Guest Blog from the UK Metric Association on Trade with the United States

A few weeks ago the chairman of the United Kingdom Metric Association (UKMA) asked me if I’d be willing to write a blog post on U.S.-U.K. trade. I would have been happy to—if I had more than a superficial understanding of the details. So instead (and since I figured he knew far more about the situation than I do) I asked him if he’d be willing to share his thoughts through my blog. He consented and what appears below are his words. This has also been posted on the Metric Views site at http://metricviews.org.uk/2013/03/will-eu-us-trade-agreement-bring-in-metric-only-labelling-in-the-us/. I thank him for sharing his thoughts with us. To visit the UK Metric Association, go to http://ukma.org.uk/.

Please note: “Notice to stakeholders: public session of the EU-US High Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum in Washington, D.C. – 10-11 April 2013.”  If interested and in the area, you might want to attend since it relates to this blog. For more information, go to http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/international/cooperating-governments/usa/jobs-growth/index_en.htm.

Will EU-US trade agreement bring in metric-only labelling in the US?

 A key point of President Obama’s State of the Union address on 13 February was the proposed EU – US trade agreement, which has been under preliminary discussion for the past year . (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/13/state -of-the -union -free -trade – europe). As this agreement is supposed to remove regulatory barriers to trade, there should now be a serious opportunity to remove the US ban on metric-only labelling of most packages.

The problem is that the EU and the US have conflicting labelling requirements.

The EU’s Units of Measurement Directive requires metric labelling of packages, but following lobbying from both American and European exporters, an amendment in 2009 permitted a “supplementary indication” in non – metric units, provided that the supplementary indication was no more prominent than the legal, metric indication. Thus, the metric quantity is mandatory, but the non – metric is optional (and usually omitted except in the UK).

However, under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, the US requires that goods that are regulated at the federal level (i.e. most foodstuffs and some household goods) must be labelled with both metric and US Customary measurement units. (US Customary is similar to British “imperial” for mass (weight) and length, but differs for volume). Individual States may allow metric-only labelling for the minority of goods regulated at the State level, and all except Alabama and New York have done so.

The one-sided result is that, as far as measurement units are concerned, US packaging and labelling is accepted in the EU, but EU packaging and labelling may not be accepted in the US. Consequently, any European exporter is faced with the choice of either (a) establishing a separate production line for export goods or (b) dual labelling all goods so that they can be distributed to either the home or the US market.

The reasoning behind the 2009 amendment to the EU Directive was that, if the amendment had not been agreed, exporters would have had to produce separate packaging for the two separate markets. It was claimed that this would be a significant additional business cost and hence a non-tariff  barrier to trade, which would be illegal under the rules of the World Trade Organisation.  Rather than insisting on an immediate reciprocal concession from the US, the European Commission decided, as a gesture of good will, to concede the point in the hope that the US Congress would relent and allow labelling that was legal in the EU to be imported into the US. So far, however, this has not happened as it is opposed by powerful industrial interests that are influential in Congress.  The ostensible  – and illogical – basis for their opposition, is that if metric-only labelling were allowed, manufacturers would have to change their package sizes to rounded metric quantities – e.g. 500 g rather than 1 pound (454 g), and this would entail major investment in packaging machinery. Since there would obviously be no such requirement, one can only conclude that the real basis of the opposition is protectionist.

The significance of all this for metric advocates on both sides of the Atlantic is this.  If metric-only labelling were permitted in the US, then it would be possible for European manufacturers to dispense with supplementary indications completely.  This would be particularly beneficial in the UK, where the ubiquitous presence of imperial units is a constant drag on adapting to metric units, as well as being a reminder that the process of metrication – begun 48 years ago – is still far from completion.  In the US the increasing presence of metric-only labelling would provide an incentive for American consumers to visualise and familiarise themselves with the metric units that they may have touched on at school but have long forgotten.

