they gotta be joking

Funny, isn’t it, how pro-Liberal journalists don't see leadership issues as "woes" when they're talking about the John Howard Party, even though I doubt Costello's a shoo-in (notwithstanding the single poll Tim Dunlop mentions).
In the Weekend Australian, Christopher Pearson was commenting on Liberal Party leadership dilemmas. It seems Treasurer Costello is safe--they're stuck with him; so loyal, such a magnificent Treasurer, so patient, etc. Geez, he's been heir apparent so long, even I want him to get his turn.
And pro-Liberal journos are aware that despite Costello's obvious problems, he's the best of a bad bunch. I mean, look at deputy leader, which Pearson debates. He is keen on Tony Abbott (loyalty, passion, man of conviction, etc.) To this end, he downgrades Downer (AWB, alas) and Brendan Nelson, describing Nelson as "flaky", "trendy", "cheesy" and "smarmy", someone whose "star is waning". (Ah, I love it when the Right attacks their own.)
So, looks like the Libs, according to Pearson, are stuck with Abbott & Costello after all. Funny, Beazley's suddenly looking like a serious contender.

hello, i mustn't be going

This site is in danger of looking abandoned, but the truth is far from that. Got waylaid but I'll be back here soon. If anyone's still reading by that stage (thanks guys).
Meanwhile, I assume I'm the last kid on the writer's block to have found out (courtesy of the Weekend Australian) about lulu.com. What a fantastic idea for frustrated writers. I've only dipped a toe into it so far, but I love it. Coming soon: the book of the blog as standard option for readers to purchase? Why not!
Also while I'm here just wanted to bookmark this whimsical site by a St Kilda artist, Julie Shiels, who I saw interviewed yesterday on Sunday Arts. I share her obsession with text so I feel an instant affinity to her work. Kind of reminds me of Arthur Stace and his chalk Copperplate Eternity.
See you all soon.

mass liberal exodus foreshadowed

Liberal minister Jackie Kelly confirms that the John Howard Party has no John Howard exit strategy:

"If Howard was to leave I couldn't see any point in staying on," she said yesterday.

Talk about a vote of no confidence in any of Howard's potential successors. And they make fun of the ALP's leadership dilemmas!

this is not my beautiful seachange

Culture shock and exhaustion from the move to town, a month with just a few hours break from parenting, and the fact that my new-old computer was killed by a power surge a day after we got our new phone line connected...all have meant blogging has been a distant dream lately. Unfortunately I lost loads of material, some nearly ready to post, when the computer karked it, not to mention digital photos and even a new site template with an updated blogroll (apologies to those who've changed their blog address in recent months and have yet to be updated here). So, a real bummer. At least this old-old computer still seems to work (touch wood...).
Still, things are settling down a bit and Harley starts daycare this Friday so I hope to get back into some kind of normal routine again soon.

P.S. How's Teflon John! The guy's unbelievable.

going down

We are moving in the morning so the computer's about to get switched off for a week or two. I'm told our new house does have a phone line, it's just that the wall socket is smashed up. Telstra has kindly offered to instal a new plug for $75, whereas my dad has kindly offered to instal one for free. Either way, I should be up and running again within a week or two. I might as well have a little holiday.
This has been our last night of living so close to the ocean you can hear it breathe at night. I'll miss it alot, but we're looking forward to adventures of a different kind. Meanwhile, take care and see you soon, with a bit of luck.

the whole grain of truth

You feel a sense of the pendulum swinging on the wheat scandal. Lately the conservative media has been scrambling to regain some credibility in their coverage of the wheat scandal. It’s like they’ve woken up and remembered that, oh yeah, the truth does matter. Now even the pro-Howard media scoffs at Howard as he squeals, “I did not have kickback relations with that dictator, Saddam Hussein!” Usually Howard-friendly, Murdoch’s Australian seems particularly peeved that it supported him on Iraq, only to be embarrassed by this scandal and have its political loyalties so awkwardly compromised:

This newspaper has always believed in the case for toppling Saddam and staying the course in Iraq - as well as backing the hard-working members of Australia's defence forces who put their lives on the line on behalf of all Australians. Which is why the detached attitude of the Prime Minister, and the frankly mealy mouthed explanations of senior government officials such as Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, are not enough. That any Australian, be they employed by the AWB, the commonwealth Government, or any other institution, might have been involved in funnelling money to Saddam that could have purchased bullets to use against coalition troops (or Iraqi civilians) is an outrage, and shows the real danger of a public service culture where plausible deniability means never having to say you're sorry.

