Global Warming? You Better Believe It

Global warming? You Better Believe It
Boston Globe
By Derrick Z. Jackson  |  September 24, 2005

AS THE MEDIA screams about the one-two punch of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the question becomes how many more times does America need to be knocked to the canvas before we answer the bell on global warming.

The only talk from our leaders is about rebuilding. In his address to the nation from a ghostly New Orleans, President Bush said, ''When one resident of this city who lost his home was asked by a reporter if he would relocate, he said, 'Naw, I will rebuild but I'll build higher.' That is our vision of the future, in this city and beyond. We will not just rebuild, we will build higher and better."
It figures that Bush would talk about building higher in the lowest city in the United States, in a presidency where he has ignored the rising waters of the planet. He said, ''Americans have never left our destiny to the whims of nature and we will not start now."
Actually, there is no better time to start understanding that nature is at the mercy of our whimsy. Our destiny depends on it.
In this tragic season of hurricanes, research continues to increasingly tie global warming to an increase in the intensity of tropical storms.
One was published last month in the journal Nature by Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Another was published last week in the journal Science by atmospheric researchers at Georgia Tech and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
While there has been no increase in the actual number of storms worldwide, the Georgia Tech/NCAR study found the number of hurricanes that reached categories 4 and 5, with winds of at least 131 miles per hour, have gone from comprising 20 percent of hurricanes in the 1970s to 35 percent today. This is with only a half-degree centigrade rise in tropical surface water temperatures.
The percentage of big storms in the North Atlantic has increased from 20 percent to 25 percent. The rise is much worse in the rest of the world, where millions of less fortunate people cannot flee the coast in SUVs on interstate roads.
In the 1970s, no ocean basin saw more than 25 percent of hurricanes become a 4 or 5. Today, that percentage is 34, 35, and 41 percent, respectively, in the South Indian, East Pacific, and West Pacific oceans. The biggest jump was in the Southwestern Pacific, from 8 percent to 25 percent.
Emanuel, who formerly doubted that hurricane intensity was tied to global warming, said that he was stunned when his research showed that just that half-degree rise in tropical ocean temperatures has also seen a 50 percent rise in average storm peak winds in the North Atlantic and East and West Pacific in the last half century.
The accumulated annual duration of storms in the North Atlantic and the western North Pacific has shot up by 60 percent.
''I wasn't looking for global warming," Emanuel said by cell phone in Spain where he is conducting research on Mediterranean storms. ''But it stuck out like a sore thumb."
Emanuel originally thought that a half-degree rise in ocean temperatures should have resulted in wind speeds much lower than that. Emanuel said he hoped the more recent findings would be taken as a signal for action. The average hurricane, he said, releases the equivalent of worldwide electrical capacity. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are 10 times stronger.
Not surprisingly, these new findings have drawn skepticism from scientists who cling to past climate models and flat denials from a Bush administration that has all but censored serious talk about global warming.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's website says, ''The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases,"
But Max Mayfield, director of NOAA's National Hurricane Center, testified this week before a Senate committee that increased hurricane activity ''is due to natural fluctuations" and is ''not enhanced substantially by global warming."
The one-two punch of Katrina and Rita does not yet have us reaching for the smelling salts. We are still waiting for global warming to hit us below the belt.
Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.
© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.

© 20 The New York Times Company
    

Voting Reform is in the Cards

Please click on the title above for Jimmy Carter and James Baker's Op-Ed last week.

Keeping Up With New Orleans

Click on the above title for New Orleans Times-Picayune.

Warning Re: Next Election

Please click above title for important article from freepress.org

Good Music

Please click on above title to hear great new song found by fellow wonkette!

B. Clinton's Response to Bush's Handling of Katrina

Please click on the above title to see a write-up of an ABC George Stephanopolous interview with President Clinton
criticizing Bush's ongoing response to the Gulf-Coast Hurricane.