There are of course many other aspects of package labelling (such as specifying chemical contents and nutritional information) that may need to be resolved in the forthcoming talks, but metric-only labelling would be an easy win that it should be possible for the parties to agree.

© 2013  UK Metric Association

“We Buy Metric Gold…Other Systems Need Not Apply”

Throughout history, one of the reasons that some have resisted standardization of measurements systems has been the potential to cheat others out of their money. Going back to the days before the almost unilateral adoption of the metric system in all but three countries (the United States, Burma and Liberia, cough, cough) having a plethora of measurement systems meant confusion abounded and merchants realized that there was profit to be made out of that confusion.

While this certainly was true when various measurements had differing names, as in perhaps my “merkel” was the same as your “ibitz,” however, in other situations my inch and your inch might not be the same amount even though we were both using the same word—certainly confusing. Merchants routinely took advantage of people’s lack of understanding of these measurement systems to give them less than they thought they were paying for. In fact, some buyers carried around their own calibrated weights just to ensure others weren’t taking advantage of them. Remember, early weight systems relied on balance scales, unlike today. It’s also not an accident that the “scales of justice” refer to just such a trust being upheld.

Unfortunately, our U.S. customary units continue to perplex. Let us consider the ounce. As I’ve gone around talking to people about the project, one of the things that I’ve asked them is “How many ounces do we have?” At first, some people look at me quizzically, then I go on to hopefully illuminate that in the United States we currently have two different ounces: the avoirdupois and the Troy. The avoirdupois ounce is the one that we use on a routine basis. However, even this is complicated because the avoirdupois ounce represents both a weight (16 ounces in a pound) and a volumetric (8 ounces in a cup) measurement. (By the way, I’ve come across some really horrendous pronunciations of avoirdupois, including the Merriam-Webster online dictionary—which surprised me. Having taken some French in college, the pronunciation that I use can be found at this link http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=avoirdupois.)

Most people use the avoirdupois ounce every day of their lives without realizing that that’s what they’re doing. Now let’s move on to the Troy ounce. It is a measurement that is used almost exclusively for weighing precious metals. So, for all those folks who have responded to the “We buy gold” come-ons, how do they know they’re getting the right amount of money if they don’t even understand the measurement system being used?

So, here’s how it breaks out:

1 Avoirdupois Ounces equals to 0.911458333452 Troy Ounces (from this site http://www.unitsconversion.com.ar/)

So the Troy ounce is actually slightly less than avoirdupois ounce.

However, a gram is a gram is a gram. So if we all go metric we get out of all this ridiculous “which ounce are we talking about?” business and then you just have to worry how accurate this guy’s (or gal’s) scale is.

If it were me in this gold-selling situation, I’d insist that the measurement be in grams (most scales can switch back and forth) and compare a couple of different people’s scales. (The right kind, of course. Your kitchen scale is not precise enough for this task.) Yes, they should be calibrated but when was it last done on that scale? And while you might not think a gram is that much when you’re weighing flour in your kitchen, when we’re talking gold, we’re talking about $50 a gram.

Sometimes what you don’t know can hurt you—and not just financially.

Linda

How I Feel About Comments On My Blog

Three words: I love them.

This blog is all about my thoughts and opinions regarding my project and the adoption of the metric system in the United States. I’m happy to share those thoughts with anyone who might care to read this blog. Hopefully, I’m occasionally interesting or informative.

I’m also happy to hear what other people have to say for several reasons:

1) I’m one person. As broadminded as I try to be, I can’t anticipate everyone’s opinions and it’s only if I listen to their thoughts that I can take them into account as I move forward.

2) I learn new, relevant information. As much as I have learned about the metric system and its history there is always more out there. I hope to continue to absorb and incorporate new information into the project until such time as it is no longer possible. The project itself has an end date but who knows what will happen after that. Too soon to tell.

3) They give you, the reader, an opportunity to hear perspectives other than mine. Unfortunately, you have to click on the comments section to view them. I hope you take an opportunity to view them if you have the time.

