At the risk of offending those of the more conservative political persuasions, I note that Canada's regression with respect to metrication resulted from the actions of a Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney. He and his government rolled back the regulations originally put in place when Canada metricated, supposedly cold turkey, in the late 1970s.
However, it was Jimmy Carter, by no means a political conservative, who foolishly appointed both proponents and opponents of metrication to the board that was supposed to take care of the actual implementation. Given that the decision was already made and the opponents came out on the losing side, continuing to include them in the process was as counterproductive as it could possibly be. Of course, Reagan (very conservative) defunded the whole effort. Bill Potts Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator--only 605 hits short of 100,000] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 14:41 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:39547] Re: UPLR metric-only labeling option Regarding the DOT regression from metrication, remember that it was the Republican -controlled Congress that insisted on amending the Transportation Act in that way. It was not politically feasible for Bill Clinton to veto that bill over just that one amendment. So, blame the Repubs for that gem, Brian. Ezra -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Brian J White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > At 11:12 2007-10-08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Dear Paul, > > > >Thanks for sharing this letter with us. I find it a bit surprising > >that a state like New York hasn't got there yet. > >Hopefully, now that they have a Democratic governor and (I believe) a > >Democratic legislature, the atmosphere in Albany is more progressive > >and open to adopting this kind of measure. > > I wouldn't go that far. Bush Sr is who signed the Omnibus Trade Act > of 1988 and it was the Clinton administration that didn't further some > teeth with it. Also it was under the Clinton administration that DOTs > that had already started converting or already converted got screwed > because they removed the provision saying DOTs didn't have to convert. > So those that didn't came out smelling like a rose...and those that > did pretty much wasted the effort and have since reverted > unfortunatly. > > As is fitting with our idiotic government's toying with metrication > over the years...a bunch of false starts and almost zero progress. >
