SpaceX, a private company building rockets and now the "Dragon" spacecraft, intended to carry both cargo and people in to space has completed an important step today. In unmanned tests the Dragon successfully docked with the International Space Station.

As a science fiction writer I find this a very exciting development, bringing closer the day when ordinary folk will be able to travel into space.

More info to be found here:

SpaceX Dragon docks at International Space Station.

Recently, in a post on another forum, someone made the statement “You can believe what you want.”  This is not the first time I have encountered that idea but it caused me to stop and think.

A classic example of this is Pascal’s Wager:  If you believe in God and are wrong, you lose nothing, but if you don’t believe and are wrong, you end up in Hell.  Thus, to be safe, it is best to believe.  Implicit in that is that one can simply choose whether or not to believe.

Can people really simply choose to believe, or not believe, something?  Or put another way are there really people who can do that because I cannot.

I cannot simply decide that, today, I am going to believe in invisible purple unicorns (and you “invisible pink unicorn” types are heretics), nor tomorrow that the purple unicorns have pink polka dots.  I cannot simply choose to believe that the Apollo shots, the Russian robotic sample return missions, and everything else were hoaxes and the Moon really is made of green cheese (despite appearances where a “white cheese” such as Parmesan would be a better fit).  And I cannot simply choose to believe that I’ve got an invisible friend in the sky who made everything and is controlling everything.

One of the things that one has to understand about me is that I am a scientist both by profession and by character.  As a result, I take the position that there is an underlying reality to the Universe and that my job is to try as best I can to learn/understand what that reality might be.  Science, religion, philosophy, Zen Buddhism, all are approaches to attempt to comprehend that underlying reality.  These approaches may be better of worse at moving toward that comprehension (I submit that no one ever has, or probably ever will, completely obtain that comprehension).  They may be closer or wider of the mark.  But the goal is moving toward that comprehension.

Different people, at different times, may have seen parts of that underlying reality.  Others might have been mistaken by what they thought was that underlying reality.  To me, Asatru is the idea that the Germanic/Norse people saw a bit of that underlying reality a bit more clearly than others such that the Germanic/Norse deities are at least a partial description of real powers in the Universe (or possibly a "meta-Universe" of which our observable Universe is but a part).  I do not know if this is so or not but am willing to entertain the idea and explore it seeing if I can find evidence to support it.

It's possible that the underlying reality is, in some manner, shaped by our beliefs (I don't say it's likely, but it's possible).  It's also possible that that underlying reality is supremely indifferent to what or how we believe.  Either way, it is what it is and we seek to find that "what is".  I find, for the most part, that I approach from the perspective of science (look for patterns, try to determine a "rule" for the pattern, compute what must happen or must not happen if the rule is true, look to see if it does or does not. Boiled down to "how do we know if we're wrong" and then go look) because I have found it very effective at sorting wheat from chaff as it were.  OTOH, I've encountered things that I cannot explain with my current understanding of science and so recognize that there are things that my current understanding of the world, obtained through science, is far from complete.

One example of the “incomplete” nature of my understanding comes from my training in the Martial Arts.  Over the years I have studied several martial arts.  One of them was “Togakure-Ryu Ninjutsu” as popularized in the US by Stephen K. Hayes.

One part of that training was various “sensitivity drills” designed to open us up to “energies” (quotes because these “energies” do not meet the definition of energy that I know as a physicist) beyond those accessible to our normal senses.  One day, we did a particular drill which involved standing in a circle, about 20 feet across facing away from the center.  One member of the group would stand in the center holding a wooden “training pistol.” He would point the pistol at one of the people at random in the circle and focus his attention on that person as if he meant to attack him.  We were supposed to “feel” the intent and, when we felt it, pivot to face the person in the center.

During the course of the exercise I felt “twitchy” and would jerk my shoulders as if I were about to turn but then I’d go back to my original position.  Then, after several minutes, without any conscious intent on my part I found myself facing the center and there the person was, pointing the wooden gun right at me.

I’m well aware of the kinds of things where a person might pick up on something without realizing it:  seeing a reflection, feeling air pressure from the motion or breath of the person involved, hearing movement, that sort of thing.  There were no reflective objects in the training area.  At a distance of 10 feet I don’t think I would have felt any slight breeze from his motion or his breath, certainly not to the extent of being able to discriminate between his pointing at me or at the next person over.

Was there something that simply cued my physical senses at a “subconscious level” telling me that that was the time to turn?  I don’t know.  I’ve eliminated the obvious ones but who knows what might have been there that I don’t know about.  Or could it have been something else, something that goes beyond, sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell?  I don’t know.

Now, many of my beliefs, the ones that make up “me”, were formed when I was very young.  I believe that falling down hurts because I’ve fallen down a lot and, sure enough, it hurt.  But a lot of my beliefs aren’t so prosaic.  I believe many of the things I believe simply because that’s the way I was brought up in my “formative years” and taught whether by precept or by example, that that’s the way things are, taught by people I had reason to trust (teachers at school, parents, and so forth).  These beliefs are not always logical.  They are not always well supported by evidence.  And the experience may simply be that they’re the ways I saw and I didn’t see other ways.

