Jim,
I do respect your opinions, even if I don't share all of them, but
there are a few points in your last message that I feel compelled to
respond. First, to remain in the topic of this servlist:
At 15:02 -0600 12/07/2002, Jim Elwell wrote:
>> >...Europeans are hardly the only people using or promoting the
>>metric system,
>> >and hardly deserve sole credit for its spread.
Well... The spread of the metric system started with the preparation
of the Metre Convention. At the occasion of the Universal Exposition
of 1867 in Paris, the French Government, under a suggestion of
Napoleon III, invited a number of high-level scientists, businessmen,
etc. to discuss the problem of harmonization of weights and measures.
Sure, it was in France's interest, because French trade and business,
then fully metricated, began to feel isolated. The result was the
Treaty of Metre, enthusiastically signed in 1875 by 17 countries
(including the USA!). Does that not deserve some credit to Europeans?
>> >And if you consider "environment[al] consciousness" to mean "believing the
>>>Litany of the environmental crisis hysterics regardless of scientific
>>>merit," then I will grant you that Europe leads the world in that -- a
>>>rather dubious accolade.
Your phrase "the Litany of the environmental crisis hysterics
regardless of scientific merit" is an insult to the many high-level
scientists who are concerned with the environmental degradation
caused by uncontrolled human activities (As a representative of the
European Chemical Industry, I have been deeply involved in the
concept of "Sustainable Development"). The fact that the US
government keeps on refusing to ratify the Tokyo protocol might be a
demonstration of the American power, but could also be a rather
dubious accolade.
In addition I wonder where is the leadership in that mater: Caroline
Carson ("the Silent Spring") was an American and Greenpeace
originated in the US...
>> >To me, at least, "Europeanization" is nearly the equivalent of
>> >"socialization" and is hardly something of which to be proud.
>Perhaps I used the word confusingly; by "socialization" I mean
>"degree of government-forced socialism." One does not have to live
>in Europe to know that, politically, most European countries are
>substantially more socialist than the USA.
Socialism, socialization are effectively words with several meanings.
I am certainly not a "socialist" (i.e. a member of the Socialist
party) but I am rather proud of the European way of socialization -
compared to a number of unfortunate examples of hard, anti-democratic
socialist experiences in the world. If "socialism" is a political
management helping citizens to feel happy, why should we reject it
altogether? And are there not in the US many forms of these
socialistic actions?
An example, social security, i.e. insurance against illness. In
France (but most European countries have similar systems) we have the
"S�curit� Sociale", compulsory, complemented by optional "Mutuelles".
Both of them are financed by individual contributions, certainly not
by the government budget. Those who are so poor that they cannot pay
these contributions are taken in charge by the "Couverture M�dicale
Universelle" - a governmental plan financed by taxpayers. But is that
not similar to what you have in the US? Agreed, all your insurances
are private and not compulsory - but who would be foolish enough for
not contracting an insurance? And for the poors, don't you have
"Medicare", equivalent to our "CMU"?
>> > That is not
>>>to say I am proud of all "Americanization" -- I deplore some of it -- but
>> >McDonald's does not ask for laws forcing Europeans to buy Big Macs, whereas
>> >plenty of you folks would love to have laws forcing Americans to use the
>> >metric system.
In Europe the major competitor to McDonald's is named "Quick" - in
spite of its Franco-Belgian origin. Whether the burgers are better at
McDo or Quick is a matter of taste. But, as you know, there cannot be
a good burger without "frites" - which you call, I believe, "French
fries"...
To conclude, Jim, why simply not accept that we, on both sides of the
ocean, have a common inheritage and that, rather than stressing our
differences, we should work together for the improvement of life
everywhere in the world - including metrication?
Cheers
Louis
