NO INDICATIONS THAT IT WAS AN ACT OF TERRORISM?

I'm not quite sure what this phrase is supposed to mean in describing what appears to have been a pipe bomb at YLS. (My friend Parley also sent along a YDN story, here.) It seems to me that if you're using a pipe bomb, whether or not it is an act of terrorism depends on the your motives. We won't really know more about that until we have some ability to describe motives. You can use a bomb to try to assassinate someone for personal gain, for example, and then it's not necessarily an act of terrorism. But outside of a narrow range of motives, I can't see how it make sense to describe the bomb as "not an act of terrorism." Unless the word "terrorism" now means particular groups engaging in particular ends.

The YLS building was recently renovated and is really quite a beautiful place. Thank God no one was hurt.