There is a certain reasonableness in believing what one is taught from youth.  Parents, teachers, and to a lesser extent peers, are all people one has reason to trust to some extent.  When all, or even most, of them tell you a thing over the course of years it is natural, it is reasonable, to believe it.  Without new evidence or argument of some sort it appears far less reasonable to pick up a new belief.  If one decides that one cannot accept, cannot believe in, the God with which one was raised, it is not reasonable to simply decide, arbitrarily, that one is going to believe in a flying spaghetti monster, at least it is not for me.  And so I look for experience, evidence, and argument and logic before accepting new beliefs.

An example is religion.  I was raised in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS or Mormon).  Now, the Church has many beliefs but one of the ones that was endemic to my teaching (whether official Church doctrine or not) was Young Earth Creationism, well, slightly modified Young Earth Creationism since one of the Church’s scriptures “The Pearl of Great Price” contains a description of a planet “Kolob” described as being nearest to “heaven” and for which a single day was 1000 Earth years.  So the “six days” of Creation could have been 6000 years.  However, as I started learning more about science, particularly geology and biology, I learned of a huge body of evidence that the Earth was far older than what I had been taught.

One small piece of that body of evidence was the existence of what geologists call angular unconformities.  This is a case where rock layers, originally horizontal and flat, had been bent or tilted by geologic forces, partially weathered away, and then new layers of sediment laid on top of it to be gradually compressed into rock(1).  This process, to occur naturally, would take a long time indeed, far too long to happen were the Earth only a few thousand years old.

(1) Example of an Angular Unconformity

And so, once I started questioning my previously unexamined belief in Young Earth Creationism, I started looking at the totality of my belief in the LDS religion and I soon found that I just didn’t believe it any more.  Too much contradicted the evidence that was available to me.

That did not, however, mean that I was simply going to grab onto any other belief that came my way.  Nor was I going to exclude the possibility of things beyond my understanding, things that could include a “God” or “Gods.” Loss of belief in something does not automatically mean belief in its opposite.  It did, however, put me in a position to consider different beliefs.  I looked at Wicca for a while.  While I do not doubt that many are sincere in their beliefs, I did not find the evidence to support those beliefs compelling.  Nor did I find the idea of reincarnation particularly appealing when I look at the world, do the numbers, and figure the odds of being reborn to a situation better than my current one.  I looked at Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism, and various neo-Pagans.  I also looked at various forms of Christianity.  Oh, and I took a brief look at Islam.  I found none of them particularly convincing.  And so my agnosticism remains.

People have tried to present me with what they saw as evidence.  I have had fundamentalist Christians who have invited me to their Church to see people speaking in tongues and the like which, they believed, would convince me of the reality of their version of the Christian God.  They did not appreciate that I could point them to studies on “religious ecstasy” which showed similar effects in a wide variety of contexts and, since it is not limited to their religion is therefore not strong evidence for any particular religious belief.  Others have pointed me to people who have “died and come back” (technically a “near death experience”), but I can point to the work of Dr. Susan Blackmore and others on the neuroscience involved and how the typical “near death” effects can be shown to stem from the biological structure of the brain.

And so my agnosticism remains.  But out of all that, I did find one form of religion immensely appealing:  Asatru.  As part of my exploration, I read Diane Paxson’s “Essential Asatru” and Greg Shelter’s “Living Asatru” (I have since lost my copy of Shelter’s book and would dearly love to have both of those as ebooks).  One of the things I found most compelling is the idea that “wyrd” is something you build out of accumulated “orlogg.” In short, sin and punishment are not there because of some arbitrary “God says so” but rather are simply the natural result of the accumulation of ones actions.  I also found the “Nine Noble Virtues” which strike me as a far better model for a “good life” than the Ten Commandments (half of which amount to “stroke God’s ego.”)

These and other reasons made Asatru very appealing to me.  While being appealing is not, in itself, enough to be convincing for me, it was enough for me to see about giving the practice a chance.  Perhaps, if I gave the religion a chance, the Gods, if they exist, would see fit to provide me with evidence that would convince.

One chance for that came when one of our dogs, a six-month-old puppy, was very sick and was not expected to live much longer.  You have to understand, I am very much a “dog person.” While I’m fond enough of cats, my worship of the canine stops short of idolatry…barely.  Dogs aren’t just “pets” to me they are “furkids” (picked up that term from our regular pet sitter).  My daughter (eight years old at this writing) also loves our dogs dearly.  Now, add to that that we had only shortly before these events lost an old and beloved family pet (who I truly hope is awaiting me at “Rainbow Bridge” [link]) and you see that this was a very traumatic event for our family.  I decided to make an effort.  I purchased a four lb “Engineers Mallet” (similar, in my conception, to what Mjolnir would be) carved Thor’s name into it in Elder Furthank, anointed it with some of my own blood, and sacrificed it into a large nearby body of water asking Thor, if he existed, to “hold his hammer between Trunks and harm” and to intercede with Eir, who Snorri described as the best of physicians among the Gods to grant Trunks healing.  I also offered a bottle of Guinness (Paxson said that “Stout” was a good offering for Thor) to Thor to that end.

Time passed.  Much to the surprise of everyone, including the vet, Trunks perked up and seemed to be healthy and happy.  A couple of months later, the vet said that the ultrasound techs were curious about what had happened since Trunks seemed to be doing so well.  They offered to do a follow-up ultrasound for free and the vet agreed.

The follow up ultrasound was completely normal.  The large internal abscess was gone.  The kidney irregularities were gone.  The spots on the spleen were gone.  I had a perfectly healthy young dog.

