Great try, but nah...he'll never understand it. You used too many big words (for him). :-) -- Jason
----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Trusten, R.Ph. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 1:41 PM Subject: [USMA:26081] In for a penny, in for a ... kilogram--your recent column > Dear Mr. Lewis, > > I read with great interest your online column "In for a penny, in for > a...kilogram" (May 29, 2003), and have spent the interim preparing my > response. Since my parents did not raise me to speak and write vulgar slang, > I waited two weeks so I could calm down before writing this. > > Your article asks why the United States, after 28 years of considering > conversion to the metric system, is still "pounding and inching along". One > of the primary reasons for this, I believe, is because people such as > yourself have newspaper columns, and singlehandedly, are in a position to > publish opinions and information as prejudiced, as narrow, and as fractured > as the material you put into the above-mentioned column. The prevalence of > such dim views of a subject make me yearn to have a newspaper column of my > own so that I could at least back up my widely disseminated opinions with > facts. Does your paper have an opening for a new writer? > > I start by saying that I am an American, native born and lifelong, who is > proud of the United States and what it has done for its people and for the > people of the world. I wholeheartedly support President Bush in his effort > to protect the United States from terrorism. And accordingly, I condemn the > French for their barbed opposition to our efforts to eliminate a great > threat from Iraq. But there is one thing that I will always thank the French > for, and that is their invention of the metric system. > > > You say that the metric system is "boring and sterile", and "suitable only > for mathematicians and other colorless folk". I've never before heard > someone compare units of measurement for their entertainment value, and I do > not measure things to be entertained. I measure things to accomplish some > task, such as framing pictures, cutting paper, or judging how much space I > need for a carpet. Sometimes I need to expand these measurements into larger > units or reduce them to smaller units. The American plan of measurement, > using 12 inches to a foot, etc., is so cumbersome and so silly compared to a > decimal system that I would equate it to being sterile of thought. I long to > use a measurement system in which all the units are decimally related. That, > this inch-weary American feels, would be a most exciting and fertile change > in our society. I yearn for what you call, almost with approval, "the > all-too-even 10". No, the "Way Of Measuring Badly in America Today" (I use > the acronym WOMBAT to describe our "system" of measurement, which is > unsystematic) is not, as you say, "just fine". It is bad for the individual > user, and, as you shall shortly read, bad for America. > > You were partially correct when you observed that the United States is one > of only three nations not officially using the metric system. However, the > Congress declared in 1988 that the metric system is the "preferred system of > measurement for trade" in the United States. Congress has long known what > the American people have been reluctant to recognize: that being alone in > the world with our measurements is a major hindrance to our global > competitiveness as a people, both in academics and in trade. American > producers must produce one set of goods with US units for domestic sale and > one set of goods with metric units for export, and this has to be a major > incumbrance to our economy. So, I must disagree with your statement that our > metrological kinship with Liberia and Myanmar is "a good thing". I think it > is a very bad thing, since much of the world looks to the United States for > wisdom, not backwardness. > > Of all the provocative statements you made in your column, the one notion > which irks me above all the others is your using that ignorance-perpetuating > old ruse about metric units, making hard conversions of US units to metric > and using them in a statement to show how supposedly cumbersome metric is, > e.g., that Newville was 17.7028 kilometers from Carlisle. Please tell your > readers that, in a metric America, one will say that Newville is about 18 > kilometers from Carlisle, period. Once the US converts to metric, there > will be no more frequent converting. There will only be metric units being > used. Please stop spreading that kind of prejudicial venom, which I believe > is a hindrance, not just to metric conversion, but to much of human > progress. > > You may know that the United States was the first nation to introduce > decimal currency. Would you like to return to the "human touch" of the old > British system of (this may not be right) 20 pence to the shilling and 12 > shillings to the pound, the system discarded by the British in 1971 in favor > of our own decimal system? > > I'm not a mathematician, but I would not describe mathematicians as > colorless folk. On the contrary, I sense that their craft brought much color > into the world, including the color pictures of all types we now see from > around the world on our web browsers. These people are actually the color of > the world, and a few of them, a couple of hundred years ago in France, gave > the world an easy and convenient way of measuring things. Both as a > patriotic American, and as someone who just has to measure stuff from time > to time, I want to join that world. But I can't join it if American > columnists like you persist in attempting to rob America of the measurement > system it deserves. > > Please reconsider what you have written. > > > Sincerely, > > > Paul Trusten > 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122 > Midland TX 79707-2872 USA > 432-694-6208 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "There are two cardinal sins, from > which all the others spring: impatience > and laziness." > ---Franz Kafka >
