The First (and Last?) “More Than 1.6 Kilometers Ahead*” Awards go to: “The Simpsons” and Stephen Colbert/”The Late Show With Stephen Colbert”

The first/last 1.6 Kilometer Ahead awards are in the mail to the respective shows.

Almost exactly 40 years ago, the U.S. Metric Board’s funding was pulled under the Reagan Administration. The failure of our last attempt stemmed from weakness in the 1975 metric system legislation and a later Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that said basically (but truthfully), “Nope, United States, you don’t have to do this; it’s VOLUNTARY.” (See below.)

From the Government Accountability Office “Disclaimer.” Yikes!

Guess what happened next…people moved on from this “lost cause” with little need to predict what would ensue during the next four decades.

Today, while most Americans have lost sight of the metric system—except for looking up unit conversions on Google—the National Institute of Standards and Technology (part of the Department of Commerce) did not, and it continues to implement various standards for such things as the Fair Labeling and Packaging Act (enacted in 1967) as commerce, education, and public needs continue to evolve.

I’ve got 10 years and $25,000+ of my own money invested in this project and I am prepared to walk away, but first…a couple of metric system standouts get recognition on my watch.

The two television shows I’ve identified have brought attention to our metric system plight for more than my short decade; these shows helped ensure that the metric system got noticed by including references to them within a humorous context for multiple decades.
And the first (but hopefully not the last) More Than 1.6 Kilometers Ahead awards go to:

#1: The Simpsons

To be clear, I put The Simpsons first due to seniority, not comparable quality or relative relevance. Both shows are incredibly funny and have made vast impacts on American society—although not necessarily in this particular area.

The Simpsons has run for more than 30 years! During that time, there have been countless metric system references: from Bart’s judge-issued restraining order given in meters to the We Do (Stonecutter’s Song) From Season 6, Episode 12: “Homer the Great” at roughly 12 minutes into the episode.

Who can forget such memorable lyrics as:

Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do, we do
Who keeps Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do, we do…

If that weren’t enough, there is the scene that people particularly remember: Grandpa’s rant at the public meeting (From Season 6, episode #18, “A Star is Burns” at about 3:15 minutes in:***)

Marge Simpson: Now, I know you haven’t liked some of my past suggestions like switching to the metric system…

Grandpa Simpson interrupts: The metric system is the tool of the devil. My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that’s the way I likes it.

We Do/Stonecutters’ song

[Sorry to those out of the country. I’m not sure the clips will play for either of these.]

#2: Stephen Colbert/The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (LSSC)

I feel like I need to incorporate Mr. Colbert—from both his Comedy Central days (see the clip below)—and his current work with the fine folks at LSSC.

Stephen Colbert illustrates the really old way to determine a yard in King Henry’s day. https://www.cc.com/video/l00qbc/the-colbert-report-the-metric-system

Excerpt from the above clip:

Now the English makes total sense. A pound is a pound. A hogshead is a hogshead. A yard is the distance between King Henry’s nose to his finger and a gallon is the amount of rain you can catch in a buffalo’s skull. Rock solid

Stephen Colbert, The colbert report, 2007

 I’ve noticed that the LSSC scripts hold wonderful references to not only the metric system but with my Los Alamos National Laboratory background (as a communications specialist, not a scientist), I always perk up when he touches on science stories (because I know the research staff know how to work their “reference magic”), and I know it’s because Mr. Colbert is drawn to it**. What draws him to the metric system? I have no guess. Fingers crossed, maybe I’ll get to ask him someday.

The reason I conceived these awards was due to a recent kilometer reference on LSSC, and I realized that, if I want to acknowledge the metric system contributions of these two television shows, this might be my only opportunity since—if I can’t move the needle on this—if American’s don’t care about this incredibly important topic (based on my decade of research)—it’s time for me to “close up shop” and go home.

I do have an “exit strategy,” but I hope I don’t have to use it.

At least these awards will go out one time.****

Thanks for reading this far.

Stay tuned; more on the horizon very soon.

Linda 

(*) Note: The award’s title is based on the “opposite” of the project’s title. As in More Than a Milebehind/More Than 1.6 Kilometers Ahead.

(**)  I know the history that his deceased father, James William Colbert Jr., was a physician who once worked for the National Institutes of Health.

(***) Thanks to long-time project collaborator, Peter Goodyear, for ensuring I included this non-singing, but very popular reference from The Simpsons.

Because this is where we are, my receipt for the dimensions of the plaques is in inches…sigh

(****) Thanks to Chad at Ortiz Printing in Santa Fe, NM for helping me pull the plaques together.

The Nonfiction Authors Association and the metric system

While I have been a professional writer for more than 40 years (including at General Motors Corp. and for more than 25 years at Los Alamos National Laboratory) on hundreds of nonfiction topics, I have never attempted to publish a nonfiction book before.