Did Thor intercede?  I do not know.  Human and animal bodies are marvelously complicated things and seeming miracles can happen from entirely natural causes.  On the other hand, I found the bottle (which I had left on the front porch, behind the railing) in the same place but empty.  Maybe somebody came along and drank it the put the bottle back.  Or maybe Thor accepted the offering.  I offered another bottle as thanks on the possibility that maybe Thor is real and had accepted the first offering.  That one was found later, in the same place, about half empty.

So it could be.  By itself, it’s not enough for me to truly believe.  There are other possibilities (including that I’m underestimating how long it would take for the drink to evaporate).  But it’s a start and enough for me to continue my exploration of Asatru.  Who knows, perhaps in time, bits and pieces will come together enough until I find that I truly believe and am no longer simply exploring.

Well, I've run into the claim that the "Right", particularly the "tea party" wants a "second American Revolution."   As usual, they're interpreting "warnings" (of the "if this goes on" kind) with "endorsements."

There's a problem with a "Second American Revolution".

If there were an insurrection in the US, the model wouldn't be Lexington, Concord, and Yorktown (or even Bull Run, Antietam, and Gettysburg). It would be Beirut, Northern Ireland, and Saigon, only about a hundred times worse. It is for this reason that folk on the Right really, really want to avoid it. But there are prices that folk on the Right are not willing to pay to avoid it. Such a situation is bad, very bad, but it is not the worst of all possibilities. As John Stuart Mill (hardly a "right wing" thinker) said: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Comments from the right about "Second Amendment Solutions" are not endorsements of that action. They are warnings of where things might head if things do not change. If entitlement continues to trump liberty, if the Constitution continues to be "reinterpreted" so that it means nothing except what current political whim wants it to mean, if the wants of the many continue to outweigh the rights of everyone, then the time will come when for a great many people (and remember that about half the nation at least leans "conservative"--which is a higher percentage than favored independence in the Revolutionary war) will see not fighting as worse than letting the slide continue.

Nobody wants war, especially not the kind of "war" that a general insurrection in the US would entail. The question is, however, how much farther can we go before folk start deciding that they want the alternatives less, that "insurrection and war" start looking at the lesser of evils. For me, "how much farther" is actually pretty far, but that's because I have a pretty good idea as to just how ugly an insurrection would be. Like I said, Beirut and Northern Ireland only a hundred times worse. I also don't see such an insurrection as leading to a "resurgence of Freedom" so much as either a different form or tyranny or (if the rest of the world gets involved) a dark age.

And that's why I really, really wish people would stop pushing us in that direction. Liberty matters to a lot of people. Not everybody, and maybe not even to a majority, but enough to push us over the edge if it came down to final cases. That's economic freedom and personal freedom both. Unless you recognize those people as having legitimate concerns and are willing to address those concerns, really address them with more than lip service, then we'll keep heading toward the cliff and that won't be good for anybody (except possibly for whatever tyrants come to power in the aftermath).

No.  You're not.

Seriously, I'm not a fan of a bunch of Bush's policies (the "Patriot Act" was an abomination and no, the Democrats, who voted for it in droves, voted for its renewal, and had plenty of opportunities to repeal it while they were in control do not get to disavow it) still, by just about every metric by which Bush was "bad" Obama has been worse.

There's climate change and then there's climate change.  Is the climate different than it was 100 years ago?  Yes.  Was the climate 100 years ago different from the climate 500 years ago?  Yes.  Was the climate 100 years ago different from the climate 1000 years ago?  Yes.  So, yes, climate change happens.

The problem comes when you start trying to interpret various proxies for "global climate", when you start trying to assign causes, and when you start trying to prescribe "fixes."

The essence of science is falsifiability.  In science one asks the question "How do we know if this is wrong" and then you go and seriously _look_.  You do not say "this is true, forever and ever, amen."  The essense of that is testable predictions that give a "theory works" or "theory doesn't work" answer.  The "anthropogenic global warming" (or "climate change" if you prefer) theory has no shortage of predictions, but they don't appear to be "testable" predictions since there's no end of excuses when they fail to happen.

1998--"hottest year on record" (so said at the time.  Turned out later not to be the case.) predicted that global temps would continue to rise.  Actually they've pretty much leveled out since then and over the last few years may even have declined.

2005 "Hurricane Katrina is the herald of more severe hurricane seasons to come".  Didn't happen.  Seven years later, still hasn't happened.

The excuses why either of these things didn't happen are manifold, but they just underscore the lack of _testable_ predictions.  The approach seems to be to make a lot of predictions, point to the ones that are borne out as "proof" while ignoring the ones that fail.  This is the same approach used by the followers of Immanuel Velikovsky.

Then there are things like Climategate.  In science, real science, when one finds that data has been tainted whether by falsification or by cherry picking then one repeats the experiment/study with extra care to ensure that the data are pristine.  One does not simply ignore it and say "well, most of the data are good." It doesn't take much "bad data" in a set to throw the results off particularly with something as highly variable as the measurements that go into a "climate" assessment.

So, yes, "climate change" is real.  That it's caused by human action and there's anything we can do about it is somewhat less certain.  And simply declaring that "98% of reputable climate scientists agree" doesn't make it so. (How is a "reputable climate scientist" defined anyway?  Is "accepts anthropogenic climate change" part of that definition making the statement circular logic?)

