Not Happy John!

A word of advice to the proprietor of the Mittagong Antique Centre/Vintage Collection stand at the Sydney Vintage Clothing, Jewellery and Textiles  Show:

If you want someone to fork out $95 for a very ordinary 1970s terry-towelling beach coat, I suggest you first remove the $3 price tag from the Vinnie's shop you found it in.

(And no, I don't actually blame John Howard for this, it is just that this category is the closest I've got to express consumer outrage.)

So, the results are in (about 24 hours in now, as I write this) and so this will be the last time I use the "Not Happy John!" category. After 11 long years, the Coalition is out (and possibly in tatters) and Labor is back in. Better yet (depending on your point of view), Howard appears to have lost his seat—apparently only the second sitting Prime Minister to have done so. And even betterer yet, The Greens appear to have the balance of power in the Senate—keeping the bastards honest!

There were a few tense moments early on, but when Helen Coonan appeared to concede defeat at about ten past seven, well, it all seemed pretty well done and dusted by eight o'clock.

So yes, there was much rejoicing in the village that is the inner west of Sydney, where I live and where I attended two election parties last night. (Both hosted and attended by pinko left-wing chardonnay-swilling cheese-eating surrender monkeys, of course!) One host threatened to come good on his promise to run naked through the streets of Five Dock upon the Coalition's defeat—I had my camera ready, but he reneged (chicken). Even so, there was much hilarity, many "you beauties!" and a lot of very, very loud celebrating.

And also not a little caution. Yes, the Howard years are behind us, but we all know that Rudd's government will not see particularly progessive politics, as the "me-tooism" of the campaign, the reluctance to say the phrase "party of the left" and the strange pride in the metaphorical badge reading "conservative". But here's hoping that they stick to some "core promises"—Kyoto will be ratified, Work Choices rolled back and the Aboriginal peoples of this nation will finally hear the word "Sorry"—and that they won't stick to some "non-core promises", as per Peter Garrett's off the cuff joke. (Come on, Pete—tell us you weren't joking, eh?!)

With a bit of luck, those issues that were mysteriously absent from the campaign on both sides—the war in Iraq, social justice for asylum seekers and others, and the pernicious anti-terrorism laws—might emerge as serious matters for the new government to attend to. (Note to self: Poke your facebook friend Kevin about this.)

And, as Paul Keating so eloquently expressed in the Herald this week, might we at last see a return to a "moral basis to our public life":

Without this, the nation has no standard to rely upon, no claim that can be believed, not even when the grave step of going to war is being considered. When truth is up for grabs, everything is up for grabs.

(Read it, and weep!)

But personally, I am also most concerned to see what they do in terms of arts policy. (I'm not even ging to discuss Rudd's promised "education revolution" here because I am not entirely sure what it means in practical terms—beyond laptops for senior secondary students, which seems to me to be deeply impractical—but I fear will mean nothing more than a continuation, if not extension, of a conservative, test-based ideology.)

On the face of it, the arts policy announced last year—and expanded upon during the campaign—seeks to address some of the more egregious policies of the previous government: in particular, political appointments to boards and government interference in funding arts and cultural institutions and programs (this applies to post-graduate research projects as well). And let's face it—at least Labor mentioned the arts during the campaign, which is more than can be said for the Coalition.

So, first question—who should be the new minister responsible for culture and the arts? Peter Garrett? Bob Debus? And what do you believe should be a Labor government's priorities in these areas? (I'd like to suggest a "me-too" policy copying Ireland's tax-free status for writers, but I guess that's a pipe dream...)

While you're thinking about it, enjoy these photos from one of the parties I attended last night—plenty of writers, but not a Don in sight!

(For Misrule's readers who don't recognise the "It's Time" slogan, go here and here and all will be explained. I also note that my (safe) sitting member chose the orange and black for his campaign material.)

I seem to be mentioning Anita Heiss a lot lately—and why not—she's fabulous! I saw Anita yesterday at DET's first NAIDOC Week luncheon, where she was the guest speaker. It was a very happy event, particularly given this year is NAIDOC's 50th anniversary. The Welcome to Country was given by Aunty Beryl, a Dharawal Elder from La Perouse. She gave a rousing history lesson along with the welcome, talking about the Cadigal people who own the land where the city of Sydney sits, and let us know that Bennelong was still here. "If you're ever down at Circular Quay and you feel a shove in your back and you turn around and no-one's there—that's Bennelong, keeping an eye on things."

We were treated to a lunch catered by Thullii Bush Tucker Catering. I braved the crocodile (yes, it tastes like chicken) but my over-developed sense of anthropomorphism wouldn't let me come at the kangaroo or emu.

