Ametrica,
The USMA Listserver is a forum on metrication, not an executive body for its
enforcement.
I think you are confusing freedom of speech with enforcement. Perhaps this is
why the U.S. Constitution was crafted to divide power among three branches of
government:, to separate discourse from enforcement. The legislatures are
deliberative bodies. They give voice to both supporters and opponents of an
idea, and then hold votes to arrive (or not arrive) at a plan. But. once a plan
is approved, and then endorsed by the executive, the process must be carried
out with total unity. In Constitutional terms, once the Congress has fixed the
standard of weights and measures (Article I, Sec.8) and gives the go-ahead for
the changeover, all else folllows. Metrication is like the central nervous
system. It starts in the brain.
The 1970s U.S. Metric Board (USMB)was a toothless and divided body. It was
born of watered-down legislation, was premised upon a vague mission
("coordinate the increasing use of the metric system) and it died due to a
lack of national leadership on metrication and also due to disunity from
within. I certainly agree with you that there should be no anti-metric members
on the USMB. To appoint such people to that board is absurd. But to include
opposing views in a discussion group is just that: to allow free speech, and
not necessarily to endorse the contents of the speech.
I have been a subscriber to the USMA Listserver since 1997. It has been one of
the most useful tools I've had for advancing the national goal of U.S.
metrication. As a private citizen, as editor of USMA's newsletter Metric
Today, and now as the organization's public relations director, I could not
have done without the list. It has been a very rich source of both background
information and late-breaking news on metric that has helped supply the
newsletter with articles of interest, and it has been an invaluable source for
keeping USMA and its members welcome in the circles of government and industry
that will make metrication a fact in America. In that spirit, our Web site has
been honored with a place on the International Bureau of Weights and Measures'
list of "useful links," and has made USMA a primary metric source for
journalists across the country. Over the years, the list has given voice to
the opposition, but almost all of that opposition was of the disruptive
variety. On a few occasions, we have had to ban some subscribers who were
nothing less than would-be saboteurs.
I believe that one of the worst images USMA could project is that of a
monolithic insurgency bent upon squelching debate and acting with a kind of
brute force. Given the sight of such a group, U.S. industry would run the other
way. In the Australian government booklet Metrication In Australia, the point
is rammed home that metrication is a complex event, requiring the assent of
many different sectors of a society. Using this approach, Australia succeeded
brilliantly in metricating itself at every level. I know, because I visited
that country in 2007 and saw it for myself, right down to kilonewtons of force
on a sewer cover and 700-gram portions of steak in a restaurant. To accomplish
that change required the widest possible cooperation among indusry, academia,
goverment, and the communications media. The booklet noted that no penalties
were established to enforce metrication. Everybody measures things, so once the
decision was made to go metric, there was little to impede the process, because
the path had been well designed. But the path requires talk. If we are to do
this thing, we have to talk to each other.
The best outline for U.S. metrication I have seen came in the form of the cover
letter on the 1971 report to the Congress on metric
(http://www.metric.org/laws/metric-study-1968.html) .Now, that's the spirit!
Paul Trusten
Public Relations Director, USMA
Paul,
Can you provide by example where offering the opposition a say on any matter
has actually helped in promoting that particular matter?
Didn't metrication fail in the '70s~80s because the US Metric Board was
required to include persons opposed to metrication?
You don't promote metrication by giving those who oppose your ideals a
voice. If you do, then you guarantee your ideal will NEVER bear fruit. As for
the statement below where ....The Listserver is meant to promote communication
between USMA members and others interested in metrication, I would take it to
mean something quite different.
Persons opposed to metrication are not interested in metrication. The whole
concept of the existence of the USMA is to PROMOTE metrication. If you allow
those who oppose metrication to be apart of your group (even under the false
belief that they will change their beliefs) your are assuring its failure.
I believe the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:30 apply to this situation:
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me
scatters.
Think of how these words apply to the issue at hand. If the people whom you
allow to be apart of your group do not back you 100 % then your goals will
fail. Case and point; the fate of the US Metric Board.
In order for the Listserver to be successful and meet its goal, it must
only contain members who support metrication, otherwise metrication will
continue to fail and people like your self will see your frustrations increase.
Discussions and debates should be tailored to finding ways to formulate a
workable plan that can be presented to the government in the name of the USMA.
I've have yet to see anything even close to this happening. By allowing those
with opposing viewpoints, you have caused the potential supporters of
metrication to scatter, not gather. The result is a failure of the nation to
metricate.
Metrication needs strong leadership and that only comes from surrounding
yourself with true and loyal supporters. If you really want to see metrication
happen in the US you will do what it takes to assure the USMA is a group of
supporters. Otherwise you might as well give up and concede defeat.
Opposing viewpoints may be an excellent source of lively discussion, but it
is a terrible source for promoting metrication. The opposition is using you to
divide your efforts and conquer you. It is up to you as an officer in the USMA
to determine if that is in the USMA's best interests.
Truthfully, I doubt you will do what is right and continue along the wrong
path. So, don't be surprised when your frustration with going nowhere
increases. Actually, I think it is somewhat exciting to watch the metric world
progress at America's expense. Maybe helping keep the metric system out of the
US isn't such a bad thing, if it gives other the power to move ahead.
Ametrica
[USMA:47463] Purpose of USMA Listserver (was Re: Re: Bespoke tailoring)
Paul Trusten
Mon, 31 May 2010 21:56:03 -0700
Ametrica,
The description of the USMA Listserver is stated on our Web site at
www.metric.org/listserver.htm , in part, as follows:
The Listserver is meant to promote communication between USMA members and
others interested in metrication. The subscribers alone determine the volume
and content of messages.
I would interpret this to mean that, since metrication is a measurement issue,
any discussion of related measurement issues is welcome. While the majority of
subscribers to our Listserver support U.S. metrication, opposing viewpoints are
always welcome. Indeed, opposing viewpoints are excellent sources of lively
discussion of the issue.
Paul Trusten, R.Ph.
Public Relations Director
U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
[email protected]
www.metric.org
www.twitter.com/usmetric
+1(432)528-7724
, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com for more
metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected] or
to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to:
http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