Some folks say that science fiction should be limited to what is possible according to current scientific theory. Others (and I count myself among them) are a bit more flexible.

Imagine it's 1890 and you're a physical scientist. Someone approaches you with the following:

"I have here two lumps of a material called Uranium 235. If you slam them together correctly, they will release energy with the explosive force of more than one hundred million sticks of dynamite."

You'd laugh at him. The very idea is preposterous. First off, what's this "235" business? Uranium is Uranium. It doesn't come in types. You're familiar with the atomic theory of matter, right? Atomic. From the Greek atomos. It means "indivisible. A Uranium atom is a Uranium Atom is a Uranium atom. And this ridiculous release of energy? Energy can neither be created or destroyed. You've can convert from one form to another but that's about it. If there was so much energy, whether chemical or mechanical, in Uranium to do as you suggest, it would tend to go off at the slightest provocation--Like, say, sneezing anywhere in the same county. What you suggest is flat out theoretically impossible.

Now, instead, suppose someone approached you with the following instead:

"You know, if you applied a force to something, like say with a rocket, and continued applying it for long enough, there is no ultimate bar to how fast it could go. Enough force, for enough time, and one could travel between the stars in weeks, if not days. Of course that much acceleration would crush most things and the engineering challenges are probably prohibitive, but there's no theoretical bar to it."

You'd probably have to agree. After all speed is simply acceleration over time, and acceleration is simply force divided by mass. Enough force, applying enough acceleration, for enough time and any speed could be achieved without limit, at least theoretically. The engineering challenges might be prohibitive but there were no theoretical limits.

Now, instead of 1890 imagine it's 1990. Now the possibility/impossibility of those two events have reversed. We've discovered the electron, neutron, and proton and learned that, far from being "indivisible" the atom is actually made up of components. We've discovered that there are differences among atoms--isotopes--of the same element. And we've discovered that matter and energy can be interchanged and very small amounts of matter can, in the right circumstances, be converted to very large amounts of energy. And we've demonstrated the very thing in the first example--slapping two pieces of Uranium 235 together to make whopping big explosions. (And using different materials we've made even bigger booms.) As for the other, we've found that force applied to an object will produce different accelerations depending on how fast one sees the object of moving and the faster it is moving--the closer it's speed is to that of light--the less acceleration a given force will produce, with the result that it can never reach, let alone exceed, the speed of light.

Back in 1890 physical theory would declare certain things to be flat out impossible. Other things were theoretically possible but perhaps practically impossible (such as, say, focusing light so that it can burn through an inch of steel in the blink of an eye). Other things were readily achievable.

With the revolution in modern physics that came shortly thereafter, those categories got shuffled. Some things that were utterly impossible under the old theory were found to be possible and even achievable once you knew how. Other things that had been theoretically possible but difficult (which was why they had not yet been done) were found to be theoretically impossible.

The one constant was that things that had already been done clearly had to remain possible. Obviously, whatever has been done is possible. (What was done might not necessarily be what you think was done--ask any stage magician--but what was done remains possible.)

So what about 2090? Or 2190? or 9990? Will the things that the physical theory of that future day considers possible and impossible be the same as today?

I suggest that it is only hubris that would lead one to suggest that they will. Unless one believes that we have actually achieved the final answer to physical theory, that all our current answers to "how does the universe work" are right, then one must conclude that some things we think are possible will very likely turn out to be impossible. And some things we think are impossible (theoretically impossible) will turn out to be possible after all.

And nobody knows which things.

As a writer of science fiction set in the future (or in a present with alien cultures more advanced than our own), part of the job is to explore these possibilities. Now, most people don't expect a science fiction writer to explore the detailed ramifications of "what if conservation of Baryon number can be violated?" or "what if it's possible to alter the Pauli Exclusion Principle?" or even "What if Planck's Constant isn't actually a constant?" but limiting oneself to what we now "know" is probably the last likely future of all.

This started based on a post over on Sarah Hoyt's Blog also on Mad Genius Club.

The Human Wave movement is a response that a number of people in the Science Fiction & Fantasy field to the perception that professionally published SF has become circumscribed by "rules" that have little to do with story, that don't address the needs and wants of readers as readers, and that artificially limit writers can do with their stories if they want to be "accepted" in the field.

The rules of the Human Wave movement are more anti-rules, not so much things you must do, but things you are allowed to do:



You are allowed to write a story for no other purpose but to entertain. That someone get some enjoyment out of it is all the purpose it needs. You may even consider someone getting enjoyment from it to be its highest purpose.
You are allowed to write, and publish, as much as you wish and are able. There are no "only one book per year" or the like limits on your productivity. We reject the idea that how long it takes to write a story is a necessary indicator of its quality. That may be true for some people, not for others. Do what is right for you.
You are allowed to write first person if you wish. Third person? Sure. Second person? Why not? Fourth person (if you can figure out how)? You bet. Do whatever you believe is right for the story you wish to tell.
You are allowed to write stories that don't match "accepted" views of the future. Faster than light is impossible? Use it anyway if that's what you want. People expect the future to be some great socialist utopia? Have capitalism be the wave of the future if that's your vision for the story. So long as your story holds together enough for your readers to accept it, do what you want. The idea is to explore possibilities, not limit yourself to mundane predictions of what will be.
It's okay to have a goal to sell books (or short stories). "To eat, or not to eat" is allowed to be the question.
You are allowed to write whatever heroes you want to write. You are allowed to write whatever villains you want to write. Want a white, male, Christian hero? Go for it. Want a swarthy, pagan villain? That too is permitted, just as the reverse is also allowed. Write what your story, and your vision calls for.
Happy endings? Permitted. Happy for the time being? That too. Everybody dies? If that's what your story calls for, sure. Some mixture of good and bad? Absolutely. It's your story. All that really matters is that the ending derive from the events of the story ("And then a meteor hit the Earth and they all died" is probably not such a good ending unless the story was about that meteor) and that the ending satisfy the readers.
It's okay to write stories which center on action and plot.
You are allowed to include sex in the story. You are allowed to not include sex in the story. You are allowed to have heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or even mechano-sexual sex if that's what's appropriate to the story and the characters. It's your story and they're your characters. You don't have to avoid sex. You don't have to include it.
You can write politics if you want, provided that they're the politics of your story. (A story set in ancient Egypt should probably not have a debate between characters on the relative merits of Capitalism vs. Socialism.) You can have a message if you want, again, provided it arises naturally from the story. But you don't have to include one. The story can be its own reward, with no deeper meaning required.
Some general guidelines:


You should be entertaining. People should enjoy your story. After all, even if you're including a deep message, more people will get the message if they enjoy reading your story.
Your characters should be individuals. If your character is a bad guy, readers should not need to feel ashamed because they are the same age, race, sex, religion, ethnic background, or what have you as that character. Virtue or its lack should come from who one is as an individual, not what group to which one belongs.
Story first. Message later. In any dispute between story and message, story trumps.
"Everything is shades of gray" is boring. Add some black and white, or even color, to spice things up.
People generally prefer positive feeling to stories. This doesn't necessarily mean "happy endings" or "good guys win" but that even when they lose, they go down fighting and don't whine themselves to death.
Thou shalt not be boring.

Anyway, those are the basic. Come ride the Human Wave. The water's fine.

Anyone want to address the number of ways this violates the Constitution?

Executive Order — National Defense Resources Preparedness

EXECUTIVE ORDER

NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

PART I – PURPOSE, POLICY, AND IMPLEMENTATION

Section 101. Purpose. This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the “Act”).

Sec. 102. Policy. The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness. The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.

Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:

(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;

(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;

(c) be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;

(d) improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and

(e) foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.

Sec. 104. Implementation. (a) The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(1) advise the President on issues of national defense resource preparedness and on the use of the authorities and functions delegated by this order;

(2) provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs incident to authorities and functions delegated under this order, and provide guidance to agencies assigned functions under this order, developed in consultation with such agencies; and

(3) report to the President periodically concerning all program activities conducted pursuant to this order.

(c) The Defense Production Act Committee, described in section 701 of this order, shall:

(1) in a manner consistent with section 2(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2062(b), advise the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy on the effective use of the authorities under the Act; and

(2) prepare and coordinate an annual report to the Congress pursuant to section 722(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(d).

(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other agencies, shall:

(1) analyze potential effects of national emergencies on actual production capability, taking into account the entire production system, including shortages of resources, and develop recommended preparedness measures to strengthen capabilities for production increases in national emergencies; and

(2) perform industry analyses to assess capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense, and develop policy recommendations to improve the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their abilities to meet national defense program needs.

PART II – PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS

Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.

(c) Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency. In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency.

(d) If agreement cannot be reached between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

(e) The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under section 101(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(b). This finding shall be submitted for the President’s approval through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.

Sec. 202. Determinations. Except as provided in section 201(e) of this order, the authority delegated by section 201 of this order may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense:

(a) by the Secretary of Defense with respect to military production and construction, military assistance to foreign nations, military use of civil transportation, stockpiles managed by the Department of Defense, space, and directly related activities;

(b) by the Secretary of Energy with respect to energy production and construction, distribution and use, and directly related activities; and

(c) by the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to all other national defense programs, including civil defense and continuity of Government.

Sec. 203. Maximizing Domestic Energy Supplies. The authorities of the President under section 101(c)(1) (2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(1) (2), are delegated to the Secretary of Commerce, with the exception that the authority to make findings that materials (including equipment), services, and facilities are critical and essential, as described in section 101(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(2)(A), is delegated to the Secretary of Energy.

Sec. 204. Chemical and Biological Warfare. The authority of the President conferred by section 104(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2074(b), is delegated to the Secretary of Defense. This authority may not be further delegated by the Secretary.

PART III – EXPANSION OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND SUPPLY

Sec. 301. Loan Guarantees. (a) To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, as defined in section 801(h) of this order, is authorized pursuant to section 301 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, to guarantee loans by private institutions.

(b) Each guaranteeing agency is designated and authorized to: (1) act as fiscal agent in the making of its own guarantee contracts and in otherwise carrying out the purposes of section 301 of the Act; and (2) contract with any Federal Reserve Bank to assist the agency in serving as fiscal agent.

(c) Terms and conditions of guarantees under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The guaranteeing agency is authorized, following such consultation, to prescribe: (1) either specifically or by maximum limits or otherwise, rates of interest, guarantee and commitment fees, and other charges which may be made in connection with such guarantee contracts; and (2) regulations governing the forms and procedures (which shall be uniform to the extent practicable) to be utilized in connection therewith.

