The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming recently heard testimony concerning the polar bear's status as a threatened species.  The Bush administration has been delaying the listing of the polar bear under the Environmental Protection Act because, of course, it would likely designate habitat that his oil buddies would rather destroy for profit.  While climate changes continue to shrink the available habitat for the polar bear, the EPA and the Department of the Interior have been reviewing data for nearly a year and a half.  The review period has expired with no report forthcoming, but the comment period seems to remain open as long as the science overwhelms big oil propaganda.

The Committee's Chairman, Edward Markey, has introduced legislation to protect the polar bear while the EPA and the DOI languish over an easy decision.  You can sign a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, at the World Wildlife Fund.

Crossposted from SmokeyMonkey.org

Democrat Nancy Pelosi has from the beginning of her term as Speaker of the House refused to engage in discussions about impeachment.  I saw her attempt to duck the question today before reiterating that she feels that impeachment would just interfere with her agenda.

I thought it was time to remind her that I think there is no greater interpretation of protecting the constitution than impeachment of a failed presidency.  So I wrote her a letter, and I encourage my readers to do the same.  Speaker's Email

I didn't intend to post any such diary, but perhaps we need it.

Kos is posting interim results on the frontpage, but you can get realtime results (like the news stations) from politico.com.

Results are also being posted on CNN.  Their election tracking website is actually pretty cool.

I don't intend to manage this thing if it takes off, so ...

I was recently turned on to a post by blogger Greta Christina titled Atheists and Anger.  It is a very lengthy post, but many of what brought me to atheism is encapsulated nicely there.  I want to pull out some of the points I agree with fully, and I want to address some of the points where I differ.  

Why am I an atheist?  That is an easy question to answer.  Others have done so adequately.  Essentially, atheists share a skepticism of speculation.  Personally, I see religion as completely harmless speculation.  It is the acceptance of religion over other systems of knowledge that is dangerous.  Hence, I am an atheist because I think it is the correct way to live responsibly.  

The question "Why Atheism?" is different.  If I am correct in my philosophy, then why shouldn't you be?  This is the source of much that is both positive and negative about atheism.  Epistemically, though, atheism provides the only system of knowledge capable of rejecting utter nonsense.

The constitution is under assault.  Neo-conservatives, christian theocrats, and the current administration are all attacking the very reasoning that has underpinned our society for over two hundred years.  The most critical principles of a free society under the rule of law are enshrined in the Constitution of the United States:  that people should be free to live the way they wish, free of unjustified persecution, free from indefinite imprisonment.

The Bush cabal, however, feels it has been gifted with a historical opportunity to reverse centuries of laws established to protect these freedoms.  In fact, the administration continues to make the case for ignoring such protections because the president should not be hampered by laws in a time of imagined warfare.  These arguments are more and more falling on deaf ears, as the country overwhelming rejects any notion that our civil liberties must be infringed based on the word of a few chickenhawks.

The chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee have offered legislation to correct abuses by the administration.  The Leahy-Specter amendment should come up for debate tomorrow.

Crossposted from SmokeyMonkey.org

The United Nations - African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) was approved by the UN Security Council nearly two months ago.  The hybrid peacekeeping force would be the largest in the world with 20,000 soldiers and 6,000 police.  What is the progress of constituting the force?

BBC News  [General Martin Luther Agwai] told BBC News that building a peacekeeping force of that size from scratch would take time, and he warned against high expectations, saying without peace his troops would be in a "in a very uncomfortable position".

I venture to say that anyone in Darfur is in an "uncomfortable position", and the difficulty of the situation has kept too many silent for too long.  General Agwai's force will be perhaps the last hope for peace in Sudan.

Crossposted from SmokeyMonkey.org

According to the AP, Syria reportedly complained to the United Nations about an Israeli airstrike within its borders.

NY Times  A U.S. official confirmed this week that Israeli warplanes had staged a strike. The official, who would not speak publicly, said the target was Iranian-made weapons stored in northeastern Syria and destined for Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.

There are few details about the raid, and other theories exist as well.  What should we make of this?

Crossposted from SmokeyMonkey.org

According to the NY Times, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher R. Hill announced that North Korea has agreed to international inspections of nuclear facilities they intend to decommission.

Mr. Hill said the North had proposed several methods of disabling its plants; the experts will spend four days examining the "scope and the technical feasibility" of those plans. They will report back to the six parties, who reconvene in mid-September, Mr. Hill said. The administration is hoping the North’s entire program will be dismantled by Dec. 31.

Given the history of negotiations with North Korea, I know not how to take this announcement.  After all, they have detonated a nuclear weapon, demonstrating that North Korea has joined the nuclear club.  Therefore, I want to present a brief history of negotiations with nuclear North Korea.

In The Commonsense Argument for Global Warming I suggested a simple set of hypotheses that lead to the conclusion that humans are impacting climate change through greenhouse gas emissions.  I present these again, not to convince the reader climate change is real and dangerous, but to remind readers that there are still those denying it.  Hopefully, logically presenting the argument with evidence helps in personal encounters of the republican kind.

1. Average surface temperatures are increasing.
2. Average atmospheric temperatures are rising.
3. Such global warming is due to the "greenhouse effect".
4. "Greenhouse gases" create the "greenhouse effect".
5. Humans have increased levels of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere.
6. Humans exacerbate global warming.

The evidence has become more certain since I wrote that article.  Every agency you might look to for scientific information about climate change presents the same argument and the same evidence to support it.  Climate change is real, and we must begin reducing human greenhouse gas emissions immediately.