So, I have approached this situation as I have other professional endeavors in my life: to research the hell out of it. (It’s been my way and it does pay dividends.)

I had considered the Nonfiction Authors Association (NFAA) in the past but was a bit hesitant due to the cost of membership. It does have a limited, free membership—but it is limited.

Why I decided to take the NFAA leap now

Book publishing has changed rapidly during the last several decades (and within my lifetime). The market for eBooks and what was once considered vanity publishing is now mainstream, and the “ask” on authors is much greater than it once was. For instance, agents and publishers want to know what YOU are willing to do to promote your books and you have to spell it out in your book proposal. (No marketing background? Good luck. You better be a quick study and knowing your nonfiction subject itself won’t help you.) Plus, the competition for the attention of agents and publishers is fierce (as it probably should be). And let’s not forget timing. Many an idea has tanked because the timing wasn’t right.

Given that I’m ramping up for the book America’s Biggest Miscalculation (as promised), I decided to take the plunge and join NFAA at a higher level than free to see what it had to offer—including accessing an online writers’ conference (for not much more than the yearly membership fee) that took place during three days in May.

[Since I’m now paying for all of these efforts out of my retirement pocket, I’ve have had to allocate my funds carefully. (Just so you know. I spend $100/year alone so you don’t have to see advertisements on this blog. I respect you and don’t want to waste your time with ads popping up in ways I can’t control.)]

NFAA has lots to offer. I will also say that Stephanie and her staff are outstanding. [For the record: I paid my money just like anybody else (no quid pro quo), but I am happy to promote people and organizations that I’ve found helpful with no strings attached.]

A metric system podcast?

A subject that came up several times throughout May via NFAA was podcasts. I’ve done lots of interviews so potentially recording one isn’t that big of an issue (I also have a professional AV background, so I know it’s lots and lots of work on the “production” end to do it seamlessly and well) but given the metric system project’s unique footprint, I question the ROI (return on investment) of such an endeavor.

Moving forward, I think my better bet is to try to get interviews on preexisting podcasts and see if I can get away with not having to hire someone to place me in those venues. (But it’s good to know those services are out there.)

One potential podcast that comes to mind is 99% Invisible. I don’t know if it’s considered a “gold standard,” but it sure is fascinating and I might be able to get my foot in the door.

Dear readers: Can you help identify appropriate podcasts for me to reach out to?

Are you aware of other podcasts I should engage with that are based on science or care about “breakthroughs” (even though we stare at this problem every day without seeing it)? If so, please send your ideas to milebehind@gmail.com and help me by telling me why you think it might be a good fit for the project. (I can’t promise I’ll respond individually, but I’ll consider every submission.)

Lots of ideas flowed from the Conference

Frankly, I found talking to folks in the field during NFAA’s “Ask A Professional,” with one-on-one conversations, almost priceless.

Speaking with Jenn T. Grace was amazingly helpful. It’s important that you understand that these conversations don’t necessary lead to sales for the professionals involved (though some will pitch their services—be advised) so they are primarily volunteering to help new book authors and/or make sure they don’t miss a stellar opportunity that might present itself. I consider that a fair exchange.

Not only did Jenn offer insights during our, 15-minute-limited call, but she was kind enough to brainstorm with me for an additional 30+ minutes after the conference was over.
Big kudos to her.

These discussions prompted an astounding number of of ideas for me to mentally absorb, brainstorm about, and then try figure out how to leverage them to further the book project. If I want to do it right (and not piss my time or money away—or yours) I have to think about a lot of things in the right way.

Proof of concept

The thing that dawned on me is that I have to develop a “proof of concept” for the project. Frankly, that should be true for ANYTHING that’s big/important and you want others to buy into.

The problem I’m confronting is: Just how do I get buy in for a concept that basically shut down in this country back in 1982 when the federally appointed U.S. Metric Board dissolved after its funding was pulled under Reagan?

So, this is how I encapsulate my proof of concept for this project at this time*:

“I hope to demonstrate there is enough interest in the United States’ lack of metric system adoption (or there will be once people actually “see” our current mess) to buy a copy of America’s Biggest Miscalculation and make it commercially and financially viable enough for an agent/publisher to favor of THIS project when allocating resources.

Linda Anderman

I’m competing for resources (time, money, attention) so that’s what I need to do—but with your help. None of this works without your help.

Part II of this entry (that I’ll post next week) will include how I view my work on the project’s proof of concept and why I think “Show me, don’t tell me,” is so vital to understanding, well, pretty much anything legitimate, and how important it is to base your work on substantive, verifiable, and external/independent sources.

I hope you’ll sign up for notices of new posts and share this information as you feel appropriate.

The more interest I can show in this subject, the easier it will be to “sell” to the publishing gatekeepers and you can help me in that way, right now. Thanks!