4) Yeah, I can view stats for this blog and see how many people have looked at it and how many pages they saw. While interesting, that’s pretty dry stuff. By reading comments I get to know about the other people who are out there and who are interested in this topic and what’s on their minds. It also supplies more of a chance for dialogue. That’s always a good thing as long as both people are listening.

5) It means I’ve engaged you at some level. When I make presentations, I always hope for a question. I don’t even care if it is a negative question. Just one question means that everything I’ve said didn’t just go in one ear and out the other. If you post a comment, I feel the same way, like I’m not talking into thin air. Thanks!

Approvals

I get to approve comments for this blog and it will be my policy to approve all of them unless they’re spam, libelous, downright offensive or have some other major issue. Comments don’t have to agree with my perspectives but they need to be courteous.

Response to comments

I read somewhere that blog posters should respond to their comments. Well, if I respond to all of them, it would feel like I have to get the last word in. That’s not how I feel at all. I will—and have—let comments stand on their own. It’s not that I don’t care but I don’t feel like I always have to insert myself.

I did respond to one comment when the person continually used “we” throughout his remarks. I tried to point out (nicely) that if by “we” he meant Americans, that I am one so he shouldn’t assume that I was an outsider and I let him know that as one of the “we” he referenced he didn’t include my opinions.

So, if you want to post, have the guts to say “I” unless you are a bona fide representative of a larger organization. Otherwise, you’re just making assertions that your views are held by a wider audience. They might be but unless ordained, don’t pretend you represent those folks.

I am happy that I’m coming in contact with likeminded people through this blog and it helps encourage me to continue on this path. I do have a full-time day job as a writer and organizational communication specialist so this really is labor of love and an effort to help us move us forward on this important issue.

That said, I fully recognize that I “stand on the shoulders of giants” and I’m thankful for all of the other people who are devoting their time and energy to this issue as well. Where I come from, (a national science laboratory) the phrase of “critical mass” means something very specific in the physics arena. In this case, I’m hoping a critical mass of us can move the trajectory of an entire country in a more positive direction. And from what I can tell, the right people seem to be coalescing around this important issue. That’s a very positive sign.

Thanks for your continued interest as I move along this path.

Linda

Wrapping My Mind Around U.S. Metric History

When I decided to document U.S. metric history, I knew it would be a huge undertaking for me personally but I also hoped that it could have a positive impact on a wider world. Since I have taken on huge projects before and they’ve turned out quite well that aspect didn’t scare me.

What has turned out to be daunting has been trying to assimilate the vast amount of research that I’ve had to collect and go through. I now have a broad mental outline of the entire history of the metric system from prehistory to today but I will need to continue to refine the story as I deal with precise plot points in its history.

Interestingly, information has come from different sources depending on the time period. Ancient and more recent history on measurement systems has mostly come from books:

The Story of Measurement, Andrew Robinson (217 pages)
The Archaeology of Measurement: Comprehending Heaven, Earth and Time in Ancient Societies, Edited by Iain Morley and Colin Renfrew (236 pages)
The Measure of All Things: The Seven-Year Odyssey and Hidden Error That Transformed the World, Ken Alder (350 pages)
A Measure of All Things: The Story of Man and Measurement, Ian Whitelaw (157 pages)
Smoot’s Ear: The Measure of Humanity, Robert Tavernor (192 pages)
World in the Balance: The Historic Quest for an Absolute System of Measurement, Robert P. Crease (276 pages)
Measuring America: How an Untamed Wilderness Shaped the United States and Fulfilled the Promise of Democracy, Andro Linklater (263 pages)

Of course, the definitive piece for the U.S. history of the metric system up until 1968 is:

The History of the Metric System Controversy in the United States. (“This document reviews the debate between 1790 and 1968 on the question of the adoption of the metric system of weights and measures by the United States.”) U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. (268 pages)
This report has made up the bulk of my research from our country’s early history through the last attempted implementation with the Metric Conversion Act of 1975.