The editorial sizzles away in irritation about the Government’s ‘woeful management’ and ‘continued mishandling’ of the AWB scandal and betrayal of the Australian people. In recent weeks the same newspaper was falling over itself to laud the Prime Minister as the best thing since sliced Liberal bread. Now it fumes, “The man ultimately responsible - the Prime Minister - fails to condemn the outrage but rather sits back and hopes the whole thing goes away.” Not so very "consummately effective conservative statesman" after all, eh?
Predictably, the Australian soon reverts to type with a wild attempt to sheet home the blame to Labor, imploring Howard to take up the only exit strategy they can think of: When all else fails, even if it’s abundantly clear to everyone that your party ‘incubated the monster’, blame the Left.
Howard has clearly been playing for time on this issue, waiting to see if he can divine something from polls and public sentiment, waiting to see how things unravel before taking up the thread, but time’s run out for him. What’s the bet we’ll see him take Murdoch’s advice and change tack, come over all faux-outraged, lament how he inherited this whole problem from Labor, and pledge to undertake long-needed reform? Still, he’s got a hard road ahead of him. Even Dennis Shanahan is predicting more doom and gloom for the Liberal Party. In a nice metaphor, Shanahan’s story is headlined "Drug Mule Defence to Hit PM" and in it he reports AWB is likely to try to reduce culpability by blaming others, namely the Government. Shanahan writes, “AWB is no long saying the Government didn’t know…Even if this is desperation from AWB, then desperation could suddenly make it much worse for DFAT and the Howard administration.*"
Reading the papers over the weekend couldn't have given the Rat any satisfaction, not when he's got his paws so painfully caught in the toaster.

[*Is it just me, or does the phrase “the Howard administration” sound unfamiliar to the Australian ear?]

all Liberal eggs in one basket

Despite their best efforts, the Right hasn’t managed to get much traction on Labor’s factions, have they? Why? Because the public is not stupid and knows that the Liberal Party is completely in the glasshouse when it comes to leadership woes. Let’s face it, conservative success has been handed to Howard on a platter. When Michael Duffy praises conservative success, it’s telling how much is invested in the great Liberal Party savior.
“John Howard gets this,” he writes triumphantly. “Labor doesn’t.” Have you noticed how it's always John Howard v. the ALP these days? Maybe the Liberal Party should be given a new name too: The John Howard Party.
Still, it is probably true that rebranding Labor will be essential if the Liberals are ever to be booted out of office. As the conservatives say, such rebranding in itself isn’t the worst thing in the world. As Duffy explains, “In 1944 the floundering United Australia Party, our main conservative party, accepted its irrelevance and dissolved itself. It was replaced by a fresh political force, the Liberal Party. The rest is history.” Whether or not rebranding must include the seemingly pointless step of dissolving and immediately reforming under a different name is debatable.
The John Howard Party has its own leadership problems ahead, so it seems particularly absurd for conservatives to dwell on internal Labor Party upheavals. It’s not as if Labor is the only party with slim pickings for seconds. Sadly for conservatives, none of the rest of the Liberal honchos are John Howard, and everyone knows it. What’s more, if Howard gets the Liberal Party all covered in wheat dust, they’re all going to get hoovered away with him as quick as you can say in cahoots with Saddam.
Desperate to divert attention from their favored party’s woes, Howard’s sympathetic media continue to hype up Labor’s leadership issues. Me, I don’t see the recent dramas as a long-term problem for Labor. You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Sure, Beazley is turning out to be not much more than a political seat-warmer. Right from the start, he has felt like an “acting Opposition leader”. Yet, I don’t think the Liberals can count on Labor fatally imploding before the next election. One man can completely reverse a party’s fortunes, remember? If Howard can singlehandedly reinvent the Liberal party to the extent that Paul Kelly can argue Howard has created a whole new Liberal Party ideology” (related posts to come), then Labor has an equally good chance of repackaging itself and making itself attractive to voters too.
I agree with Tim Dunlop that the only real contender Labor offers right now is Kevin Rudd. It’s clear Julia Gillard is too untested, and still tainted by Latham, at this stage. She also generates such passionate opposition such that the merest television interview causes thousands of negative words to be written about her. Such polarity can be a good thing for a leader, since it indicates that her supporters are likely to be just as passionate. But she’s clearly too inexperienced.
And what future for the Liberal Party, post-Howard? Peter Costello "has resigned himself to not being recognised in his own country", surmised Dennis Shanahan in a recent interview. It doesn’t sound like someone much motivated to campaign for office. Unless he’s trying to ingratiate himself with feigned humility, a tactic that works a charm for Howard. Howard’s probably given Costello a very gentlemanly deadline by which he must warm up the public or put his leadership hopes aside. It’s also likely that Costello figures he may as well give PR a chance (kicking off with the Australian values speech, and seeking out recognition from the fluffy media). George Megalogenis describes Costello’s recent outings as a popularity pitch, playing the "patriot card to grey voters with the attack on Muslim fundamentalists, and the SNAG card to families", though there are doubts within the Liberal Party as to whether he is at all credible on these issues. Megalogenis reports that Costello is less popular with voters than Beazley, which seems hard to fathom.
In the end, Shanahan’s comment inadvertently reinforces the impression that Costello’s entire being reeks of half-heartedness. And Shanahan’s colleagues aren’t happy with Costello either. A recent editorial titled 'Simply too much tax' savaged him with lines like, "Treasurer PC must wake up to the facts", "whatever Mr Costello wants to claim", "however Mr Costello wants to slice and dice the numbers" and "the Treasurer’s statistical jiggery-pokery". Lookin' good, Pete! The newspaper editorialised, "The truth is the Howard Government is a high-taxing, big-spending, vote-buying Government". Remember this is the Rightwing media we are talking about.
While humbly bragging about his economic miracle to Shanahan-- ‘Costello looked back at his achievements as Treasurer and liked what he saw’, ‘suddenly…a record of unprecedented economic success in Australia and realised he’d achieved success beyond his wildest dreams’--yet Costello’s GST by his own reckoning has failed in its fundamental purpose and is essentially rendered pointless in retrospect (no doubt the states would disagree).
If not Costello, who? Or are we to imagine Alexander Downer getting another go? The conservative media doesn’t like him much either, if ‘frankly mealy mouthed’ is anything to go by.
This is surely the best time for what’s probably inevitable for Labor: big change. All in all, I remain optimistic we’ll see the John Howard Party given the flick at the next opportunity.

