Wi-fi in Texas; nincompoops in Minnesota

The editorial board of the StarTribune is such a joke. Here is today's evidence.

Apparently, some Texas state parks are going to offer wi-fi Internet access at campgrounds. The StarTribune, from 1000 miles away, decides to weigh in with its opinion because its wants to "preserv[e] the Netlessness that some campers actually appreciate in a state park." Huh? Why should anyone care if someone in a campsite nearby is silently enjoying the outdoors at the same time as he or she surfs the Web. The answer apparently is that "[u]ndoubtedly" such people will be "sending e-mails, checking their stocks and surfing for smut." Sounds pretty bad. By the way, are people currently allowed to write letters or read the Wall Street Journal and/or Penthouse in Texas state parks? I will have to do some research to find out.

Here is the only effort made by the StarTribune to address the arguments offered in favor of wi-fi access.

The Texas department's observation that laptops won't generate noise, and therefore are more benign than boomboxes, is true but beside the point. And the assertion that wi-fi campers will be using their laptops to plan hikes, check weather or identify warblers -- well, that's a stretch.

Why are these assertions "beside the point"? Why are they a "stretch"? No explanations offered. I guess that when you know best what people everywhere should be doing, no explanations should be needed.

ANOTHER THOUGHT: Should Blackberries also be banned?