Other sources include newspaper and magazine articles. The oldest newspaper article I have is one from the New York Times and is dated 1877. It is titled “The Metric System” and begins with the lines:

Nothing more clumsy and inconvenient could well be devised than the dozen or more mensuration tables of arithmetic, which are a terror to childhood and almost impossible to retain in memory for life. There are in use lines, barleycorn’s, inches, nails, ells, quarts, quarters, gallons, pecks, bushels, coombs, minims, noggins, kilderkins, firkins, barrels, butts, pipes, puncheons, tierees, hogsheads, seruples, carats, grains, drams, pennyweights, and many others.

(Apparently things were even more confused back then than they are now but we still didn’t have the wherewithal to change.)

I also have information from sources such as the L.A. Times and countless magazines. In the age of the Internet, I also have my fair share of information from Wikipedia and various blogs. My guesstimate of the full amount of books and other information that I have for this project is about 7,000 pages but that’s probably conservative. And new information is coming in all the time.

In fact, one of my most recent acquisitions is a book on the implementation of the metric system in Australia (which I think I have indicated in the past is probably the most metric of any of the previous British Empire entities) titled For Good Measure: The Making of Australia’s Measurement System. (It was sent to me on faith alone by a gentleman there who advanced the book to me prior to receiving payment for it. Thanks Peter.)

Ultimately, what I ended up doing was dictating relevant passages into a Word document that will now form the backbone for my outline. Even this is an extensive document but at least it’s providing me with a jumping-off point. It was the only way I could figure out how start to pare down so much information into something that was usable.

You have to start somewhere, even if it’s the most tedious thing in the world to do.

Linda

Is It Time to Embrace the Enlightenment of the Metric System in the U.S?

As I studied the history of the metric system in the United States, I found I had to understand and put into context the history of measurement itself.

Try building something like this without standard measures. (Photo by Nina Aldin Thune)

While the metric system we know today began around 1790, no one knows the true age of measurement systems since they began prior to written history. Based on archeological evidence, some think measurement standards advanced to allow the construction of special buildings to the “powers that be” but surely, travel and trade had a hand as well though evidence is less readily available. However, thousands of years later, it’s the buildings (such as the pyramids) that still stand, testaments to the precision and consistency it took to build them.

And while measurement systems have developed throughout human history, I think one of the important things to recognize is that the metric system grew out of a global social movement called “The Enlightenment” or the “Age of Reason.” It was truly a historic advance that has led us (for better or worse) to our modern world.

While I’m sure there are many who could write more gracefully on this topic,­ the Enlightenment represented a move away from superstition (as in it is important to be indoors at dusk to avoid the evil vapors) and toward skepticism and the development of the scientific method. (Just imagine a world in which cell phones and demons that make milk go sour sit next to each other on the philosophical shelf.)

And while the United Kingdom, France and the United States all considered moving toward a metric system at this same 1790 juncture, only France was able to make real progress while the U.S. and U.K. continue to struggle with the metric system to this day.

The reason France was able to advance was probably three-fold:

1. It had a tradition of proudly of leading the way (much as we think of the United States today);
2. It had a huge proliferation of French measurements (an estimated 250,000 of them) that made it, perhaps, the most unwieldy system in the world; and
3. It had an opportunity to throw away the past in the wake of the French revolution.

Of course, we took some advantage of our own revolution to introduce metric money or the 10 dimes and 100 pennies we have in our current dollar (for which Thomas Jefferson was responsible). Still, it was apparently our rapid expansion and efforts to “get the job done” in our early history and involvement of those who were less about enlightened thinking and more about speed and greed that laid the foundation for our current metric-hampered society. [see note]

I still marvel that a country as advanced as our own, that bases its progress on scientific advancements (which uses the metric system), and on international trade (which needs the metric system), and seeks the best education for our children (yeah, we haven’t done the best job here but I’m pretty sure no one is sitting around saying, “Gee I hope our children grow up stupid.”) still can’t pull together the political will to move metric system adoption forward.