They also discussed our stand-off in Iraq. Clinton feels we should try to make the new Iraqi government work, and any time-tables of troop withdrawl would only discourage the Sunnis from getting involved in the Constitution-making process, but on the other hand, if we were about to lose stablility in Afghanistan, THEN we should forget all about Iraq and secure Afghanistan
because it is in fact the real terror hotspot.

Nw blog coming soon: The Hairy Think Tank

"Killed By Contempt"-- Paul Krugman

Please click the above title.

FactCheck.org(independently funded) asks if Bush is to Blame for the New Orleans flooding

> Is Bush to Blame for New Orleans Flooding?
>
> He did slash funding for levee projects. But the Army Corps of
> Engineers says Katrina was just too strong.
>
> September 2, 2005
> Summary
>
> Some critics are suggesting President Bush was as least partly
> responsible for the flooding in New Orleans. In a widely quoted
> opinion piece, former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal says that "the
> damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of
> an act of nature," and cites years of reduced funding for federal
> flood-control projects around New Orleans.
>
> Our fact-checking confirms that Bush indeed cut funding for
> projects specifically designed to strengthen levees. Indeed, local
> officials had been complaining about that for years.
>
> It is not so clear whether the money Bush cut from levee projects
> would have made any difference, however, and we're not in a
> position to judge that. The Army Corps of Engineers – which is
> under the President's command and has its own reputation to defend
> – insists that Katrina was just too strong, and that even if the
> levee project had been completed it was only designed to withstand
> a category 3 hurricane.
>
> Analysis
>
> We suspect this subject will get much more attention in Congress
> and elsewhere in the coming months. Without blaming or absolving
> Bush, here are the key facts we've been able to establish so far:
>
> Bush Cut Funding
>
> Blumenthal's much-quoted article in salon.com carried the headline:
> "No one can say they didn't see it coming." And it said the Bush
> administration cut flood-control funding "to pay for the Iraq war."
>
> He continues:
>
> Blumenthal: With its main levee broken, the evacuated city of
> New Orleans has become part of the Gulf of Mexico . But the damage
> wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act
> of nature.
>
> …By 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project
> essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004,
> the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans
> district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the
> waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional
> cuts at the beginning of this year…forced the New Orleans district
> of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze.
>
> We can confirm that funding was cut. The project most closely
> associated with preventing flooding in New Orleans was the U.S.
> Army Corps of Engineers’ Hurricane Protection Project, which was
> “designed to protect residents between Lake Pontchartrain and the
> Missisippi River levee from surges in Lake Pontchartrain,”
> according to a fact sheet from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
> (The fact sheet is dated May 23, long before Katrina). The multi-
> decade project involved building new levees, enlarging existing
> levees, and updating other protections like floodwalls. It was
> scheduled to be completed in 2015.
>
> Over at least the past several budget cycles, the Corps has
> received substantially less money than it requested for the Lake
> Pontchartrain project, even though Congress restored much of the
> money the President cut from the amount the Corps requested.
>
> In fiscal year 2004, the Corps requested $11 million for the
> project. The President’s budget allocated $3 million, and Congress
> furnished $5.5 million. Similarly, in fiscal 2005 the Corps
> requested $22.5 million, which the President cut to $3.9 million in
> his budget. Congress increased that to $5.5 million. “This was
> insufficient to fund new construction contracts,” according to a
> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ project fact sheet. The Corps
> reported that “seven new contracts are being delayed due to lack
> funds” [sic].
>
> The President proposed $3 million for the project in the budget for
