Vegas FNBers, et al.: here’s an update on Sister Megan’s case. — quote — The only regret Sister Megan Rice shared with members of her jury on Wednesday was that she wished 70 years hadn’t passed before she took direct action, according to the BBC. She and two other peace activists, 64-year-old Michael Walli and 56-year-old Greg Boertje-Obed, were convicted of “invasion of a nuclear facility” in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, even though investigators admitted they did not get close to any actual nuclear material. The three activists are part of a group called “Transform Now Plowshares,” a reference to the book of Isaiah, which says, “They shall beat their swords into plowshares. They shall learn war no more.” All three face individual sentences of up to 20 years, along with a litany of fines. “As they invaded the Y-12 National Security Complex at Oak Ridge, a perimeter fence was cut, several surfaces were spray-painted, banners were hung and activists read from the Bible. They also spread human blood on several surfaces, saying its use was symbolic, meant to remind people “of the horrific spilling of blood by nuclear weapons.” “The shortcomings in security at one of the most dangerous places on the planet have embarrassed a lot of people,” the activists’ attorney, Francis Lloyd, told members of the jury according to the BBC. “You’re looking at three scapegoats behind me.” Sister Rice has been arrested between 40 or 50 times committing acts of civil disobedience, according to The New York Times, including once in Nevada after she physically blocked a truck at a nuclear test site. — quote — http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/09/83-year-old-nun-gets-20-year-sentence-for-symbolic-nuclear-facility-break-in/ Free Sister Megan Rice and all political prisoners.

The most recent UX improvements to http://distro.libertarianleft.org included an opportunity to add aldus leaves to the site. So did I? (Of course I added aldus leaves.)

http://xkcd.com/1209/?utm_source=feedly Your morning digital typography humor.

is reading Danny O’Sullivan, “What is an Encyclopedia? A Brief Historical Overview from Pliny to Wikipedia.” (Actually the most interesting parts are on medieval encyclopediasts and on Vannevar Bush.)

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2412 Great Vowel Shift horror comix “. . . She’d say things like ‘woooo in the future we’ll have cell phones’ and her ancestors would say ‘Is that English? I can barely recognize it. It sounds so different to our more throaty, Scottish-sounding phonology.'”

To-day @ radgeek.com: Against National Relativism

“As soon as Hasan tweeted his question, he was instantly attacked by a writer for the Times of Israel and the Atlantic, dutifully re-tweeted by Jeffrey Goldberg, on this ground: ‘Israel’s strike on Syria has been a revealing moment. Some, for example, seem to view Israel as equivalent to Iran.’ . . . One could say quite reasonably that this is the pure expression of the crux of US political discourse on such matters: they must abide by rules from which we’re immune, because we’re superior. . . .The ultimate irony is that those who advocate for the universal application of principles to all nations are usually tarred with the trite accusatory slogan of ‘moral relativism’. But the real moral relativists are those who believe that the morality of an act is determined not by its content but by the identity of those who commit them: namely, whether it’s themselves or someone else doing it. . . . Today’s version of that is: Israel and the US (and its dictatorial allies in Riyadh and Doha) have the absolute right to bomb other countries or arm rebels in those countries if they perceive doing so is necessary to stop a threat but Iran and Syria (and other countries disobedient to US dictates) do not. This whole debate would be much more tolerable if it were at least honestly acknowledged that what is driving the discussion are tribalistic notions of entitlement and nothing more noble.” – Glenn Greenwald Nearly all polemical uses of the term “moral relativism” in current foreign-policy debates are actually attacks on anti-relativist positions, which are being made precisely because what they advocate is *the opposite of moral relativism*. It’s too bad, because words mean things, or at least ought to. See also, here: http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/07/26/pet_peeves/

is reading Becker vs. Kirzner on assumptions of rationality in understanding market process. Wee ha.

is reading Becker vs. Kirschner on presumptions of rationality in understanding market process. Wee ha.