There are positive rumblings, however, with a recent White House petition and Hawaii (last to become a state and therefore less entrenched in our reluctant past?) pointing toward metric reform (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2013/bills/HB36_.HTM).

The latter states, in part:

The purpose of this Act is to establish the metric system as the official system of measurement in the State and to require its use in public documents, public records, and public school instructional materials beginning in 2018.

It also highlights one of the issues we’ll have to confront in a move to the metric system: state’s rights. When we drew together to defend against the British, we became the United STATES of America rather than the UNITED States of America. It forms the some of our basic political ideology and haunts us at the same time.

Still, Hawaii is breaking out ahead and sets a shining example for the rest of us. The state deserves our support and, hopefully, sheds light on a future where the rest of us can follow both at a state level as well as nationally.

Mahalo,

Linda

Note: Measuring America: How an Untamed Wilderness Shaped the United States and Fulfilled the Promise of Democracy. Andro Linklater. 2002. Walker Publishing Company, Inc, New York.

U.S. Sets a Bad International Example—Metrically Speaking

I’ve already mentioned in this blog that I believe that the United States is not only holding itself back with regard to its lack of metric adoption but we serve as a bad example for our sister countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada. While both of the aforementioned countries use the metric system much more in daily life than we do here, the changeover has been less than complete in both. When I asked a metric authority in the U.K. why the conversion was less than 100 percent in his country, the basic answer was “Because you don’t use it.” As I heard the words escape his mouth, I not only knew he was right but I was embarrassed as an American that our country could have had such a backward influence.

Well, we’re apparently striking again.

Newspaper reports started coming out earlier this month saying that there is a move afoot to put a stronger emphasis on imperial units in the U.K. primary school system. [see notes below]

One article included the subhead: “Education minister Elizabeth Truss has announced that the new primary curriculum will put more focus on imperial measurements.”  [note A]

When I contacted the head of the U.K. Metric Association, he indicated that “The current position is that metric is the primary system in schools but a few imperial equivalents are taught to help children with shopping etc. The Department of Education has said there would be no significant change.”

Thank goodness.

But still, any shift toward imperial from metric units represents a backslide as far as I’m concerned. This wouldn’t even likely be under discussion if we, as a nation, had moved to a metric system 200 years ago when Thomas Jefferson wanted us to!

While internationally people’s gaze have started to shift from the United States to China as the world’s economic superpower (Yep, you read that right. [note B]) it is quite clear that the U.K. relies on us for revenue from exports as in “The USA has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world and is Britain’s largest single export market.” [note C]

As long as the U.K. depends on us for revenue and we continue to ignorantly stumble forward with an antiquated measurement system more backsliding is possible elsewhere in the world. This is, at least until we’re no longer a global economic superpower.

Would converting to the metric system help us economically in the world marketplace? I’m not qualified to answer that question but it seems likely to me that a complete changeover to the metric system might help us better compete.

Do we really want to find out too late that it was something we should have done? Why would we even want to take that chance?

Linda

Notes:

A: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jan/14/imperial-measurements-maths-lessons

B: http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/07/13/china-seen-overtaking-us-as-global-superpower/

C: http://www.ukti.gov.uk/export/countries/americas/northamerica/unitedstates.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259314/Imperial-weights-measures-classroom-radical-shake-maths-lessons.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/9790670/Modern-schools-must-teach-imperial-measurements.html

On Sending Mixed Measurements

As I’ve gone forward with my research on the metric system, I’ve come across more twists and turns than I could have ever expected. I’d always thought of numbers as a dispassionate construct used to describe the world and relativistic amounts. I’ve never been very good where math was concerned and so I’ve always tried to internalize what a friend (who was a mathematician) told me back when I was in college: “Numbers just show the relationships between things.”