> fiscal 2006, which begins Oct. 1. “This will be insufficient to
> fund new construction projects,” the fact sheet stated. It says the
> Corps “could spend $20 million if funds were provided.” The Corps
> of Engineers goes on to say:
>
> Army Corps of Engineers, May 23: In Orleans Parish, two major
> pump stations are threatened by hurricane storm surges. Major
> contracts need to be awarded to provide fronting protection for
> them. Also, several levees have settled and need to be raised to
> provide the design protection. The current funding shortfalls in
> fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 will prevent the Corps from
> addressing these pressing needs.
>
> The Corps has seen cutbacks beyond those affecting just the Lake
> Pontchartrain project. The Corps oversees SELA, or the Southeast
> Louisiana Urban Flood Control project, which Congress authorized
> after six people died from flooding in May 1995. The Times-Picayune
> newspaper of New Orleans reported that, overall, the Corps had
> spent $430 million on flood control and hurricane prevention, with
> local governments offering more than $50 million toward the
> project. Nonetheless, "at least $250 million in crucial projects
> remained," the newspaper said.
>
> In the past five years, the amount of money spent on all Corps
> construction projects in the New Orleans district has declined by
> 44 percent, according to the New Orleans CityBusiness newspaper,
> from $147 million in 2001 to $82 million in the current fiscal
> year, which ends Sept. 30.
>
> A long history of complaints
>
> Local officials had long complained that funding for hurricane
> protection projects was inadequate:
>
> *
> October 13, 2001: The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported
> that “federal officials are postponing new projects of the
> Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Program, or SELA, fearing that
> federal budget constraints and the cost of the war on terrorism may
> create a financial pinch for the program.” The paper went on to
> report that “President Bush’s budget proposed $52 million” for SELA
> in the 2002 fiscal year. The House approved $57 million and the
> Senate approved $62 million. Still, “the $62 million would be well
> below the $80 million that corps officials estimate is needed to
> pay for the next 12 months of construction, as well as design
> expenses for future projects.”
> *
> April 24, 2004: The Times-Picayune reported that “less money
> is available to the Army Corps of Engineers to build levees and
> water projects in the Missisippi River valley this year and next
> year.” Meanwhile, an engineer who had direct the Louisiana Coastal
> Area Ecosystem Restoration Study – a study of how to restore
> coastal wetlands areas in order to provide a bugger from hurricane
> storm surges – was sent to Iraq "to oversee the restoration of the
> ‘Garden of Eden’ wetlands at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates
> rivers,” for which President Bush’s 2005 gave $100 million.
> *
> June 8, 2004: Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for
> Jefferson Parish, told the Times-Picayune:
>
> Walter Maestri: It appears that the money has been moved in
> the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in
> Iraq , and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is
> happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing
> everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue
> for us.
>
> *
> September 22, 2004: The Times-Picayune reported that a pilot
> study on raising the height of the levees surrounding New Orleans
> had been completed and generated enough information for a second
> study necessary to estimate the cost of doing so. The Bush
> administration “ordered the New Orleans district office” of the
> Army Corps of Engineers “not to begin any new studies, and the 2005
> budget no longer includes the needed money.”
> *
> June 6, 2005: The New Orleans CityBusiness newspaper reported
> that the New Orleans district of the Corps was preparing for a
> $71.2 million reduction in overall funding for the fiscal year
> beginning in October. That would have been the largest single-year
> funding loss ever. They noted that money “was so tight" that "the
> New Orleans district, which employs 1,300 people, instituted a
> hiring freeze last month on all positions,” which was “the first of
> its kind in about 10 years.”
>
> Would Increased Funding Have Prevented Flooding?