Anita spoke after lunch, and she gave us 50 reasons to celebrate NAIDOC week. As she said (as she urged us to create our own), an idiosyncratic list, favouring the arts and her own Wiradjuri people's achievements ("'Cause we're the best!"), but it was also a warm, funny and inspiring list. Her Powerpoint didn't entirely work—some photos not loading—so when she put up the slide of Four Gorgeous Black Men, she got four gorgeous black men from the attendees to take their place. (VERY funny when a rather portly member of the four lifted his shirt in honour of Nicky Winmar's iconic stance.)

Then there was a trivia quiz, and Anita made sure I won a prize "in the spirit of reconciliation" even though I left two words (50 Years) off the beginning of this year's NAIDOC theme, Looking Forward, Looking Blak.

Given the current difficult and controversial situation around the federal government's approach to the crisis in some NT Indigenous communities, it was fantastic to celebrate Aboriginal Australia, 50 years of NAIDOC and 50,000+ years of survival in such genial company and circumstances.

Please read this impassioned piece by Joss Whedon on the stoning murder of 17 year old Iraqi woman Dua Khalil. As you've probably read, this oxymoronic "honour killing" was filmed on a mobile phone as security officers in the area did nothing to prevent the killing, and the video has been shown all over the media and internet. I have only seen two stills, on Wikipedia (no, I'm not linking), and I doubt I'll be able to shake the memory, or Whedon's description: Her face was nothing but red.

A quote from Whedon's essay that goes to the heart of the matter:

All I ask is this: Do something. Try something. Speaking out, showing up, writing a letter, a check, a strongly worded e-mail. Pick a cause – there are few unworthy ones. And nudge yourself past the brink of tacit support to action. Once a month, once a year, or just once. If you can’t think of what to do, there is this handy link. (alas, there's no link on the site.) Even just learning enough about a subject so you can speak against an opponent eloquently makes you an unusual personage. Start with that. Any one of you would have cried out, would have intervened, had you been in that crowd in Bashiqa. Well thanks to digital technology, you’re all in it now.

One thing that someone has done is to create a T-Shirt that bears the slogan I Am Dua Khalil. Profits go to Equality Now. Maybe a T-Shirt doesn't seem like much, but if it encourages a sense of solidarity amongst men and women across the world against the worst atrocities committed against women like Dua Khalil, then that's a good thing.

Alas, however, a commentator on 702 Drive this afternoon observed that the widespread availability of the murder of Dua Khalil has in fact encouraged copycat "honour killings" (sic), just as he observed that, ironically, (in his opinion) such a murder would never have happened under Sadaam Hussein's police state—that the post-invasion lawlessness of Iraq has allowed such killings to flourish. I don't know—I don't have the expertise or knowledge to comment. But in the name of Dua Khalil and the hundreds of thousands dead, we—I—must do something.

I hope this isn't infringing anyone's copyright, but I just have to reproduce this letter from today's Sydney Morning Herald in full. All I can say is, Amen, brother.

It must come as a shock to discover that Peak Hill Central School is top of the 2006 HSC merit list for mathematics, with 100 per cent of its students gaining scaled marks above 90, ahead of James Ruse and a host of schools which are selective in one way or another. Of course, Peak Hill Central had only two HSC students, but nothing can detract from their achievement and that of all the students listed.

What can detract from school achievement is where the school is located and, more important, how close it is to other schools which effectively choose their students, as against those who are genuinely local. A closer look at the merit lists shows that, while there are more schools in our cities, it is the rural comprehensive schools that are listed in larger numbers as the schools producing top all-rounders.

These schools are less affected by nearby private or selective schools and usually retain most of their more academic students. They are closest to what most schools were three decades ago: local, government, comprehensive, inclusive and achieving.

Of course, this was an age when schools were all about creating as well as serving communities and about building our common wealth. These are the schools that we have been undermining or dismantling, while favouring schools that, in one way or another, choose the students and the communities that they prefer to serve.

Unsurprisingly, such schools now dominate the so-called merit lists. We have a new hierarchy of schools, built not so much on the efforts of principals and teachers, but on the deal handed to them by geography, public policy and especially by levels of public and private funding.

Study after study is showing that Australia has a growing equity problem between schools and in the access our young people have to opportunities. Instead of reducing the gaps between schools and communities, our policies increase these gaps in quite unbelievable ways.

The Prime Minister labels such concerns as the politics of envy. The new Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, prefers to tackle the national curriculum because it is an easier task. They will eventually have to confront the legacy of our regressive framework of schools - but don't hold your breath.

Chris Bonnor, Cherrybrook