2002-03-11 No matter what we may thing of the person who wrote this or the organisation that is responsible for getting it out, much said is very true. And, as a result, very little will ever be done. We are kidding ourselves if we feel that a vast majority of Americans if polled would not agree with the assessment below.
I found the following passage interesting: Today�s metric proponents aren�t mounting a frontal assault like the one in > the late 1970s, much less confiscating the scales of your neighbourhood > grocer. Having learned from past failures, they�ve implemented a stealthy > strategy of pushing through small changes to nudge out non-metric options� This fits to a tee Jim Frysinger's "little drops" method. It seems to me they are referring to it without mentioning it out right. I put no hope in the US government or industry doing anything voluntary. If anything they will, with renewed arrogance, attempt to push the use of FFU further into the global economy. I don't even expect the government or the TABD to push to get the FPLA amended before 2010. If anything, every effort not to amend it will be made. and why isn't the USMA working on this? If they have a reason not to, I for sure would like to know. If the following paragraph is an accurate assessment by the GAO, then the prediction has already come true without and formal conversion to SI. We are already flooded with metric goods and services from the EU and beyond. I've been to factories and seen the abundance of metric machines and automated centres. They may be programmed to display FFU, but their in workings and design are fully SI. Right down to the nuts & bolts holding them together. And due mostly to the over valued dollar, American goods are too expensive compared to foreign goods and don't sell well outside the US. The over valued dollar is a friend to the cause, as it keeps FFU out of the world market and SI flooding into the US market. > The US General Accounting Office (GAO) is a respected government watchdog. > Its Metric Report of 1990 summarised the major economic burdens of a forced > US metrication and devastated pro-metric arguments with careful analysis. > Imports of metric products would increase because metric products required > for US conversion would have to be obtained from other countries. > Furthermore, due to the additional costs of conversion, US products would be > more expensive than imported products that were already metric. Foreign > countries would benefit from broadened markets and new economies of scale > due to increased production and lower operating costs. The US would also be > flooded with customary products produced by other countries to meet the > continuing demand by the public for goods during the conversion period. A > pamphlet from Americans for Customary Weights and Measures (ACWM), a > grassroots body, passes along the warning: �Thousands of workers would lose > their jobs and older workers would be displaced. Metric conversion would > require massive retraining and would deprive the country of workers with > valuable experience and the intuitive feel for measurement upon which > craftsmen, engineers and many other workers depend.� But, I do have faith in the new Europe. A united Europe with the power and the will to make a difference. The TABD may feel they will get the European Commission to bend again in 2009. But, we have to all understand that in 2009, there will be no European Commission. As a federated state, an elected European Parliament, will make the decision. And with its desire to show its muscle, they will refuse any further bullying from the US side. They will set examples and heads will roll. And if American industries do suffer from the EU refusing to back down again, then all the better for EU and other industries world-wide. Let's just hope the US economy remains weak and the dollar strong for the next 8 years, so the US can't "flood" the world's markets with FFU. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, 2002-03-11 15:41 Subject: [USMA:18677] Yardstick March 2002 > This article on the USA is in this month's issue of the BWMA's magazine > Yardistick: > > > BRITISH WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ASSOCIATION > > THE US IS STILL WITH US > Mr Peter Seymour, a journalist, screenwriter and actor living in Hoboken, > New Jersey, USA, published an article in the July 2001 issue of �Ideas on > Liberty�, the magazine of the Foundation for Economic Education at Irvington > on Hudson in New York, and a later version appeared in the September of �The > European Journal�, entitled �The Metric Assault on American Standards�, on > which we warmly compliment the editor and his colleagues at the European > Foundation, and from which � in view of the article�s great importance � we > extensively quote as follows: > > �Since America�s infancy, metric missionaries have been frustrated by our > steadfast resistance to being converted. They�ve blamed public ignorance, > apathy, meagre government funding and more. But beneath the surface, our > enduring allegiance to the US Customary system of weights and measures is > rooted in a commonsense, even if largely intuitive, preference for this > finely honed system of inches, pounds, quarts and degrees Fahrenheit. Most > Americans can remember, from the late 1970s, when US metrication was > proceeding like a five-year plan commanded by the Kremlin. Wall charts and > study guides in grade schools indoctrinated students like me about the > �superior� and �more scientific� SI � Le Syst�me International d�Unit�s � > the new and improved version of metric. Although belittled as a hodgepodge > of historical oddities, our customary