Having worked in a huge bureaucracy of another sort (an urban school district), I can tell you with full confidence that you're absolutely right about the impact a single person can have. I have seen major decisions made that impacted everyone in the place, and they were made solely on the whim of an individual in a key position. More often that not, that individual had no place of being in that position and was outright incompetent. The more I look at the story of the failure of America to metricate, the more parallels I can draw between my former workplace and the government officials at the time. From a few spiteful bureaucrats, through vicious media hounds, down to influential lobbyists fighting for a short term gain.
One could almost write a book called "Who Killed the Metric System?" based on these what happened back then. Remek On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Victor Jockin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's interesting that Australia succeeded in that way, and I'm also not > sure what the best way is to bring around the UK's metric martyrs. However, > I'm convinced that the US won't convert so long as conversion remains > voluntary. > > There was a window for voluntary conversion in the US to succeed, had a > relatively tiny number of people made different decisions (most notably, the > head of the DOT). Maybe Australia had more competent leaders in those > positions. Metric road signs in the US would likely have dragged the rest > of measurement along with it. I'm reminded again of the blurb on DOT's > website, where they describe what sounds like one or a few people > scuttling the entire national road sign conversion process based on little > more than their own personal whim. > > So clearly the head of DOT was to blame, in one sense. In a more important > and fundamental sense, the blame lies with having given him the option. > > > > *From:* Paul Trusten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *Sent:* 10/19/2008 11:30 PM > *To:* U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [USMA:41870] metrication is accomplished by assent > > I don't know if I'm going out on a limb or just expressing common sense. > Maybe I am about to go on the UKMA's list of the officially accursed, but I > don't think that people should be prosecuted simply because they violate > measurement standards. There has to be some other kind of action or sanction > taken in these cases short of the steel tip of the law. Look at the public > relations carnage this attitude has produced! We now have the phrase "metric > martyrs" in the UK press, and indeed, the original one, Steve Thoburn, died > at a young age, and whether or not his heart attack was hastened by the > metric controversy will never be known, but now, in death, he looks like a > literal martyr. To me, the spectacle of a British metrological Torquemada > going around and trouncing people over measurement doesn't seem to give much > chance of winning people over to the metric side. I wonder how much more > success the officials would have had at getting out of the "very British > mess" had they simply ignored these few people who weighed tomatoes in > pounds, and put that same energy into finishing the changeover nationally. > Also, the anti-metric forces in the U.S. will continue to point to what > looks like fiery British public opposition to metric, and retard our > progress here. > > To me, the Australians succeeded at metrication so spectacularly because > they did it by assent. The following excerpt from the Australian Department > of Industry, Technology & Commerce's *Metrication In Australia *so > testifies: > *Early in the program the term "voluntary conversion" began to be used in > this context, yet clearly, the Metric Conversion Act would be law for all > Australians and the stated objects of this Act were that, progressively, all > Australians would change to the sole use of the metric system.* > ** > *The term "voluntary" was, therefore, taken to mean that, > through industry-appointed sector committees, each industry would have both > the right and the responsibility to plan and implement conversion in its own > way and to its own schedule. At no stage would any industry or group be > asked to implement a program designed other than by the fullest consultation > and voluntary cooperation with the [Metric Conversion] Board.* > ** > *In addition the term "voluntary" meant that the Metric Conversion Act > 1970 contained no penal clauses and that no new legislation would be enacted > specifically to enforce metrication. Instead, the force of law would be > achieved by amendment of existing State or Federal legislation to > incorporate metric measurements whenever the measurements to be used in > particular activities are specifically indicated. * > > > Paul Trusten, R.Ph. > Public Relations Director > U.S. Metric Association, Inc. > www.metric.org > 3609 Caldera Blvd. Apt. 122 > Midland TX 79707-2872 US > +1(432)528-7724 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