Sec. 302. Loans. To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2092, to make loans thereunder. Terms and conditions of loans under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.

Sec. 303. Additional Authorities. (a) To create, maintain, protect, expand, or restore domestic industrial base capabilities essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, to make provision for purchases of, or commitments to purchase, an industrial resource or a critical technology item for Government use or resale, and to make provision for the development of production capabilities, and for the increased use of emerging technologies in security program applications, and to enable rapid transition of emerging technologies.

(b) Materials acquired under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, that exceed the needs of the programs under the Act may be transferred to the National Defense Stockpile, if, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager, such transfers are in the public interest.

Sec. 304. Subsidy Payments. To ensure the supply of raw or nonprocessed materials from high cost sources, or to ensure maximum production or supply in any area at stable prices of any materials in light of a temporary increase in transportation cost, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(c), to make subsidy payments, after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.

Sec. 305. Determinations and Findings. (a) Pursuant to budget authority provided by an appropriations act in advance for credit assistance under section 301 or 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, and consistent with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended (FCRA), 2 U.S.C. 661 et seq., the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority to make the determinations set forth in sections 301(a)(2) and 302(b)(2) of the Act, in consultation with the Secretary making the required determination under section 202 of this order; provided, that such determinations shall be made after due consideration of the provisions of OMB Circular A 129 and the credit subsidy score for the relevant loan or loan guarantee as approved by OMB pursuant to FCRA.

(b) Other than any determination by the President under section 303(a)(7)(b) of the Act, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority to make the required determinations, judgments, certifications, findings, and notifications defined under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, in consultation with the Secretary making the required determination under section 202 of this order.

Sec. 306. Strategic and Critical Materials. The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager, are each delegated the authority of the President under section 303(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(a)(1)(B), to encourage the exploration, development, and mining of strategic and critical materials and other materials.

Sec. 307. Substitutes. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(g) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(g), to make provision for the development of substitutes for strategic and critical materials, critical components, critical technology items, and other resources to aid the national defense.

Sec. 308. Government-Owned Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to:

(a) procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government and to procure and install Government owned equipment in plants, factories, or other industrial facilities owned by private persons;

(b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and

(c) sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.

Sec. 309. Defense Production Act Fund. The Secretary of Defense is designated the Defense Production Act Fund Manager, in accordance with section 304(f) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2094(f), and shall carry out the duties specified in section 304 of the Act, in consultation with the agency heads having approved, and appropriated funds for, projects under title III of the Act.

Sec. 310. Critical Items. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107(b)(1) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077(b)(1), to take appropriate action to ensure that critical components, critical technology items, essential materials, and industrial resources are available from reliable sources when needed to meet defense requirements during peacetime, graduated mobilization, and national emergency. Appropriate action may include restricting contract solicitations to reliable sources, restricting contract solicitations to domestic sources (pursuant to statutory authority), stockpiling critical components, and developing substitutes for critical components or critical technology items.

Sec. 311. Strengthening Domestic Capability. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077(a), to utilize the authority of title III of the Act or any other provision of law to provide appropriate incentives to develop, maintain, modernize, restore, and expand the productive capacities of domestic sources for critical components, critical technology items, materials, and industrial resources essential for the execution of the national security strategy of the United States.

Sec. 312. Modernization of Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, in accordance with section 108(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2078(b), may utilize the authority of title III of the Act to guarantee the purchase or lease of advance manufacturing equipment, and any related services with respect to any such equipment for purposes of the Act. In considering title III projects, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense shall provide a strong preference for proposals submitted by a small business supplier or subcontractor in accordance with section 108(b)(2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2078(b)(2).

PART IV – VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Sec. 401. Delegations. The authority of the President under sections 708(c) and (d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(c), (d), is delegated to the heads of agencies otherwise delegated authority under this order. The status of the use of such delegations shall be furnished to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Sec. 402. Advisory Committees. The authority of the President under section 708(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(d), and delegated in section 401 of this order (relating to establishment of advisory committees) shall be exercised only after consultation with, and in accordance with, guidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of General Services.

Sec. 403. Regulations. The Secretary of Homeland Security, after approval of the Attorney General, and after consultation by the Attorney General with the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, shall promulgate rules pursuant to section 708(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(e), incorporating standards and procedures by which voluntary agreements and plans of action may be developed and carried out. Such rules may be adopted by other agencies to fulfill the rulemaking requirement of section 708(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(e).

PART V – EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONNEL

Sec. 501. National Defense Executive Reserve. (a) In accordance with section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), there is established in the executive branch a National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER) composed of persons of recognized expertise from various segments of the private sector and from Government (except full time Federal employees) for training for employment in executive positions in the Federal Government in the event of a national defense emergency.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue necessary guidance for the NDER program, including appropriate guidance for establishment, recruitment, training, monitoring, and activation of NDER units and shall be responsible for the overall coordination of the NDER program. The authority of the President under section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), to determine periods of national defense emergency is delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

(c) The head of any agency may implement section 501(a) of this order with respect to NDER operations in such agency.

(d) The head of each agency with an NDER unit may exercise the authority under section 703 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2153, to employ civilian personnel when activating all or a part of its NDER unit. The exercise of this authority shall be subject to the provisions of sections 501(e) and (f) of this order and shall not be redelegated.

