I notice that Lorelle Young makes no mention of the amendment to the FPLA. Is this because we want to keep this under the radar until it gets adopted? And has it even been introduced in either chamber of Congress?
Ezra P.S. Humble's report is quite revealing. Makes it clear that the one person in modern times who scuttled the completion of metrication was the minister who refused to set a date for conversion. (I suppose the Tories, after they won, could have reneged and cancelled the transition, so maybe I'm being too harsh?) -----Original Message----- From: Philip S Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: May 4, 2005 10:26 AM To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:32770] Teaching metric in UK schools Since posting the message below I have been reliably informed by two people, who were at school in the late sixties, that the teaching of metric in schools had started well before 1974. So I stand corrected on that. The rest is basically accurate but on reflection I think it would be fairer to point out that really the UK had begun to adopt metric well before 1965, legally at any rate. Metric had been legalised in the UK for most things as early as 1896 and various parliamentary committees had recommended going fully metric from dates even earlier than that. The one that the Wilson Government (1965) took as its brief was the last one - Hodgson report of 1950. If anyone is interested in a more detailed account then I recommend the following report from the last director of the UK Metrication Board, James Humble: http://www.ukma.org.uk/press/humble.htm The sad thng about all this is that the UK is now stuck at a point just before the key hurdle of road signs and virtually everybody in the UK thinks that Britains metrication program was forced on us by the EU and that resisting it is a fight against them. This couldn't be further from the truth, as James Humble explains in his report. Phil Hall ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip S Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 7:55 PM Subject: [USMA:32759] RE: Boston Globe >I noticed that too. The significance of 1965 is when it was announced in >parliament that Britian was to metricate. It was supposed to be over and >done with by 1975. Teaching metric in schools didn't happen until 1974. The >Metrication Board was set up in 1968 and closed down in 1980 before it >could complete its work. Maggie and Ronnie were buddies as y'all probably >know. > > Phil Hall > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 7:40 PM > Subject: [USMA:32758] RE: Boston Globe > > >> << Britain (the origin of the English system of inches, pounds, and >> gallons that we continue to use) went metric in 1965>>> >> >> First I heard about it. >> And I wasn't even a little nipper back then! >> >> ;-) >> >>>From: "Nat Hager III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >>>Subject: [USMA:32756] Boston Globe >>>Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 09:41:32 -0400 >>> >>> >>> >>> _____ >>> >>> Boston.com >>><http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/bcom_logo_ >>>printerfriendly.gif> THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING >>> >>> >>><http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/spacer.gif >>> > >>> >>> <http://www.boston.com/news/globe/> The Boston Globe >>> >>>Inching along >>> >>> >>>Thirty years later, we're still taking measure the old English way >>> >>> >>>By Mark Feeney, Globe Staff | May 2, 2005 >>> >>>As years go, 1975 was one of the stranger ones. Disco had begun to grip >>>the charts. Leisure suits were popular. The Red Sox almost won the World >>>Series. Perhaps strangest of all, the United States went metric. >>> >>>Of course, that last statement is false -- though not for the reason you >>>think. The United States has been metric since 1866 -- you can look it >>>up -- it just has never gone metric in practice. Ah, but 1975 was >>>supposed to change that. >>> >>>Conversion seemed long overdue. The US Army had switched to metric in >>>1957. Britain (the origin of the English system of inches, pounds, and >>>gallons that we continue to use) went metric in 1965. Canada did so in >>>1970. >>> >>>The train of history was leaving the station, or so it seemed, and on >>>rails measured in meters. How could the country that first put tailfins >>>on cars and invented Tang let itself be left behind? >>> >>>So Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act, which President Gerald >>>Ford signed into law on Dec. 23, 1975. Christmas, you might say, came a >>>little early that year. >>> >>>Well, 30 years later, Americans live in a country that continues to be >>>the world leader in science and technology, industry and trade, yet that >>>same country keeps measuring away in good old inches, pounds, and >>>degrees Fahrenheit. >>> >>>''America knows everything, and if we do it it must be right," Lorelle >>>Young says with a sigh, describing the United States' go-it-alone >>>attitude. >>> >>>Young has good cause to sigh. She's president of the United States >>>Metric Association, a 1,200-member organization that campaigns for US >>>metric conversion. >>> >>>''So why do we