>
> Blumenthal implies that increased funding might have helped to
> prevent the catastrophic flooding that New Orleans now faces. The
> White House denies that, and the Corps of Engineers says that even
> the levee project they were working to complete was not designed to
> withstand a storm of Katrina's force.
>
> White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, at a press briefing on
> September 1, dismissed the idea that the President inadequately
> funded flood control projects in New Orleans :
>
> McClellan: Flood control has been a priority of this
> administration from day one. We have dedicated an additional $300
> million over the last few years for flood control in New Orleans
> and the surrounding area. And if you look at the overall funding
> levels for the Army Corps of Engineers, they have been slightly
> above $4.5 billion that has been signed by the President.
>
> Q: Local people were asking for more money over the last couple
> of years. They were quoted in local papers in 2003 and 2004, are
> saying that they were told by federal officials there wasn't enough
> money because it was going to Iraq expenditures.
>
> McClellan: You might want to talk to General Strock, who is the
> commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, because I think he's
> talked to some reporters already and talked about some of these
> issues. I think some people maybe have tried to make a suggestion
> or imply that certain funding would have prevented the flooding
> from happening, and he has essentially said there's been nothing to
> suggest that whatsoever, and it's been more of a design issue with
> the levees.
>
> We asked the Corps about that “design issue.” David Hewitt, a
> spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, said McClellan was
> referring to the fact that “the levees were designed for a category
> 3 hurricane.” He told us that, consequently, “when it became
> apparent that this was a category 5 hurricane, an evacuation of the
> city was ordered.” (A category 3 storm has sustained winds of no
> more than 130 miles per hour, while a category 5 storm has winds
> exceeding 155 miles per hour. Katrina had winds of 160 mph as it
> approached shore, but later weakened to winds of 140 mph as it made
> landfall, making it a strong category 4 storm, according to the
> National Hurricane Center.)
>
> The levee upgrade project around Lake Pontchartrain was only 60 to
> 90 percent complete across most areas of New Orleans as of the end
> of May, according to the Corps' May 23 fact sheet. Still, even if
> it had been completed, the project's goal was protecting New
> Orleans from storm surges up to "a fast-moving Category 3
> hurricane,” according to the fact sheet.
>
> We don't know whether the levees would have done better had the
> work been completed. But the Corps says that even a completed levee
> project wasn't designed for the storm that actually occurred.
>
> Nobody anticipated breach of the levees?
>
> In an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on September 1,
> President Bush said:
>
> Bush: I don’t think anyone anticipated breach of the levees
> …Now we’re having to deal with it, and will.
>
> Bush is technically correct that a "breach" wasn't anticipated by
> the Corps, but that's doesn't mean the flooding wasn't forseen. It
> was. But the Corps thought it would happen differently, from water
> washing over the levees, rather than cutting wide breaks in them.
>
> Greg Breerword, a deputy district engineer for project management
> with the Army Corps of Engineers, told the New York Times:
>
> Breerword: We knew if it was going to be a Category 5, some
> levees and some flood walls would be overtopped. We never did think
> they would actually be breached.
>
> And while Bush is also technically correct that the Corps did not
> "anticipate" a breach – in the sense that they believed it was a
> likely event – at least some in the Corps thought a breach was a
> possibility worth examining.
>
> According to the Times-Picayune, early in Bush's first term FEMA
> director Joe Allbaugh ordered a sophisticated computer simulation
> of what would happen if a category 5 storm hit New Orleans. Joseph
> Suhayda, an engineer at Louisana State University who worked on the
> project, described to the newspaper in 2002 what the simulation
> showed could happen:
>
> Subhayda: Another scenario is that some part of the levee would
> fail. It's not something that's expected. But erosion occurs, and
