Why stronger than "Meh," Mr. Finlay?

Because Romney wouldn't get out of way.

And he spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative campaigning  so he could climb over the corpses of candidates who did have a lot to commend themselves (and a miniscule portion on positive campaigning, confirming Romney's own view that he had little to offer.)

And as a result of Romney's efforts, we now have Obama Unbound.

A devolution into endless self-referentiality, to which I then contribute.

In that ad, the President was a stand-in for all the jerks we're supposed to pretend to respect who would impose upon fellow citizens conditions they would never have to suffer themselves,  including, e.g., David Gregory (who gets off scot-free after violating strict liability gun laws he advocates for others) and Bloomberg (who enjoys armed protection which denying that right to to others.)

It was a good ad.  These people should be called out for the hypocritical little would-be tyrants they are.

Why do you need to find Him?  Or put another way, what in your life would change, fundamentally, if you found Him?  The practical challenges of making your way through the world would remain the same.  The moral principles by which you live your life would remain the same.

God isn't just non-existent; God is superfluous.

The question of God's authority may be more important than that of His existence, because the predominant reason people desire a God is for moral instruction.  But by the nature of morality, appeals to authority - human or supernatural - cannot work.

If God has some independent ground for His moral injunctions, than that ground can be explained without reference to God.  But if God does not have an independent ground for His moral injunctions, then the appeal to supernatural authority is no more a basis for morality than the appeal to human authority. (Plato's Euthyphro: "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?")

Most believers in religion opt for the second horn of the dilemma: X is good because God says so.  Whatever floats your boat, but then believers cannot in good faith posit Religion as the alternative to supposedly nihilistic atheism; arbitrary, supernatural whims can no more support an objective morality than arbitrary, human whims.

The way out is through the first horn; locate the natural facts that ground objective morality, which both rational people and any God worth His salt could appreciate.

Religious morality is not absolute, because it's not based upon any firm foundation in fact; it's based upon a supernatural realm that is malleable, ultimately by the human beings who claim to be that realm's interpreters.  If God tells me to kill my kid, that's not morality; that's sadism.  If God later says "just kidding, I was only testing your loyalty" then that only underscores that the so-called morality of religion is not about moral truth or living an ethically conscientious life, but about obedience to God or his human interpreters.

I'm an atheist, and I have plenty of songs.  I enjoy most songs by The Ink Spots, for example.  They sing about things I do believe in, including love, work, coffee ("Java Jive,") etc.  I don't adopt as "my song" tunes about that which I don't believe.  But I like The Ink Spots' gospel music too, anyway.

It's important to remember that Paul A. Rahe is, for the most part, a diehard atheist too.  He doesn't believe in the Sun-God, the Moon-God, an Islamic God, Hindu & Buddhist notions, etc.  But I promise not to criticize him for failing to compose & sing any songs about his dogmatic & atheistic departure from the beliefs of the majority of mankind throughout history, i.e., his failure believe in these conceptions of the supernatural.

He'll get around the limit by posting links to his 300-word-per-minute lectures.  I enjoy those lectures online, because I can pause the action and cogitate, before turning on the firehose again.  If I had to listen to these orations in person, I think I'd absorb about 10 - 20%.

Dogs are machines for loving, according to Iggy Pop.

Here's the oral argument before the 5th Circuit panel.  Follow the link at "Listen," which opens up Windows Media Player.

Looks like this is an Institute for Justice case; the attorney Scott G. Bullock is listed.

Newt Gingrich comes to pretty much the same conclusion:

"Well, let me just first of all end the anxiety, Greta, for our many viewers.  I believe the minimum result will be 53-47 Romney, over 300 electoral votes, and the Republicans will pick up the Senate."

Then he elaborates his reasons (with Greta on Fox News last night.)

Schmidt & Wallace, the incompetents that McCain hired, had some experience, but not much.

I'm sticking with Quixotic.  I'm kinda like Justice Roberts that way.  Liberty, schmiberty.

Kennedy can stray off the reservation with his "sweet mystery of life" musings, but he's always been very strong on enumerated powers/federalism issues, and understands the close nexus between these "structural" issues and individual liberty.  See this excerpt from his recent opinion for the court in US v. Bond (2010), which exceeds our word court, but which I found on a National Review blog post by Carrie Severino titled: Justice Kennedy: Federalism Exists to Secure Individual Liberty.

I used to make fun of Kennedy (doing a poor imitation of Mark Steyn) - making him out to be a supercilious character - but given his role in trying his utmost to preserve our liberty in this crucial case, I now know I was wrong.

Roberts was, additionally, "red-eyed and unhappy" when reading the decision.  "Red-eyed" could be allergies or some other ailment.  But unhappy?

Note, however, the source is Jeffery Toobin, who has not garnered a reputation for reliability.

I've actually thought that if Roberts were being blackmailed, he would give us a tell by making the section of his opinion upholding the individual mandate on the ground of Congress' taxing power transparently bad, well beneath the intellectual standard set in his prior opinions.

And that's what he did.