have to use something anybody else uses -- even if it's >>>everybody else?" >>> >>>It's not as if Americans are absolute in their attachment to inch-pound >>>units. Film is measured in millimeters, as is barometric pressure. >>>Swimming and track events are in meters; and during its Olympic coverage >>>NBC rarely converts from metric to English. >>> >>>Metric units are standard in both nutrition and medicine. The US auto >>>industry is almost completely metric. Soda is commonly sold in 1- and >>>2-liter bottles. >>> >>>The most famous instance of our mix-and-match attitude toward >>>measurement -- certainly the most notorious -- is the Mars Climate >>>Orbiter debacle in 1998. The orbiter was the $125 million NASA space >>>probe that crashed because one operations team was using metric units >>>while another (ahem) was using English units. >>> >>>Those are exceptions, though. Something is in the American psyche that >>>clings to the English system. >>> >>>As the director of the National Cowboy Hall of Fame declared in 1975: >>>''The West was won by the inch, foot, yard, and mile." >>> >>>Clearly, this is an issue in which emotion matters as much as, and >>>perhaps more than, reason. >>> >>>''Metrication," suggests John Gardner, director of the British Weights >>>and Measures Association, a group opposed to the metric system, ''is an >>>issue that goes beyond measuring." >>> >>>Part of the difficulty many opponents have is aesthetic. The very >>>qualities usually cited as prime metric virtues, the system's >>>orderliness and utility, can make it seem technocratic, impersonal, and >>>inorganic. >>> >>>''Poetically, it's a nonhuman, cold, and ugly system," says Arfon >>>Griffiths, an engineer with an Austin, Texas, computer company who >>>belongs to a Web discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>>''My second dislike of the metric system," Griffiths says, ''is its >>>tie-in to socialism and the whole notion of a socialist utopia." >>> >>>It's not just that the metric system is foreign. After all, the name >>>''English system" does pose certain problems for nativists. It's that >>>the foreign-ness smacks of one-worldism, the surrender of national >>>sovereignty -- and internationalism isn't exactly in the ascendant these >>>days. >>> >>>Neither is Francophilia. The nation that started the metric system was >>>France. Worse, France adopted the system in 1795, only months after the >>>Reign of Terror. Not surprisingly, inch-pound people will make an >>>exception, just this once, and use centimeters when giving the >>>dimensions of guillotine blades. >>> >>>The visceral opposition to the metric system notwithstanding, the >>>biggest impediment to conversion is financial. Advocates argue that >>>going metric will boost US foreign trade. Nonetheless, it's a given >>>that, in the short run, conversion would be very expensive. >>> >>>''We must face it," says Alex Hebra, a Florida-based engineering >>>consultant who's the author of ''Measure for Measure: The Story of >>>Imperial, Metric, and Other Units." ''To convert the industrial >>>standards from English system to metric units would cost a lot of money. >>>Tools and dyes and fixtures that use inches would be useless." >>> >>>Hebra has his doubts about America ever going metric. ''I was born in a >>>metric country, Austria, so I'm all for it. But the question whether it >>>will work [here] is another matter." >>> >>>The idea for a measuring system based on multiples of 10 and derived >>>from the size of the Earth predates the United States by more than a >>>century. A French priest and mathematician named Gabriel Mouton proposed >>>such a system in 1670. >>> >>>The United States almost beat the French in being the first country to >>>adopt such a system. Thomas Jefferson proposed a decimal-based measuring >>>system in 1790. >>> >>>The meter, the basic unit of distance in the system the French adopted >>>in 1795, was defined as one-ten-millionth the distance from the equator >>>to the North Pole. In 1983, the definition became the distance light >>>travels through a vacuum in one-299,792,458th of a second. That's a far >>>more precise measurement, but you can imagine the abuse inch-pound >>>people direct at its arbitrariness and unwieldiness. >>> >>>Napoleon's conquests helped spread the metric system across much of >>>Europe. Still, it was Britain that ruled the waves. Global trade was, by >>>current standards, fairly rudimentary. The need for a worldwide standard >>>wasn't pressing, and it was unclear whether the English or metric system >>>would become dominant. >>> >>>Enter the United States. Uniformity of weights and measures, George >>>Washington said in his first inaugural address, ''is an object of the >>>greatest importance, and will, I am persuaded, be duly attended to." >>>Jefferson, for one, found out otherwise. >>> >>>The great lost opportunity came in 1832. Congress told the Treasury >>>Department to standardize the system used by customs officials at ports. >>>The department designated use of the English system. Congress accepted >>>that, but never made it official for the nation as a whole. Had the >>>report designated the metric system, or had Congress