> as levees broke, the break will get wider and wider. The water will
> flow through the city and stop only when it reaches the next higher
> thing. The most continuous barrier is the south levee, along the
> river. That's 25 feet high, so you'll see the water pile up on the
> river levee.
>
> Whether or not a "breach" was "anticipated," the fact is that many
> individuals have been warning for decades about the threat of
> flooding that a hurricane could pose to a set below sea level and
> sandwiched between major waterways. A Federal Emergency Management
> Agency (FEMA) report from before September 11, 2001 detailed the
> three most likely catastrophic disasters that could happen in the
> United States: a terrorist attack in New York, a strong earthquake
> in San Francisco, and a hurricane strike in New Orleans. In 2002,
> New Orleans officials held the simulation of what would happen in a
> category 5 storm. Walter Maestri, the emergency coordinator of
> Jefferson Parish in New Orleans , recounted the outcome to PBS’ NOW
> With Bill Moyers:
>
> Maestri, September 2002: Well, when the exercise was completed
> it was evidence that we were going to lose a lot of people. We
> changed the name of the [simulated] storm from Delaney to K-Y-A-G-
> B... kiss your ass goodbye... because anybody who was here as that
> category five storm came across... was gone.
>
> --by Matthew Barge
>
> Sources
>
> Sidney Blumenthal, “No one can say they didn’t see it coming ,”
> http://www.salon.com
31 August 2005
>
> Deon Roberts, “Bush budget not expected to diminish New Orleans
> district’s $65 million,” New Orleans CityBusiness, 07 February 2005
>
> Manuel Torres, “Flood work to slow down; Corps delays new
> projects,” Times-Picayune, 13 October 2001
>
> Mark Schlefistein, “Corps sees its resources siphoned off; Wetlands
> restoration officials sent to Iraq ,” Times-Picayune, 24 April 2004
>
> “Mark Schleifstein, “Ivan stirs up wave of safety proposals;
> Hurricane-proofed stadium is one idea,” Times-Picayune, 22
> September 2004
>
> Deon Roberts, “Bush budget not expected to diminish New Orleans
> district’s $65 million ,” New Orleans CityBusiness, 07 February 2005
>
> Mark Schleifstein, “Bush budget cuts levee, drainage funds; Backlog
> of contracts waits to be awarded,” Times-Picayune, 08 February 2005
>
> “Bush budget fails to fund flood control in New Orleans ,” New
> Orleans CityBusiness, 14 February 2005
>
> Deon Roberts, “ New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of
> Engineers faces ,” New Orleans CityBusiness, 06 June 2005
>
> Will Bunch, “Did New Orleans catastrophe have to happen? ‘Times-
> Picayune’ had repeatedly raised federal spending issues,” Editor &
> Publisher, 31 August 2005
>
> Toby Eckert, “Could disaster have been prevented?,” Copley News
> Service, 02 September 2005
>
> Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker, “ Critics say Bush undercut New
> Orleans flood control ,” Washington Post, 02 September 2005
>
> “The City in a Bowl ,” Transcript, NOW, Public Broadcasting
> Service, 20 September 2002
>
> Jon Elliston, “ A Disaster Waiting to Happen ,”
> bestofneworleans.com, 28 September 2004
>
> Scott Shane and Eric Lipton, “ Government saw flood risk but not
> levee failure ,” New York Times, 02 September 2005
>
> Paul Krugman, “ A can’t-do government ,” New York Times, 02
> September 2005
>
> “Lake Pontchartrain, LA and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project,
> St. Bernard, Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Charles Parishes, LA ,”
> Project Fact Sheet, US Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans
> District, website, 23 May 2005
>
> “Fiscal Year 2006: Civil Works Budget for the U.S. Army Corps of
> Engineers ,” Department of the Army, February 2005
>
> “Press Briefing by Scott McClellan ,” whitehouse.gov, 01 September
> 2005
> Karen Turni, “Upgrade of levees proposed by corps; gulf outlet
> levee may be too low, officials worry,” Times-Picayune, 12 November
> 1998
> John McQuaid and Mark Schleifstein, “The big one: A major hurricane
> could decimate the region, but flooding from even a moderate storm
> could kill thousands. It’s just a matter of time,” Times-Picayune,
> 24 June 2002
>
>
> This message was sent by: FactCheck.org, 320 National Press
> Building, Washington, DC 20045
>
> Manage your subscription: http://www.intellicontact.com/icp/mmail-
> mprofile.pl?l=&s=EXP1&r=860058789&m=1018410

