Ceballos Ruling: Some progressive leaning sorts did not find the opinion discussed last time troubling. In fact, they thought it a rather obvious opinion. They seem to miss the point. For instance, one notes it is clear that government employers need to "regulate" their employees, while allowing the suits asked for would lead to court second guessing and some promotion of ill-advised/stupid employee speech. But, "regulate" does not mean total control, especially when free speech is involved.
And, putting aside that the opinion still left open some court oversight, yes, free speech results in some speech basically worthless. [And, some might argue, the worthless will bring out the good, so have value too.] Liberty is not 100% free of waste, so to speak, leading me to think "uh, like, no duh." I'd add Justice Breyer has a good separate dissent, including the comment some employees are professionals that have independent ethical requirements to speak in a certain way. Cf. press secretary with a lawyer.
Recess Appointments: Tracy A. Henke, assistant secretary for grants and training at Department of Homeland Security, is given the responsibility (Chertoff has the final say, of course) respecting the controversial move to cut funding for NYC, which apparently has nothing of note in it (no "icons"). Washington D.C. also has surprisingly little funding. See various posts here for discussion.
Some see it as a political move -- more funding for Red States. If true, this would not be new -- military base funding is just one way politics affected national security accounting. Another issue of note is that Henke is a fairly controversial sort, which led to a hold-up in the Senate. In other words, various senators did their job, blocking a rubber stamp of an important cog. So, of course, El Decider recess appointed her.
Chertoff answered strong criticisms from the likes of the NY Daily News ("fire his ass") by saying he would not bend just because people criticized his judgment. The paper's editorial staff today mentioned that such tough guy posturing would come off better if he didn't twist the facts, such as claiming that the city did not properly explain how they would spend the money. Still, the guy was confirmed to a position that requires tough decisions. Unlike Henke. See also, John Bolton, and Judge Pryor. And, some might say you know who (2000).
Abortion Book: The liberal blogosphere thinks it is a grand act of principle that they are not deigning to review a pro-life book entitled "The Party of Death." They are right (ahem) to sneer at attempts by the other side with their clueless routine (hate it) respecting (1) why anyone would think they mean the Democrats and (2) why anyone would be loathe to seriously consider an argument purposely put forth in such an obviously partisan fashion. Oh, and, (3) the Right is not taking any number of the Left's books on various topics.
Still, even if the arguments are well-worn, at least skim the darn book. What harm in that? At least, don't make such a big deal about ignoring it, you sound dumb. Thus, as I glanced over the DHS stuff linked above, reference is made to a conservative review of the book that questions its stance. But, he notes that having read the book yet (it's in the bookstores), he cannot really totally judge its accuracy. Sheesh. Anyway, the review in relevant part reads:
Invisible to the naked eye, lacking body or brain, feeling neither pleasure nor pain, radically dependent for life support, the early embryo, though surely part of the human family, is distant and different enough from a flesh-and-blood newborn that when the early embryo's life comes into conflict with other precious human goods or claims, the embryo's life may need to give way. Deciding just which goods and claims are compelling is, of course, agonizingly difficult but does not, in itself, place one beyond the pale.
To resolve these debates categorically--as Mr. Ponnuru does--is to commit an error that has been exposed by thinkers as diverse as Michael Oakeshott, Russell Kirk and Friedrich Hayek. The error consists of attempting to judge the complexities of morals and politics through the reductive lens of natural science, under the bright light of pure reason, from the cold heights of abstract theory. What gets lost is the ability to make relevant distinctions, to discern the wisdom embodied in custom and common sense, to acknowledge the ambiguities, mysteries and tragic choices of lived experience.
Sound reasoning. If this it is so easy for a conservative to so argue, why not read the book and attack it from the left? After all, apparently, it is sooo worthy of respect and perusal. Surely, it is as useful as reading anti-left allegedly reformed war mongers also say things rather less impressive than they (and their allies) think it is.