Linda

* 6/12/21 Note: Based on a comment I received after posting, I wanted to better explain what I mean by a “proof of concept” for this project at this phase. (See the big quote above.) I am not questioning the use of the metric system as viable for the U.S. Just whether there might be a large enough, receptive audience to get to the stage mentioned above. This is an initial, but massive step forward.

Disbanding the U.S. Metric Board in 1982: The Sound of a Swan Song

The truth is that our continued use of the English system of measurement was making us an island in a metric sea.

– Gerald Ford, statement upon signing the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 on December 23, 1975

Logo of the U.S. Metric Board

In 1982 President Reagan officially disbanded the 17-member U.S. Metric Board, the government organization charged with “increasing the use” of the metric system in the United States. Reagan did so citing efforts to reduce government spending. Since that time, as a county, we pretty much haven’t looked back.

In July of that same year, the Board issued a Summary Report, or as I like to refer to it, “Would you like a side of bitter with that?”

Clearly most of its members were not happy with the Board’s dissolution, though this was not, according to various sources—including the report—unanimous. The divisiveness within the Board is revealed through various comments it contains. For instance:

Our country holds dear this spirit of individual independence, liberty, justice and freedom of speech. You will notice that the report reflects this spirit…and different views about the metric system.

– Louis F. Polk, chairman, U.S. Metric Board

As if having people on the board who were not in favor of metric adoption wasn’t bad enough, according to the board’s chair, there were other obstacles as well, including no real sense of direction:

The resolution stated, in effect, that the Board must maintain an objective stance on metrication—it can neither advocate nor discourage conversion. It soon became evident that voluntary conversion and the Board’s policy of neutrality were confusing the American people…

– Louis F. Polk, chairman, U.S. Metric Board

While I cannot speak to everything hinted at in the above statement, since I’m looking back 30 years from the outside, I think it’s fair to say that any organization not allowed to take a stand on something it is supposed to help move forward is in deep trouble. No wonder our last major metric system push in this country failed.

The actual 1975 metric adoption act states:

SEC. 3. It is therefore declared that the policy of the United States shall be to coordinate and plan the increasing use of the metric system in the United States and to establish a United States Metric Board to coordinate the voluntary conversion to the metric system.

One of the recommendations in the Board’s Summary Report was that “national policy on metric conversion should be reassessed,” as in “should metric-system adoption be optional or compulsory?”

…determine if voluntary metrication is in this country’s best interests, if complete or partial conversion should be mandated and if we can compete efficiently in domestic and world markets using two systems of measurement.

– U.S. Metric Board Summary Report

On the anti-mandatory-metric-adoption side, the representative of small business stated (and the bolding is NOT mine):

…Small Business supports voluntary metric conversion activities but will vehemently oppose any attempts by the Federal Government or other groups to impose mandatory conversion.

Interestingly, the representative for the construction industry admits his sector would be loath to convert to metric measures (apparently still true today) but would if forced to do so:

As far as my constituency goes…will, under a voluntary approach, be the very last sector to implement conversion to metric measurement—if at all. However, based on my study of progress in the other English-speaking nations and my knowledge of the constructor and designer mentality, I believe that conversion, if mandated with a reasonable schedule, would be virtually a non-event. My industry would adapt very readily, as the hallmark of construction is change, and to us change is an everyday occurrence.

Wrote the representative for business and industry:

I would urge that Congress explicitly set the goal of predominant use of the metric system in the trade and commerce of the United States, and make that a real national commitment by setting a target date…The fact of setting a date will provide the reality required for all sectors of our society to produce effective conversion programs.

Many of the pro-metric representatives expressed hope that progress made toward metric adopt would continue and our country would—eventually—join the rest of the metric-using world:

Tact, patience, and education will erode the anti-metric fortress.

– State and local government representative

Well, it’s been more than 30 years since we disbanded the Board and we’re still buying our gas in gallons, our produce by the pounds and ounces, and measuring in feet and yards. Clearly, the voluntary approach to metrication did not work in this country and a stronger approach needs to be taken in future.

It will require a political will in the form of a grassroots effort to get the metric system implemented in this country. That will take some small amount of effort on the part of a large number of people—and that  will take knowledge that there is a problem to begin with—something we’ve lost sight of during the last three decades.

I think the Board’s chairman rightly summed up the situation in his own essay when he pointed out:

Centuries ago, it was inconvenient for the Western World to change from Roman numerals to the present Arabic figures. Thank heavens that early world persevered and progress prevailed.

It’s time to let go of our “Roman numerals”—in the form of U.S. Customary units—and embrace the metric system for our own and successive generations, not to mention join with other nations of the world  on some logical common ground.

That seems as basic to me as 1, 2, 3…not I, II, III.

Linda

Note: For those who are unfamiliar with the phrase “swan song,” see the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swan_song