overridden the >>>report and imposed the metric system, that would have been that. >>>Conversely, had Congress made the English system the official US >>>standard, it might have helped turn the tide against metric. >>> >>>In 1902, a second opportunity came -- or, depending on your perspective, >>>disaster was averted -- when a bill requiring the federal government to >>>use only metric measurement was defeated by just one vote. >>> >>>And that, more or less, was how things stood until 1975, when it >>>appeared America's metric moment had finally come. >>> >>>Consider the climate in which the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 became >>>law. The '60s had been all about turbulence: wars, assassinations, >>>riots. The '70s were all about . . . sensibleness. >>> >>>End inflation? Hand out WIN buttons (''Whip Inflation Now"). Equality >>>between women and men? Pass an equal rights amendment. Honesty in >>>government? Elect a president who promises ''I will never lie to you." >>> >>>Think of that archetypal '70s figure: Mary Richards, the heroine of >>>''The Mary Tyler Moore Show." So agreeable, earnest, reasonable -- she's >>>the metric system made flesh and wearing a knit suit. >>> >>>Ted Baxter, now there's an inch-pound man if there ever was one. Lou >>>Grant makes two. Not Mary Richards. That big ''M" hanging on her >>>living-room wall? Let's just say her first name isn't necessarily what >>>it stands for. Change only a few syllables and the last line of the >>>show's theme song becomes ''You're going metric after all!" >>> >>>In 1974 alone, the following books were published: ''Metric Power," >>>''Let's Go Metric," ''Metrication Handbook," ''Let's Talk About the >>>Metric System," The Metric System -- Measure for All Mankind," ''You and >>>the Metric System," ''Think Metric Now!," and ''Metric Is Here!" >>> >>>Metric was here, sort of. In February 1976, Coca-Cola and 7-Up began >>>test-marketing 1- and 2-liter bottles. A few weeks later, metric >>>measurements went up on the Green Monster at Fenway Park. Over the next >>>couple of years, Detroit converted to metric. But that's about it. The >>>Metric Conversion Act lacked enforcement powers and stipulated no >>>deadline. The metric fist, such as it was, had been placed in a >>>marshmallow glove. >>> >>>The Red Sox had put up metric distances at the written urging of David >>>Mofenson, then a Democratic state representative. ''There was a real >>>push to go metric back in the mid-'70s, a sense it was going to happen," >>>says Mofenson, now a Newton attorney. ''Somehow along the way that went >>>off the tracks." >>> >>>WIN buttons didn't whip inflation. The ERA was never ratified. Jimmy >>>Carter wasn't reelected. And in 1977, the year ''The Wall Street Journal >>>Guide to the Metric System" declared ''The metric system is about to >>>become a fact of life for Americans," ''The Mary Tyler Moore Show" went >>>off the air. >>> >>>So will the United States ever go metric? >>> >>>''My point of view is a little different from most people's," says Ken >>>Butcher, director of the US Metric Program, which is part of the federal >>>government's National Institute of Standards and Technology. ''I >>>routinely get calls here from people saying, 'Our company's going >>>metric.' In the last two years, that's happened once or twice a week. >>>It's growing. I don't hear the same reluctance I heard 10 or 15 years >>>ago." >>> >>>Of course, there's growth and then there's growth. Originally, the >>>Metric Program was the US Metric Board. Mandated by the Metric >>>Conversion Act, it had a staff of 30 and an annual budget of $2.7 >>>million. Ronald Reagan, the man who trounced Jimmy Carter, shut down the >>>board in 1982. Butcher is the successor program's sole staffer, and its >>>budget is under $200,000. >>> >>>''It's a hard row," concedes the US Metric Association's Lorelle Young. >>>Still, she's optimistic. >>> >>>''You hear the exact same reasons whenever there's a big change. 'It's >>>the US.' 'It's a big country.' 'Why can't everyone else do it our way?' >>>. . . You know I think there are still some manual typewriters around, >>>and in some communities you can still find icemen. But I don't think we >>>should perpetuate them." >>> >>>Things do change and, as Red Sox fans know, sometimes momentously. >>>Mofenson's letter came in the wake of two events, not just the Metric >>>Conversion Act but also the team's epic World Series loss to the >>>Cincinnati Reds. >>> >>>When Mofenson wrote the Red Sox, which did he think would happen first: >>>America going metric or the Red Sox winning the World Series? >>> >>>''I guess in my heart of hearts," Mofenson says with a chuckle, ''I >>>thought the Red Sox would win. They had some pretty decent teams back >>>then." >>> >>>Mark Feeney can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>><http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_st >>>ory_end_icon.gif> >>> >>> >>><http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/spacer.gif >>> > >>>C Copyright <http://www.boston.com/help/bostoncom_info/copyright> 2005 >>>The New York Times Company >>> >>> <http://nytbglobe.112.2O7.net/b/ss/nytbglobe/1/G.5--NS/0> >> >