(e) The head of an agency may activate an NDER unit, in whole or in part, upon the written determination of the Secretary of Homeland Security that an emergency affecting the national defense exists and that the activation of the unit is necessary to carry out the emergency program functions of the agency.

(f) Prior to activating the NDER unit, the head of the agency shall notify, in writing, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism of the impending activation.

Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated.

PART VI – LABOR REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 601. Secretary of Labor. (a) The Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall:

(1) collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense;

(2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;

(3) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order, consult with that agency with respect to: (i) the effect of contemplated actions on labor demand and utilization; (ii) the relation of labor demand to materials and facilities requirements; and (iii) such other matters as will assist in making the exercise of priority and allocations functions consistent with effective utilization and distribution of labor;

(4) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order: (i) formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes; and (ii) estimate training needs to help address national defense requirements and promote necessary and appropriate training programs; and

(5) develop and implement an effective labor management relations policy to support the activities and programs under this order, with the cooperation of other agencies as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the National Mediation Board, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

(b) All agencies shall cooperate with the Secretary of Labor, upon request, for the purposes of this section, to the extent permitted by law.

PART VII – DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT COMMITTEE

Sec. 701. The Defense Production Act Committee. (a) The Defense Production Act Committee (Committee) shall be composed of the following members, in accordance with section 722(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(b):

(1) The Secretary of State;

(2) The Secretary of the Treasury;

(3) The Secretary of Defense;

(4) The Attorney General;

(5) The Secretary of the Interior;

(6) The Secretary of Agriculture;

(7) The Secretary of Commerce;

(8) The Secretary of Labor;

(9) The Secretary of Health and Human Services;

(10) The Secretary of Transportation;

(11) The Secretary of Energy;

(12) The Secretary of Homeland Security;

(13) The Director of National Intelligence;

(14) The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency;

(15) The Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers;

(16) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and

(17) The Administrator of General Services.

(b) The Director of OMB and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall be invited to participate in all Committee meetings and activities in an advisory role. The Chairperson, as designated by the President pursuant to section 722 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171, may invite the heads of other agencies or offices to participate in Committee meetings and activities in an advisory role, as appropriate.

Sec. 702. Offsets. The Secretary of Commerce shall prepare and submit to the Congress the annual report required by section 723 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2172, in consultation with the Secretaries of State, the Treasury, Defense, and Labor, the United States Trade Representative, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of other agencies as appropriate. The heads of agencies shall provide the Secretary of Commerce with such information as may be necessary for the effective performance of this function.

PART VIII – GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. Definitions. In addition to the definitions in section 702 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2152, the following definitions apply throughout this order:

(a) “Civil transportation” includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia, and related public storage and warehousing, ports, services, equipment and facilities, such as transportation carrier shop and repair facilities. “Civil transportation” also shall include direction, control, and coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership. “Civil transportation” shall not include transportation owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, use of petroleum and gas pipelines, and coal slurry pipelines used only to supply energy production facilities directly.

(b) “Energy” means all forms of energy including petroleum, gas (both natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal, coke, coal chemicals, coal liquification, and coal gasification), solar, wind, other types of renewable energy, atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines) of all of these forms of energy.

(c) “Farm equipment” means equipment, machinery, and repair parts manufactured for use on farms in connection with the production or preparation for market use of food resources.

(d) “Fertilizer” means any product or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium for use as a plant nutrient.

(e) “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption. “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.

(f) “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer (excluding transportation thereof).

(g) “Functions” include powers, duties, authority, responsibilities, and discretion.

(h) “Head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense” means the heads of the Departments of State, Justice, the Interior, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the General Services Administration, and all other agencies with authority delegated under section 201 of this order.

(i) “Health resources” means drugs, biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health supplies, services and equipment required to diagnose, mitigate or prevent the impairment of, improve, treat, cure, or restore the physical or mental health conditions of the population.

(j) “National defense” means programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity. Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq., and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.

(k) “Offsets” means compensation practices required as a condition of purchase in either government to government or commercial sales of defense articles and/or defense services as defined by the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq., and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 C.F.R. 120.1 130.17.

(l) “Special priorities assistance” means action by resource departments to assist with expediting deliveries, placing rated orders, locating suppliers, resolving production or delivery conflicts between various rated orders, addressing problems that arise in the fulfillment of a rated order or other action authorized by a delegated agency, and determining the validity of rated orders.

(m) “Strategic and critical materials” means materials (including energy) that (1) would be needed to supply the military, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the United States during a national emergency, and (2) are not found or produced in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet such need and are vulnerable to the termination or reduction of the availability of the material.

(n) “Water resources” means all usable water, from all sources, within the jurisdiction of the United States, that can be managed, controlled, and allocated to meet emergency requirements, except “water resources” does not include usable water that qualifies as “food resources.”

Sec. 802. General. (a) Except as otherwise provided in section 802(c) of this order, the authorities vested in the President by title VII of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2151 et seq., are delegated to the head of each agency in carrying out the delegated authorities under the Act and this order, by the Secretary of Labor in carrying out part VI of this order, and by the Secretary of the Treasury in exercising the functions assigned in Executive Order 11858, as amended.

