Down at The Bunker Cartoon Gallery, Coffs Harbour

Time for a laugh?

The Bunker Cartoon Gallery holds a collection of approximately 16,000 cartoons. Council took over responsibility for the care of the gallery's permanent collection from the Rotary Club of Coffs Harbour City in September 2006, and recognises the Cartoon Collection as a very valuable community cultural asset.

Regular themed exhibitions are drawn from the Bunker's collection of cartoons and caricatures and hung in the foyer or the main gallery space for a number of weeks, often coinciding or linking in with travelling exhibitions.

Location: The Bunker Cartoon Gallery is located on John Champion Way, City Hill, Corner of Hogbin Drive and Albany Street, Coffs Harbour.

Cost: $2 adults; $1 children.

Opening Times: The Gallery is opened Monday to Saturday from 10am to 4pm.

Contact: The Bunker Cartoon Gallery can be contacted on (02) 6651 7343.

Rudders & Co charge towards the global warming guns

Rudders & the Council of Australian Governments are re-enacting the political stupidity of the Howard era and charging down the valley towards the guns of global warming armed only with the forlorn hope that government can again defer doing anything meaningful about greenhouse gas emissions.
Yesterday's COAG communique tells teh plebs exactly what is expected of us - use less energy, pay more for what energy we do use, invest in renewable energy products for our homes and handover the credit for any energy savings to whatever big polluter needs to hide the fact that it's refusing to clean up its act.
By the time Rudders has bent over backwards to please every big industry player and political donor, there will be almost no large business paying for carbon credits or obliged to invest in renewable energy.
So many are exempt under Rudders latest massage of the renewable energy target scheme that it fair sticks in the craw.
COAG is obviously hellbent on taking part in a 21st century version of the Charge of the Light Brigade, when stupidity amongst the officer class resulted in annihilation.

Andrew Bolt redux

The vast wealth of information out there in cyberspace means that few have a place to hide past mistakes these days.

In 2000 journalist Andrew Bolt wrote one of his trademark snarky articles We pay our magistrates good money to UPHOLD the laws.

Here is his shining moment in the full glare of a legal judgment which followed in Herald & Weekly Times Ltd & Bolt v Popovic VSCA 161 [2003]:

224. Mr Bolt then wrote and published -
     

     "How outrageous to so bully a prosecutor for simply arguing the law must be upheld against demonstrators who destroy the property of others."

225. Mr Bolt only published a portion of the exchange between Ms Popovic and the prosecutor, and it is arguable that his observation about the bullying of the prosecutor was supported by what he published. But when the whole exchange is revealed, the context shows beyond doubt in my opinion, that there is no basis for the observation made by Mr Bolt. He has distorted what in fact occurred, with the result that he was able to make a critical comment. If the whole transcript had been published, it would have been clear to the reasonable reader that there was no basis whatsoever for the comment.

226. By distorting the facts, Mr Bolt has conveyed to the reader a false impression. As a result of the false impression, Mr Bolt was able to make a critical comment concerning Ms Popovic which arguably was supported by the distorted facts. But the true position was that the exchange between Ms Popovic and the prosecutor did not justify or even arguably support the critical comment made.

227. According to the evidence, Mr Bolt received a faxed copy of a report of what had occurred at the hearing on 30 November, and attached to it was a version typed by the police of the discussion between Ms Popovic and the prosecutor which had been recorded. The exhibit now before the court is faded and difficult to read. However, Mr Bolt read the report and the transcript and highlighted parts of the latter document. According to Mr Bolt, he took the view that there had been an error in the transcript where it read - "MAGISTRATE: I am warning you, now, I don't wish to enter an argument with you." Without seeking clarification and without asking to hear the recording, Mr Bolt formed the view that there should have been a full stop after the word "now". He said he was correcting an error and described it as an "ungrammatical error". He went on to say that he thought the punctuation mark was missing. It was then put to him that it was an example of "selective quoting changing the meaning of what was said, do you agree?" and he replied, "Certainly not". He was also asked the question, "And do you agree now that you changed the meaning of what was said?" to which he replied, "Absolutely not". He was then asked this question - "So without reference back to Mr Mohammad or anyone in the prosecution section and certainly no reference to the magistrate who said it or to the official court reporting people you entered a full stop after the word `Now'?" Mr Bolt replied - "Yes, I think I was right to do. I would have liked to have had the whole sense because I think it would have been even more damning to include it. I did not." His denials cannot stand in light of the full transcript of the exchange. No reasonable jury could have accepted his oral evidence.

228. In my opinion no jury could, in light of the distortion of the facts, come to the conclusion that the making of the publication was reasonable in the circumstances. The facts were not in dispute. It is noted that two of the three imputations relied upon by Ms Popovic were based upon the comment made by Mr Bolt concerning bullying a prosecutor for simply arguing the law. Mr Bolt's conduct in the circumstances was at worst dishonest and misleading and at best, grossly careless. It reflects upon him as a journalist. [My highlighting]

It's cyber warfare when government advocates it and left-wing extremism when dissidents use it

In early 2009 President Obama ordered a review of U.S. cyber security.

When the U.S. begins to openly discuss a cyber warfare command it is seen as a legitimate weapon in the arsenal, albeit allegedly for defence.
Cyber assault is also seen by governments around the world as a legitimate vehicle for espionage.

However, when the U.S. canvasses what non-government agency or individual might use cyber attack to achieve a political aim, then it's all about the left wing and hacktivism according to a U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security report.

Not only is it about the left-wing; it's about particular types of so-called left extremists - anarchists, environmentalists and animal rightists.

And among these three groups, singled out for particular mention are anti-logging protestors and anti-GM activists because loggers and farmers use IT technology now.

I'm sure many who oppose old forest logging or the introduction of GM crops to Australia will be amused to find that the U.S. Government considers them extremists and a threat if they happen to own a computer.

However, what is really amusing is the thought that no-one at Homeland Security appears to believe that the right-wing is computer literate enough to mount increasing numbers of cyber attacks over the next decade.