measurement system withstood insults > and assaults from the �inevitably global standard�, the most visible > vestiges of which are the �kph� markings on speedometers, the Food & Drugs > Act required nutritional labelling on packaged goods and the litre-based > soft drink bottles. While compliant Canadians dived headfirst into > metrication, we recalcitrant Americans ignored and laughed at it until it > slunk away. > > Despite renewed sales pitches, regaling the glories of base-ten measurement > and the progressiveness of global conformity, Americans aren�t buying > metric. We remain committed to the familiarity, versatility and greater > accuracy of measurement practices that date back to the Pyramids of ancient > Egypt � built with the same inch as found on a schoolboy�s ruler. > > Starting back in 1799 Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of State, recommended > that Congress introduce a decimal-based measurement system. While not > proposing any specific scheme (the metric system was formalized nine years > later), Jefferson did advise that any new base units should resemble those > already in common use wherever possible. Congress put the issue on the back > burner, thus beginning a policy of benign neglect that continues to the > present. In the first US metric study in 1821, John Quincy Adams, also then > Secretary of State, reported to Congress: �Weights and measures may be > ranked among the necessaries of life to every individual of human society. > They enter into the economical arrangements and daily concerns of every > family. They are necessary to every occupation of human industry; to the > distribution and security of every species of property The knowledge of > them�is among the first elements of education, and is often learned by those > who learn nothing else, not even to read and write.� > > Adams went on to advocate the metric system as a national standard, but > again Congress left well enough alone. Forty-five years elapsed before > Congress supplied each state with a set of metric weights and measures as it > authorized nationwide use of the new system on a voluntary basis, thus > expanding our choice of measurement methods. In 1875 the United States > became one of 17 nations to found the International Bureau of Weights and > Measures, based on metric. In 1893 the US Bureau of Standards adopted > metric as its �fundamental system of standards�, which legally defined > customary units in terms of metric equivalents. And that�s pretty much > where things sat for the next 75 years. > > Today, the use and importance of standardized measurement is vastly greater > than at the dawn of the industrial age. Geodetic, topographic, > climatologic, political and road maps of the entire earth have been > meticulously calculated with customary co-ordinates and charted in customary > units. Surveys are the conceptual infrastructure for the layout of streets, > highways, railroads and parks; for the engineering of bridges, tunnels, > canals and dams; for the installation of pipelines, water mains, power grids > and cable networks; and for the positions of navigational beacons and the > orbits of satellites. Customary units, in blueprints and hardware, are > built into our homes, ships, skyscrapers, churches, monuments and historical > landmarks. The construction and operation of nuclear power-plants, airports > and aircraft, military equipment and the International Space Station, to > name a few, are predominantly based on customary specifications. Our system > is communicated through countless labels, cookbooks, manuals, textbooks, > schematics, menus and traffic signs. Preserved in our literature, songs and > movies, thriving in the daily conversations and habits of a quarter of a > billion US professionals, consumers and students, customary measure serves > the diverse needs of everyone from carpenters to chefs, children to rocket > scientists. > > With such an enormous investment in physical and human capital, there ought > to be a convincing reason to justify our suffering the stupendous costs and > confusions and hazards of drastically altering our measurement system. The > primary contention of metric advocates is that adopting a globally uniform > system of measurement would greatly benefit the US economy. Fluency in > metric, the Esperanto of measurement, would facilitate industry and trade by > increasing our nation�s exports, competitiveness, productivity and > employment. This one-size-fits-all thinking, typical of metric > missionaries, is plausible, but such assertions are thoroughly refuted by > experience and reason. > > The US General Accounting Office (GAO) is a respected government watchdog. > Its Metric Report of 1990 summarized the major economic burdens of a forced > US metrication and devastated pro-metric arguments with careful analysis. > Imports of metric products would increase because metric products required > for US conversion would have to be obtained from other countries. > Furthermore, due to the additional costs of conversion, US products would be > more expensive than imported products that were already metric. Foreign > countries would benefit from broadened markets and new economies of scale > due to increased production and lower operating costs. The US would also be > flooded with customary products produced by other countries to meet the > continuing demand by the public for goods during the conversion period. A > pamphlet from Americans for Customary Weights and Measures (ACWM), a > grassroots body, passes along the warning: �Thousands of workers would lose > their jobs and older workers would be displaced. Metric conversion would > require massive retraining and would deprive the country of workers with > valuable experience and the intuitive feel for measurement upon which > craftsmen, engineers and many other workers depend.