On one level, say as in the fact that 26 is a larger number than 18, and it’s larger by 8 units, that makes sense to me, but when I think about the sorts of formulas scientists use to express unseen relationships in thing like quantum mechanics   (the formula for the uncertainty principle), I’m glad someone else can do that in their heads, because I sure can’t.

One concept that’s starting to bubble down into my consciousness is the idea of mixed measures as in 5’7” tall and 1.5 hours long. I’m no expert, but on the surface (to me at least) such mixing presents problems. Let’s set aside that I just expressed my height in U.S. Customary Units and delve into the real issues I see: 1) I just used a fraction of the foot measurement and a foot measurement together, and 2) if I wanted to further manipulate these numbers I’d need to perform a conversion. (Why introduce a step if you don’t have to?)

Note: I’ll continue to use U.S. measures to help my fellow Americans more easily follow my thoughts though the overall concepts apply elsewhere as well. I’m also using numerals throughout rather than follow Associated-Press style and spelling out numbers smaller than 10—for consistency’s sake.

Why not just say I’m 91” tall?  Because that’s not our habit, but perhaps it should be.

It’s tough to express 7 inches in addition to the 5 feet because it doesn’t represent a nice decimal unit as in the metric system. The original height numbers mashes together units that somewhat relate to each other (after all, an inch is a subunit of a foot) but it doesn’t work readily since an inch represents 1/12 of the foot unit and not 1/10 of a unit as in the metric system (in that case you could use “.” followed by the remainder).

Now let me progress to the 1.5 hours. Why not just say 90 minutes? Some do.

So now let’s say (for some reason) that I knew of a movie that contained a swear word every 3 minutes and I wanted to figure out how many swear words there were in the 1.5 hour movie.

Of course, first I’d have to convert the 1.5 hour-long movie in only minutes to get my answer. (No, I won’t do the math. This is a hypothetical example.)

So, what I’m suggesting is that mixing units for the purpose of describing things might make them more complicated than necessary. Or, put another way, perhaps it would be best to use units that avoid fractions of any sort and rely solely on integers. (That was a word I hadn’t used since elementary school, but it just means whole numbers.)

As we move toward metric system adoption (my sincerest hope) it’s probably good to think about using grams as a measure and not fractions of kilograms or (God forbid) a mixed measure like 1 kg, 25g, as we currently use for things like height.

If we’re going to adopt new ways of doing things, let’s at least adopt them a way that makes the most sense and doesn’t introduce new problems.

But, even if one person decides on a measure in centimeters while avoiding fractions and another uses millimeters—and also avoids fractions—at least the conversions would be easier.

A case could be made (and has been) to avoid any measures that would result in fractions (as in measure everything in millimeters, milliliters and grams for us ordinary folks [while scientists work in different realms]) But if the above discussion has me swimming in deep philosophical water, I’m not well versed enough to argue that case and could possibly drown.

Discuss among yourselves……

Linda

Words on a Word

And the word is: mumpsimus.

That’s right, mumpsimus. If you are pro-metric, you REALLY need to learn this word. You’ll find a few slightly different definitions on the Web, but the one I like best is the one in the wikitionary:

“A person who obstinately adheres to old ways in spite of clear
evidence that they are wrong; an
ignorant and bigoted opponent of reform.”

 (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mumpsimus Includes a pronunciation aid.)

I just came across this word for the first time (I think) earlier this week since I subscribe to the Oxford English Dictionary’s “Word of the Day.” It arrived Wednesday. Should have had a pretty bow on it.

As soon as I saw what it meant I was thrilled. A perfect word to describe those who understand the metric system and still don’t believe we should adopt it as a country.

Granted, there are lots of folks who don’t really understand what happened to the metric system in the United States and why the impact of our getting behind the curve on this issue is so egregious. I don’t blame them. You don’t know what you don’t know. I’m also relatively sure that once they realize what’s happened, they’ll want to do something about it.

It’s the people who understand that they are holding themselves and others back and don’t care (or actually like being obstinate) who deserve the word mumpsimus.