(b) The authorities that may be exercised and performed pursuant to section 802(a) of this order shall include:

(1) the power to redelegate authorities, and to authorize the successive redelegation of authorities to agencies, officers, and employees of the Government; and

(2) the power of subpoena under section 705 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2155, with respect to (i) authorities delegated in parts II, III, and section 702 of this order, and (ii) the functions assigned to the Secretary of the Treasury in Executive Order 11858, as amended, provided that the subpoena power referenced in subsections (i) and (ii) shall be utilized only after the scope and purpose of the investigation, inspection, or inquiry to which the subpoena relates have been defined either by the appropriate officer identified in section 802(a) of this order or by such other person or persons as the officer shall designate.

(c) Excluded from the authorities delegated by section 802(a) of this order are authorities delegated by parts IV and V of this order, authorities in section 721 and 722 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2170 2171, and the authority with respect to fixing compensation under section 703 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2153.

Sec. 803. Authority. (a) Executive Order 12919 of June 3, 1994, and sections 401(3) (4) of Executive Order 12656 of November 18, 1988, are revoked. All other previously issued orders, regulations, rulings, certificates, directives, and other actions relating to any function affected by this order shall remain in effect except as they are inconsistent with this order or are subsequently amended or revoked under proper authority. Nothing in this order shall affect the validity or force of anything done under previous delegations or other assignment of authority under the Act.

(b) Nothing in this order shall affect the authorities assigned under Executive Order 11858 of May 7, 1975, as amended, except as provided in section 802 of this order.

(c) Nothing in this order shall affect the authorities assigned under Executive Order 12472 of April 3, 1984, as amended.

Sec. 804. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,

March 16, 2012.

People like to talk about the problems with private medicine in the US but don't recognize the problems that can come with it or even because of it.

Well, I've had some experiences of my own with "socialized medicine" over the years.  Let's start with the UK.

UK1: When I was in the Air Force, I lived in the UK for two years. One of my co-workers was married. The small base we were assigned to did not have its own hospital. Any medical care beyond cold and flu bugs that wasn't severe enough to be evacuated was handled by local UK hospitals. This included my co-worker's wife's pregnancy.

It was a second child so the pregnancy was "routine" (It Says Here). She had a problem with hemorrhaging with the first child but a second was "routine", by policy. The doctors were warned of the problem but a second pregnancy was routine. After the child was born, she started bleeding. She bled to death in the hospital. A "routine" childbirth (even though the first had had the exact same problem and the doctors had been told that) and she bled to death in the f*king hospital.

Oh, your wife died? Too bad, so sad. But how could we know something like this could happen since it was a routine pregnancy? You told us? But it was a routine pregnancy.

***

UK2: At the same time there was a great debate going on among doctors regarding the subject of "crib death" (was still being called "SIDS"--Sudden Infant Death Syndrome--back then I believe). A very popular theory was that it was a result of meternal neglect/negligence if not outright what would now be called Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy. That "theory" had been thoroughly debunked in the US for literally decades. But in the UK a mother who just lost her baby was as likely as not to have the added burden of having her doctor blame you for the loss.

***

Another "poster child" for socialized medicine is Japan.

Japan1: My wife's uncle had cancer. I visited him in the hospital once. Filthy place. Seriously. If I ever get seriously ill or injured in Japan, stabilize me and get me out of there if you have to send me on deck space on a freighter. That's only moderate hyperbole.

Eventually he was deemed an "unlikely prospect" for a cure. Treatment was cut off _including_ pain medication. In the end he ended up dousing himself with gasoline and lighting himself on fire. I am dead serious. No hyperbole. He literally burned himself to death rather than face the untreated pain of his progressing cancer.

***

Japan2: While visiting Japan on business I attended a Judo club as a guest (Judo was my sport of choice at that time). In the course of randori I managed to sprain my shoulder. Not "serious" in any major way but lordy did it hurt. I could not buy over the counter pain medication anywhere. Not aspirin, not acetaminophen, not ibuprofin, not naproxen sodium, nothing. They have some topical "pain patches" (and predated their availability in the US) but those were worthless for anything like this). The only "pain killer" available was ethanol but . . . I don't drink. Short of going to the hospital (see above) there was _nothing_ I could do except apply ice and tough it out.

***

Japan3: While returning from another business trip I tripped on an escalator in Tokyo station and sprained my ankle. It didn't seem to bad at first but by the time I got to Narita it was quite painful. Fortunately (yeah, right) there was an actual medical clinic in Narita right off the walkway from the train station. I stopped in there (Yeah, I'm not covered by their "national health care" but I could pay for it so I figured....)

When I got in, I was told simply that the orthopedist was not in and so nobody could look at my ankle. Excuse me? A sprain, something anybody in the US with MD, or even PA, after their name could handle and they couldn't even look at it and splint it/tape it up/ or something? They had to have a specialist come in for even a sprained ankle?

So the question there becomes, are doctors who aren't specialists in orthopedics not trained in diagnosis and treatments of things like sprains or are they simply forbidden based on the government control that always comes with government payment?

***

And those are just the experiences I was personally involved with.  I also know some ex-pats from various countries with “socialized medicine”.

This is, of course, the point where someone will say "but I've experienced socialized medicine and had good experiences."  Well, does your good experiences make my bad experiences go away any more than my good experiences with American health care make the bad experiences that are sited as reasons for going to "socialized medicine" go away?  If those bad experiences count on the one side then mine count on the other.  And once you recognize that "socialized medicine" has its own problems the choice of which is "better" is no longer so "obvious" as proponents would like to claim.

You can keep your socialized medicine.  Just keep it far away from me.