� > > The preamble of the �US Metric Conversion Act� of 1975 enumerated the costs > of clinging to our provincial ways, including: �3. World trade is > increasingly geared to the metric system of measurement. 4. Industry in the > US is often at a competitive disadvantage when dealing in international > markets because of its non-standard measurement system.� But, reassuring > the unconverted, the GAO noted: �Worldwide usage of US customary standards > is still much greater than that of metric standards.� > > Although US usage accounts for much of this, customary standards persist > internationally in numerous forms, ranging from any use of latitude and > longitude, to industry-specific units such as troy ounces and carats, to any > production whose actual dimensions are tooled on customary units. [Usage of > customary measures is actually even greater than he realized, owing to his > omission of Britain which, like most Americans, he imagined had already gone > completely metric!] > > To clarify the last, the most successful photographic film format continues > to be manufactured to its original specification of exactly 1 3/8 inches in > width. The customary standard of this American invention has been eclipsed > by its subsequent relabelling as �35mm�, an approximate metric equivalent. > This kind of �soft conversion� succeeds in giving the appearance of metric > prominence, of greater precision and of foreign industrial clout, but it > doesn�t alter the hard reality that about two-thirds of global industrial > output remains based on customary specifications. In a shocking report to > those who scoff that America stands alone among industrial nations in > rejecting metric, the GAO concluded: �The United States should not risk its > industrial success, obtained under the customary system, by changing to a > new system.� > > In spite of this unqualified verdict and the unswerving popularity of > customary measure among US businesses and consumers alike, the metric system > is the �preferred system of weights and measures for US trade and commerce�, > or so it was ordained by Congress in �Public Law 100-418�. In fairness, > because this provision was buried in the 2 inch-thick �Omnibus Trade and > Competitiveness Act� of 1988, it is doubtful that any congressman knew he > was voting for it. Less excusably, by signing �Executive Order 12770� in > 1991, President George H W Bush directed federal agencies to proceed on > their meddlesome path of advancing �the national goal of establishing the > metric system as the preferred system for the US government.� [But, of > course, this proved ineffectual: see �The End of the US Metric Road� in our > issue No.15, �North America� in No.14, and �US Abandons Metrication� in No.9 > and �Transatlantic Dialogue� in No.8. Furthermore, there was never any > question in the USA of compulsion.] > > Any American business interest could and would label, package and produce in > metric voluntarily and on its own if doing so were profitable� �The > competitiveness question is a non-issue. US manufacturers, large and small, > make their products in whatever units are required � as did Japanese makers > in the fifties (and still)�, says Patrick McCurdy, a consultant for the > American Chemical Society and editor of several trade journals. > > Harassed by means dismayingly reminiscent of those presently prosecuting Mr > Thoburn, the post-revolutionary French citizen yielded to the metre, gram, > litre and centigrade thermometer, but the complete metric Utopia, originally > envisioned with a 10-hour clock, 10-day week and 400-degree circle, was > never consummated. Thanks to informed opposition and our healthy, intuitive > resistance, Americans have never given an inch � thus far. But at the > Metric Program Office, our tax-dollars continue to employ professional > meddlers who view our freedom as a nuisance and take advantage of our > trusting assumption that if something ain�t broke, nobody�s trying to fix > it. > > Today�s metric proponents aren�t mounting a frontal assault like the one in > the late 1970s, much less confiscating the scales of your neighbourhood > grocer. Having learned from past failures, they�ve implemented a stealthy > strategy of pushing through small changes to nudge out non-metric options�US > metrication is one of those issues that can slide from seeming too trivial > to bother with today into being too large to reverse tomorrow. So remember, > an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Even as our federal > government exhorts, �The uncertainty is not whether to move to the metric > system, it is how and when to make that move�, we can take heart from the > words of ACWM metrologist Bob Falk: �Our system of measurement is not a > haphazard collection of archaic units or the product of committees of > sheltered academics with no practical experience in the real world. It�s > the result of more than 7,000 years of research and development by billions > of people whose lives and livelihoods depended on useful, reliable > measurement.� > > And that is why, so long as Americans defend their freedom, the measurement > issue will never be decided in a government office. It will be settled at > the check-out counter, in grocery stores and kitchens, on the desks of > editors and draftsmen, on shop floors, highways and the moon, where � thanks > to missions achieved entirely with our outdated pounds, gallons and miles � > America once again stood alone.� [Well, not quite alone!] > >
