Open Threads

The first case of this I have seen:

Police have arrested a man for using someone else’s wireless Internet network in one of the first criminal cases involving this fairly common practice.

Benjamin Smith III, 41, faces a pretrial hearing this month following his April arrest on charges of unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree felony.

Police say Smith admitted using the Wi-Fi signal from the home of Richard Dinon, who had noticed Smith sitting in an SUV outside Dinon’s house using a laptop computer.

The practice is so new that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement doesn’t even keep statistics, according to the St. Petersburg Times, which reported Smith’s arrest this week.

Innocuous use of other people’s unsecured Wi-Fi networks is common. But experts say that illegal use often goes undetected, such as people sneaking on others’ networks to traffic in child pornography, steal credit card information, and send death threats. Security experts say people can prevent such access by turning on encryption or requiring passwords, but few bother or even know how to do so.

I am sure we can expect more of this in the future.

Wi-Fi TheftPost + Comments (1)

Unless someone can come up with a really good explanation, I am with Malkin and Sharkansky on this one:

The State Parks and Recreation Commission has assembled data showing that many blacks, for a variety of reasons, are not frequent users of the state’s 250,000 acres of parkland, particularly for activities like camping. This, in a state with an abundance of natural beauty

Good GriefPost + Comments (15)

Mike Krempasky has a pretty reasonable round-up on why the full-blooded conservatives are so adamant about the SCOTUS nominee:

I’ve been thinking more about what a Gonzales nomination could mean for conservatives – and it’s not good.
We’ve watched over the past 5 years as President Bush has, politically, made many gains. He’s done so with extraordinary performance at the ballot box, at least in the Senate. Last year’s elections were extraordinary – not at the top of the ticket where the President beat John Kerry by a tiny margin using the most sophisticated and professional campaign in history – but in the US Senate elections across the country.

But we’ve also watched this White House snub its nose at the conservative agenda. Those of us who believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for conservative principles have become all too practiced at the art of excuse-making for the President.

– Steel tariffs in an attempt to satisfy unions
– An education bill that the President brags about, and Ted Kennedy smiles about.
– An unacceptable delay in signing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban
– Campaign finance regulation, despite the President’s insistence that it failed the constitutional test
– Support for the extension of the so-called assault weapons ban
– The largest entitlement expansion in forty years, one that adds a burden to our children that makes Social Security look tame

Throughout it all, we have supported the President (if sometimes grudgingly). His support for economic freedom generally, and political freedom (around the globe) specifically, is worthy of praise.

But the real determinant of our support has been and will be (certainly in the continued absence of any real leadership on cultural issues) the President’s firm and demonstrated committment to putting good men and women on the federal bench.

Let me be clear: We have given the President MANY a pass almost SOLELY because of his judicial appointments.

He is right, to some extent- everyone feels somewhat betrayed by this administration (insert obligatory “see- Bush IS a uniter” quip here). They have spent so much time triangulating, signing bills I would never want supported, that for many conservatives, this is it- the judicial nominations are all that are left.

Yesterday, I described my unwillingness (to be honest, I also forgot to get a ticket) to attend the Bush rally here in my hometown:

Not to mention, I don’t fit into the two defined categories, that of Bush-supporter or Bush-hater. If they had a separate section for “Republicans who voted for Bush and support the war in Iraq but who are so pissed off by everything else this administration is doing they don’t want to be perceived as giving blanket support to the President” (John Cole, party of one), I might have gone.

The only people Bush has left are the social conservatives, and he is, it appears, going to have to dance to their tune in order to remain viable for the next few years. My only hope is that whatever conservative is nominated will have a real libertarian streak and everyone will be wrong about the nominee. I doubt it, and thus, my ‘Sullivanesque hysteria’ regarding the demands from the social cons.

I don’t agree with the agenda of the religious right, but I FULLY understand why they are making so much noise and demaninding they get what they want. They did go to bat for this administration. So did I. If I had received more in the way of what I wanted, I might be willing to look the other way about some of these issues, but instead, I have received the worst of both worlds. A fiscally reckless administration that appears to betray all of the core conservative beliefs while giving too much say (in my opinion) to the religious right. And administration that speaks in code words about homosexuals while signing McCain-Feingold. An administration that is supposedly free trade, while implementing steel and shrimp tariffs (not sure where we stand on sugar subsidies- I thought they were working to end those). You get the point.

Where to go from here…

Why The Nomination Is So Important to ManyPost + Comments (33)

And, just to let you know that Tony Perkins never sleeps, we have this:

The investigation into whether some cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy went too far in preaching Christianity has generated a separate controversy. Pro-family conservatives now say evangelical Christians might be suffering discrimination at the hands of the Air Force.