Crossposted from SmokeyMonkey.org

At the beginning of August, the EPA released a report to Congress per its Energy Star program requirements.  This EPA report (PDF) details the increasing levels of energy consumed by computer datacenters, both federally and in the private sector, as well as suggesting standards that could save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This report assesses current trends in energy use and energy costs of data centers and servers in the U.S. and outlines existing and emerging opportunities for improved energy efficiency. It provides particular information on the costs of data centers and servers to the federal government and opportunities for reducing those costs through improved efficiency. It also makes recommendations for pursuing these energy-efficiency opportunities broadly across the country through the use of information and incentive-based programs.

Crossposted from SmokeyMonkey.org

What is an atheist?  Like the question, what is a table, the answers vary according to culture, experience, and context.  I realized that, as an atheist, I assume my own viewpoint; I know what I mean when I call myself an atheist.  However, I have avoided defining my atheism for my readers.

I have, in the course of writing, distinguished myself from such atheists as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett.  Yet, I have not really outlined in a systematic way where my paradigm falls on the spectrum.  I seek to do that here by introducing several answers to the title question provided by other atheists.

Regular DailyKos blogger and author of The Canary in the Coalmine, Jesselyn Radack, posted an interesting diary the other day about the fate of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, one of three civilians detained as enemy combatants despite being arrested in the United States under domestic charges.  The other two:  Jose Padilla, recently convicted; and Yaser Esam Hamdi, a former US citizen now living in Saudi Arabia.

According to Ms. Radack, Al-Marri's case is being re-examined by the Fourth Circuit en banc.

Why?  Because the decision looks to treaty obligations under the Hague and Geneva Conventions and recognizes that the Administration's arguments run directly contrary to the Constitution...

This is yet another case founded on the presumption by the administration that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) authorizes the President to do anything with the military he wishes to do.  Let's address the abuse of habeas corpus that has taken place in al-Marri's case.

Crossposted from SmokeyMonkey.org

The intelligence community today released a new NIE Key Judgments on Iraq Stability (PDF, NY Times).  The findings have been variously characterized already; however, I cannot miss the opportunity to question a document produced by this administration about the single most important foreign policy issue facing the nation.

I want to examine the argument presented in the NIE as a complete argument and not try to cherry-pick quotes to support what I personally believe is the best course -- namely, to withdraw the majority of our troops from Iraq as soon as possible.  The purpose of presenting the key findings as an argument is to suggest what it is this document purports to tell us.  Whether the argument is useful, whether the report actually gives us any actionable information, I will leave for another debate.

Crossposted from SmokeyMonkey.org

Epistemology is the study of how we know things.  It is an broad discipline where nothing can be excluded from consideration.  Therefore, it is often difficult to understand the arguments themselves, as they often seek to distinguish apples from oranges.  Few people are unable to make this distinction.

However, it seems that the debate over which system of knowledge is more useful or accurate will never end.  Indeed, such a debate is the foundation for the constant internal struggle of the thinking organism.  Should I believe what I am told?  Should I try to find out myself?

These questions persist throughout cultures and time.  While this nation debates a Christian creationism despite the overwhelming evidence presented by science about our origins, the Islamic world engages in a similar debate.  A Turkish scientist named Taner Edis was recently interviewed by Salon magazine about the state of that debate.

Crossposted from SmokeyMonkey.org

The Arctic Ocean will soon be like any other ocean.  Nations once separated by permanent sheets of ice will begin commerce.  An ocean full of fish previously unavailable will be open to fishermen of many nations.  Cruises to the north pole will soon be commonplace; but no one will be able to meet Santa Claus, because what might be the last undiscovered oil and gas reserve of significant size on the planet will be exposed.

Such abundant and historically unavailable resources cannot be ignored by those countries who would stand to benefit from their exploitation.  From tourism to fish to natural gas, the Arctic Ocean of the future is an ocean awash in untapped opportunity.  What is the response to the new frontier by those most interested nations?  Greed.

Crossposted from SmokeyMonkey.org

While beliefs are nothing but cumulatively accepted opinions, faith is an entirely different matter.  I have often argued the merits of any given belief based on its applicability to the real world.  However, faith has evolved in the human species, and it must, therefore, have at one point in our evolution offered some advantage.  Whether that advantage is still being conveyed, we are, as a species, saddled with our evolutionary baggage, and I believe it is a worthy question to ask whether religion is such baggage or whether religious beliefs somehow continue to confer a selective advantage.

It is Daniel Dennett's book, Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, that encouraged me to think more in this direction.  Yet I have always harbored a fascination with the connection between the evolution of paradigms (sets of beliefs, if you will) and the evolution of the species.  Religion has always been an excellent example of that connection.

It took me awhile to digest the all-night Senate debate over the Defense Authorization Bill.  The form of the debate was that of a marathon recitation of talking points.  Ultimately, "moderate" republican senators chose to block a vote on the Levin-Reed amendment to begin redeploying, so we stay the course in Iraq.

The session did provide for some excellently ridiculous political logic from the war-mongers, however, so it wasn't a total loss.  I would like to highlight the Top Ten Lame Excuses for Supporting the Iraqi Occupation.

Crossposted from SmokeyMonkey.org

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) have introduced S.Amdt.2146 to H.R.1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, to de-authorize the occupation of Iraq.  The amendment would add an expiration date to the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq of October 11, 2007.

Along with S.Amdt.2087, the Levin-Reed amendment, the bill would force the Congress to appropriate only those funds authorized in the Defense Authorization Bill.  Such an outcome is the best combination of ending the occupation and defunding the occupation.  I urge everyone to call their Senators and encourage them to co-sponsor and vote for these amendments.