade legislators that there really are people out here
who favor metric and want them to pass metric-friendly legilsation, the
teachers who do a good job teaching metric (and maybe even those who do a
poor job teaching metric as long as it's metric), etc.
Some people prefer the "federal mandate or nothing" approach. Some prefer
the "many small steps" approach. I like to think of myself as wanting to try
BOTH. I'll take any step I can think of (small or large) to promote metric,
but at the same time I will continue to argue for the need for federally
mandate metrication as the only way to get the process finished in
reasonable time and with the least inconvenience and the greatest
efficiency.
Regards,
Bill Hooper
Following is my message that elicited Eddie's response.
> --- Bill Hooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Derrick,
>>
>> ... do you mean that Andy was correct in saying that
>> Jim Elwell should be
>> kicked off the USMA advisory council because of his
>> belief that the
>> Constitution DOES NOT give Congress that authority,
>> or that the USMA is an
>> ineffective organization because Jim Elwell is a
>> member? (I don't agree with
>> those.)