"Man-Made Disaster"

Click on the above title for an editorial in today's NY Times.
On the same site, see also Paul Krugman's "A Can't-Do Government", for more on lack of preparation for the hurricane.

8/31 AP article, "Bush Gives New Reason for Iraq War"

"Bush Gives New Reason For Iraq War"

Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists

By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | August 31, 2005

CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

The president, standing against a backdrop of the USS Ronald Reagan, the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.

''We will defeat the terrorists," Bush said. ''We will build a free Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and sanctuary."

Appearing at Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the anniversary of the Allies' World War II victory over Japan, Bush compared his resolve to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the 1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a democratic ally just as the United States did with Japan after its 1945 surrender. Bush's V-J Day ceremony did not fall on the actual anniversary. Japan announced its surrender on Aug. 15, 1945 -- Aug. 14 in the United States because of the time difference.

Democrats said Bush's leadership falls far short of Roosevelt's.

''Democratic Presidents Roosevelt and Truman led America to victory in World War II because they laid out a clear plan for success to the American people, America's allies, and America's troops," said Howard Dean, Democratic Party chairman. ''President Bush has failed to put together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops, we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops, our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from our commander in chief."

The speech was Bush's third in just over a week defending his Iraq policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public concern about the war. But the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast drew attention away; the White House announced during the president's remarks that he was cutting his August vacation short to return to Washington, D.C., to oversee the federal response effort.

After the speech, Bush hurried back to Texas ahead of schedule to prepare to fly back to the nation's capital today. He was to return to the White House on Friday, after spending more than four weeks operating from his ranch in Crawford.

Bush's August break has been marked by problems in Iraq.

It has been an especially deadly month there for US troops, with the number of those who have died since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 now nearing 1,900.

The growing death toll has become a regular feature of the slightly larger protests that Bush now encounters everywhere he goes -- a movement boosted by a vigil set up in a field down the road from the president's ranch by a mother grieving the loss of her soldier son in Iraq.

Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford only days after Bush did, asking for a meeting so he could explain why her son and others are dying in Iraq. The White House refused, and Sheehan's camp turned into a hub of activity for hundreds of activists around the country demanding that troops be brought home.

This week, the administration also had to defend the proposed constitution produced in Iraq at US urging. Critics fear the impact of its rejection by many Sunnis, and say it fails to protect religious freedom and women's rights.

At the naval base, Bush declared, ''We will not rest until victory is America's and our freedom is secure" from Al Qaeda and its forces in Iraq led by Abu Musab alZarqawi.

''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."



_____________________

How Bush Underfunded Flood Preparations in New Orleans

Please click the above title to see a more in depth article on the slashing in hurricane preparedness funds
which bears directly on my friend's letter two posts ago, in "Come Hell or Highwater".

In a WSJ article recently, the administration wouldn't comment on the cutting of these funds, including a study to
determine how the city could be better prepared for a flood. Apparently the admin. thought the Army Corps of
Engineers had a lot of "pork barrel" projects and "cost overruns", especially when you compare it to their pet
project of the horrific and unnecessary war in Iraq, now confessed by Bush to be a fight over control of oil there. To paraphrase a recent speech of Bush's in response to the anti-war movement: "We can't let the terrorists get our oil or use Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists."

I quote him only extremely ironically. Bush created that haven, and the terrorists are only active there because we're there.
His speech was a last-ditch attempt to try to stem the tide of anti-war opinion here.

Re: Administration's Position on Global Warming

Jim Heffler writes:

"It's not so much whether or not Bush is still denying global
warming. I believe the administration has admitted to global warming.
It's more like they're still dragging their feet in doing something
about it, still protecting their corporate sponsors and string pullers
from the economic consequences of that warming and still placing
corporate interests ahead of the public good."

Is There A God?

Last night Sven and I were discussing the problem of whether or not we say we think there is a god.
"The real question," opines Sven, "Is not 'Is there a god?", but 'Whatever one's god is, what are a
believer's responsibilities TO it?'"

"If there is a god, he's probably wishing that people would simply be good to each other, without all
the bells and whistles. He's probably like, 'Why don't you use your GOD-given gifts, and use your
head for something besides a HAT-RACK?!'"