Mumpsimus.  Mumpsimus. Mumpsimus.

(I’ll readily admit that I had to practice to get it right…Totally worth it.)

Another thing I really love about it is that since it is mostly unknown, it could be disarming under the right circumstances.

Witness the following dialogue that is taking place in my head:

Anti-metric individual: “There’s no reason we should abandon a measurement system that’s served us for more than 200 years.” [Or feel free to insert the anti-metric reference of your choice.]

You: “So, I take it you’re a mumpsimus?” [I’ve seen it listed variously as both a noun and a verb.]

Anti-metric individual: [You should at least get a moment of stunned silence.]

Here’s why: odds of knowing the word—almost nil. If the person has any intelligence he or she will be hesitant to either agree or disagree with your supposition since it’s an unknown. And even any if individuals on the other side of the argument know what the word means, I conjecture that rare is the person who would want to admit to being “ignorant and bigoted.”

Of course, the REALLY ignorant and bigoted people will most likely continue with their anti-metric rant since they weren’t really listening to you anyway: that’s how they got ignorant and bigoted in the first place.

I really think the pro-metric movement should embrace this word. It’s perfect for our cause.

It even comes in a giant economy size for your larger anti-metric-type gatherings: mumpsimuses.

Happy wording,

Linda

All A-Twitter

All A-Twitter

I have to say that as soon as I started using Twitter, I really liked it. Very straightforward. You get 140 characters to say what’s going on and if any of it is interesting, people just might listen. When I had my own personal account, I followed more people than followed me.

Once I started my “branded version” I’m STILL following more people than are following me, but it’s a very different sort of interaction.

When I began with it, I’d read that “if you want people to follow you, you should follow them first.” Okay. Seemed reasonable. So, that’s what I started doing. Science, math, film and allied fields made apparant sense.

Unfortunately, when looking up “metric system” within Twitter the sad, frequent thread was (and I’ll go capture some right now) [Boldface was already in these.]

“WEED. Helping Americans learn the metric system. One gram at a time.”

and

“Drugs have taught an entire generation of American kids the metric system.”

There are too many of these types of comments to count. It’s a pathetic situation, in my opinion.

(Yeah, international trade uses the metric system and drugs are an international commodity. So, if you want to buy drugs you usually use the metric system.)

I also see that the also see that the Wall Street Journal (which I’ve been told by the Metric Maven, and another source, is anti-metric) DOES seem to be reveling in anti-metric sentiments. It tweeted (11/26/12) its story from November 24, “The metric system thwarts a new generation of American chefs“ with a link to its story titled “Cooking a Poundcake in a Metric Oven Is No Easy Task.”

To be fair, the article does capture the current situation when it relates: “The keepers of America’s metric flame are the roughly 300 members of the U.S. Metric Association. By most measures, their efforts in recent decades have failed.”

True enough about past efforts.

Though, I could suppose one could question the reason for running the article in the first place. Was Thanksgiving really a reason to point out the status of the metric system?), let alone retweeting it. Was it its most stellar piece of journalism that it needed to make sure it was not overlooked? I suspect it had hundreds of other articles it could have featured. (To view the original article, go to http://t.co/VJw8bisA)

It would also be easy to say that the piece was meant to attempt to make pro-metric folks look like eccentrics who really don’t know what the real world is like.

I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

Perhaps someone is interested enough to write justin.scheck@wsj.com to get his thoughts on the matter. I’d be interested in the answer.

But I digress.

What does make me happy is that there are so many organizations out there trying to improve our children’s education. Thank goodness. While most studies show that American students now lag behind those of other nations when it comes to math and science (this one posted on the American Psychological Association, http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar05/scores.aspx for math shows us in 24^th  place) means there is much room for improvement.