“I am concerned that efforts to address a few unfortunate incidents may become an excuse for discrimination against evangelical Christians,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, wrote in a letter to Gerald A. Reynolds, chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Chairman (USCCR).

Perkins was referring to the investigative council established by the Air Force in May to study allegations of “religious intolerance” at the academy in Colorado Springs, Colo.

The “intolerance” allegedly included senior cadets harassing non-Christians by denying them off-campus passes to attend other religious services; cadets uttering anti-Semitic slurs and academy professors “proselytizing” in class.

Between May 10 and 13, the 16-member investigative council, headed by Lt. Gen. Roger Brady, personally met with more than 300 cadets, instructors, and academy personnel.

As a result, the Air Force on June 22 promised in a press release that it would “work on developing wider cultural awareness,” among the students and staff at the academy and that it would remind commanders to make sure individual religious beliefs were accommodated.

So, when the Air Force finds that things aren’t kosher, that people were acting out of line, and that things need to be addressed even though the conclusion is the abuses are not systematic, the FRC worries that those alleged to be causing the problem might be persecuted.

The best defense is a good offense, and we know how these guys (Perkins and crew) love to play the victim card. After all, it is your Commanding Officer’s right to tell you that you have to believe in his God or burn in the fiery pits of hell. Everyone knows that. At least, everyone at the FRC.

The entire letter is here.

More Persecuted ChristiansPost + Comments (7)

Sometimes you just have to laugh at the right wing of my party. President Bush asks the mkindly to pipe down about Supreme Court nominees, because, quite frankly, they are looking like a bunch of salivating extremists, and this is the response:

“The only ones who could make somebody sound extreme,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative group, “are some of the president’s allies talking in an inappropriate way and themselves sounding extreme, which then gets tagged to the nominees.”

The wingnuts, of course, got the message and extended a middle finger to the President:

Gary Bauer, president of American Values and a Christian conservative candidate for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination, said, “A lot of people feel that the administration shouldn’t be reluctant to talk about the values we hope the nominee will embrace.”

“If all my side does is talk about process – ‘we want a fair hearing, etc.’ – while Ted Kennedy is talking about ‘we are not going to let somebody on the court who is going to take away the rights of individuals,’ as silly as I think that is, it will affect the way people think about the battle,” Mr. Bauer said.

Tom Minnery, director of public policy for Focus on the Family, an evangelical group and broadcaster based in Colorado Springs, blamed leftist advocates for the “decibel level” of judicial confirmation debates and said his group planned to continue to address mainly social and cultural issues “to get our constituents to understand how important this battle is.”

Officials of several Christian conservative groups, who did not want to be identified because of what they said was pressure by the White House, said they were continuing to urge the president not to nominate Mr. Gonzales.

Tuesday evening, Focus on the Family transmitted an e-mail message to supporters with the title, “Bush Defends Gonzales. Some conservatives wonder if attorney general is right for Supreme Court.”

Other groups circulated a statement from a prominent opponent of abortion rights, C. J. Willkie, describing what he said were private statements from Mr. Gonzales on the subject in an effort to discredit him further with social conservatives.

“Go to hell, President Bush- we got you elected,” seems to be the consensus. And don’t forget this rundown of what they want.

The Eternal Sunshine of the Clueless MindPost + Comments (9)

Katherine Harris is going to be a real gift to bloggers web magazines in the upcoming election. I don’t even know where to begin with this story:

Four years ago, as the state labored to eradicate citrus canker by destroying trees, officials rejected other disease-fighting techniques, saying unproven methods would waste precious time and resources.

But for more than six months, the state, at the behest of then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris, did pursue one alternative method — a very alternative method.

Researchers worked with a rabbi and a cardiologist to test “Celestial Drops,” promoted as a canker inhibitor because of its “improved fractal design,” “infinite levels of order” and “high energy and low entropy.”

But the cure proved useless against canker. That’s because it was water — possibly, mystically blessed water.

The “product is a hoax and not based on any credible known science,” the state’s chief of entomology, nematology and plant pathology wrote to agriculture officials and fellow scientists after testing Celestial Drops in October 2001.

In the same letter, Wayne Dixon recommended that the state break off its relationship with the promoters of Celestial Drops.

If you collect enough Celestial Drops, do you get Jesus juice? Seriously- this sounds like the start of a joke:

“A rabbi, a cardiologist, and a politican all walked into a bar and ordered Celestial Drops…”

Celestial DropsPost + Comments (3)

I am going to migrate to a new server. Who do you all recommend?

ServerPost + Comments (6)