David and Paul, Let's work on *both* initiatives!
1. Amendment of the Federal FPLA to permit metric-only labeling, and 2. Achievement of Unanimous State Adoption of the UPLR, which *already* permits metric-only labeling on many items. North Dakota is the *only* state responding "NO" to adopting the UPLR in 2013 and in 2014 according to NIST. Why has North Dakota not adopted the UPLR? Are any residents of North Dakota active in advancing metrication? Who is sympathetic to SI? Certain STEM teachers? Are they, or who otherwise, is willing to help persuade North Dakota to adopt the UPLR? Unanimous adoption of the UPLR would be a persuasive tool for promoting metric-only labeling at the Federel Level! Eugene Mechtly ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of [email protected] [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:54 AM To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:53271] Re: Hawaii and Oregon Mr Trusten. I understand your point, however, when Plan A fails, one can either give up and take comfort in the fact that since Plan A is the best approach, no other plan is worthy, or one could resort to Plan B or Plan C all the way to Plan Z if that is what it takes. What if no slave ever protested? Ending slavery was a state-by-state solution to a federal issue. What if no lesbian or gay person ever sought equal rights? Gay rights is a state-by-state solution to a federal issue. What if no person being burned at the stake every spoke out saying "I am not a witch"? Yes, I agree that a federal approach is the best plan, but that is not working despite all our efforts. A state-by-state approach it certainly not the best approach, but I think it is much better than doing nothing; at least we could be a squeaky wheel that gets the grease. David Pearl MetricPioneer.com 503-428-4917 ----- Message from [email protected] --------- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:21:47 -0500 From: Paul Trusten <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: [USMA:53268] Re: Hawaii and Oregon To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > David, > > I am grateful for your zealous enthusiasm for U.S. metrication. > There are not enough of you. We are fighting an uphill battle in > terms of public relations because of a dearth of national leadership > on the subject and the stubborn anti-metric prejudice across the > country, and we need all good voices to speak for our goal. We need > YOU! > > However, I cannot bring myself to write to my representatives here > in Texas and urge them to support a plan similar to Hawaii's HB 36. > It is certainly not because I do not support metrication, because I > surely do. It is because metrication must be a national process, > like issuing currency. That is why the authors of our Constitution > sought to grant the power over measurement and money to the > Congress, so it could be applied for all purposes within every part > of the country, not only with each level of government, but also > within each sector of the society. > > Our quest for one U.S. standard of measurement includes UNIFORMITY > of measurement. If Hawaii and Oregon pretend to adopt their own > systems of measurement, their laws may very easily be struck down on > constitutional grounds, and from a practical standpoint, I say > rightly so. I was exciting about the Hawaii bill because, it being > an island state, metrication might succeed in some respects. Still, > non-physical commerce still has to occur between Hawaii and the rest > of the country, and And, how does Oregon go metric when California > does not? Not only does a patchwork of metric and non-metric states > disrupt the economy, but it would also add to the pre-existing > public resentment over yet another half-hearted attempt to > metricate. We experienced that on a small scale with the debacle > over voluntary metrication of highway design in the 2000s. I don't > think people would want to engage in that again, and on the even > higher scale by the intrastate use of metric for all purposes. > > Yes, I know that we are all experiencing a lot of frustration, and > our instinct is to do "something." State metrication may only be > seen as a protest vote of sorts. I may be wrong--who knows what will > transpire in life and politics---but I don't think we can metricate > by local protest, but only by national action. It's just in the > nature of measurement: everybody measures. > > > > Paul Trusten, Registered Pharmacist > Vice President and Public Relations Director > U.S. Metric Association, Inc. > Midland, Texas, USA > +1(432)528-7724 > www.metric.org > [email protected] > > > On Sep 16, 2013, at 14:42, [email protected] wrote: > >> I met with Representative Kevin Cameron this morning who wrote a >> note authorizing Oregon Legislative Counsel to introduce >> legislation to the Oregon House in the 2015 Session. I spoke with >> Legislative Counsel Dexter A. Johnson and handed him a copy of >> Hawaii HB 36. Dexter will write up this Oregon legislation that I >> introduce today based on Hawaii HB 36 but modified for Oregon with >> a 2020 date (instead of 2018 for Hawaii). I strongly urge every >> recipient of this email to do the same thing in your state; just >> arrange a meeting with your government representative and do what I >> did. It is not so difficult. Let's try to complete our metrication >> state by state along with all the other methods we have been trying >> for these so many years. Remember that the United States just needs >> to complete metrication; we are not starting from scratch here. If >> you think that you cannot do this, think again. >> >> David Pearl MetricPioneer.com 503-428-4917 >> ----- End message from [email protected] -----