Unfortunately, I hit a ceiling with Twitter this week because it only allows me to follow 1,000 people. That makes me sad because I can only follow more people if more people follow me or I drop some of the ones I follow currently. I was pretty generous in the beginning, but now I’m going to need to cull folks so I can hold on to the more important ones. If I “unfollow” you, don’t take offense. Know that my heart is in the right place.

Of course, I would have more followers if I’d kept all those scantly-clad women with statistics like: Tweets: 0, Following: 463, Followers: 30. Thank you, no.

Two things kind of surprised me as I started down this road. First, there is a lot of interest on the subject of the metric system in England. The U.K. Metric Association started retweeting me right away. Frankly, I thought our metric status would be of interest mostly to us U.S.-types.

Second, about half of the people following me found me first. There are lots of ways to find people to follow, but somehow these folks approached me.

I thank everyone who follows this on Twitter and while my ability to post things (I do try to make them somewhat interesting after all. Drivel is easy. Interesting is harder.) waxes and wanes depending on workload. I’m learning interesting things from it.

Thanks for your kind attention. (It would have taken more than 500 tweets to relate all that!)
Linda

Be Careful What You Wish For

When I finally made up my mind to pursue making a documentary on the history of the metric system in the United States, I had a sense there was an underlying current of interest. After all, the subject of using the metric system in this country pretty much died when we disbanded the U.S. Metric Board way back in 1982, but I also knew there were other baby boomers who were told it was coming (and became familiar with it in school) but were never quite sure what happened after that.

This 30 years of neglect has meant that there was been no crystallization point for this interest so it’s been left to individuals who feel strongly about it to do what they can in ways that make sense to them. I don’t know that I can become the rallying point for a pro-metric movement, but I sure as heck want to try to raise awareness of this issue within a wider audience and try to move it forward with what skills I have.

Since I started researching, tweeting and blogging, I’ve also become more aware of some of these 21st-century metric pioneers. One person who has been a source of information and inspiration is the Metric Maven (http://themetricmaven.com/). Even though we don’t always see eye-to-eye, at least we’re moving in the same direction. I’ll list some of the other folks in upcoming posts but, right now, I want to turn my attention to something that happened this week before I bore you to death. (Too late?)

I was in the process of updating someone on the project via email when I saw that I gotten 77 hits THAT DAY. (I had previously gotten 84 for the week, and I thought THAT was real progress.) By the time I went to bed the number was 150 and when I woke up the next morning, it was 250. The activity was centered on a post I had written a couple of weeks ago on “Why I like the metric system.” There was also a comment where someone had taken exception to something I had written. I went ahead and approved the comment for posting before I went to work for the day. (You can look at the comments on that page if you are interested in this exchange.)

Apparently, someone under the moniker Metrication  (http://www.reddit.com/user/metrication) had posted the above-mentioned blog on Reddit (http://www.reddit.com/), and it was driving people to this site. By the time the blog reset itself to zero that evening, I had received 463 hits. I received another 50 or so the next day. (Totally skewed the scale for my stats, I can tell you [see below]. Everything else looks puny now, not that I’m complaining.)

Current statistics by week

What this tells me is that people are interested in this subject or my blog wouldn’t have gotten all that attention. And that was for a fairly bland essay. Just imagine what this subject might attract with something that’s actually interesting! It is my sincere hope that over time, and through the documentary, that I’ll have some more interesting things to say. I hope you’ll stay tuned.

So, thanks Metrication for helping confirm that people are interested in my subject matter so the next time a hit a stumbling block, I’ll know I need to power through it to tell what I consider a profoundly interesting and important story.

In related news, I have a meeting on Friday with the person who I hope will be doing my animation. It’s critical to the piece but expensive. How else can I adequately convey that a meter was designed to be 1/10,000,000 of the distance between the North Pole and the equator? A “talking head”? My mantra has always been: “Talking heads are boring.” After more than a couple of seconds, people need to see something else even as the interviewees continue to speak. In some cases, it’s going to be animation to visually illustrate the point they’re verbally making.

They’re really are times when you get what you pay for.

Linda