the shorter j-bo

Julia Baird in the Herald the other week argued ‘brevity is wit’ (not published online), for example in the case of blogging. I have to disagree. Some subjects are too complex for oneliners or for instant spin, just add links. Whether it’s critique or original thought, some ideas need space to be thought out and blogs are the perfect place for that. One of the best things about blogging is not having a word limit. Naturally, snappy wit is appreciated, but we can equally appreciate the lengths many bloggers go to at times to explain something or reason something out with us. That’s the beauty of having a scroll-bar. It’s liberating for online writers that a blog post can be as succinct as a few words and links or as long as an essay, if need be. I reckon long-windedness is fine so long as the answer is blowing in there somewhere. We are actually lucky we don’t have to fill a designated space each week, but simply create the space we need, as we need it. No wonder journalists get a little jealous of bloggers.
Which is all just a preamble to saying--some longwinded posts will be up soon. (So scroll me, Julia.)

crunch time

Sorry for the long silences, but I've been too busy to write (or read) much lately. Things have been getting a bit farcical around here, what with the construction fence going up around us yesterday and some hand-demolishing already starting in the adjoining house which my neighbors vacated a week ago. Meanwhile the bulldozers are champing at the bit and we've been packed up and boxed for two weeks, which is unsettling and irritating. As soon as the fence went up, passing tourists started stopping to gawk, and I'm inclined to put up a sign saying Don't Feed the Animals.
Still, the good news is that we finally move next week. The bad news is that the new dwelling doesn't have a phone line installed. So it may be awhile before I get to post some of the hundred posts I've been thinking about lately (you'll be happy to hear that a couple don't mention Tim Blair at all). Where there's a will, or an internet cafe nearby, there's a way. Right?
Anyway, thanks for dropping by and see you soon.

shunning stunt

Interesting. Tim Blair today quite freely admits to "shunning" Muslims:

Shun Australia’s 281,575 Muslims and you’re intolerant. Shun four million Howard voters and you’re progressive.

At least he's out of the closet, I guess.

hard reign oughta fall

Another conservative writer I can't take remotely seriously is Currency Lad. The other day, Naomi at Larvatus Prodeo drew a long bow, I thought, in generalising from an exceptional case of murder to society at large, concluding that "women just aren't safe in this society, not even from the men who claim to love them".
But quick as a flash, Currency Lad seized the opportunity for some mindless Left-bashing, with the idiotic comment:

"Progressives have trivialised marriage, life itself, turned education to mush and scoffed at any notion of absolute moral values. It’s hardly surprising there is a culture of death in our society."

Amazing that the Left has achieved this in just one decade of Opposition. Apparently far more influential in shaping social outcomes than the ruling Right. Geez, imagine what the Left will be capable of when it returns to power...global genocide, maybe?
A culture of death? Makes me wonder if, back in his formative years, Currency Lad switched off the telly before Bob Hawke got to complete his famous speech and heard only, "By 1990, no Australian child will be living--".

ass laughed off

Tim Blair continues to provide a laugh a minute. In this post, he jokes of thirsty East Africans that "at least they won't be travelling far" to get water, because it's raining in West Africa. Hey, why don't we cut Blair's water off and make him walk to Perth for a drink? C'mon, stop whingeing, it's not that far, surely.
Meanwhile, funnily enough, still nothing at Australia's funniest blog about the Prime Minister's latest lack of intelligence. Blair evidently cares more about George Bush's fake turkey than the real one running our country. Gobble, gobble.
Well, I could stay on Tim Blair all day, but my cheeks are starting to hurt from laughing so much, so I'd better go sober up with some more intelligent comment from other bloggers.

john who?

Imagine how much traction this guy would be giving this issue if we were talking about a Labor Prime Minister?

war on sex

In the comments thread on Tim Blair’s predictable bitchfest about Maureen Dowd, there’s an amusing tangent. A commenter wittily calling himself Christian Bin Laden, writes:

"The thing is there are women in country towns in Aust with little or no access to birth control, family planning services etc…. There are ALOT of real issues for Feminism to fix, but Modo is still fixated on the Monica Lewisky scandal of what 8 - 10 years ago???? Hello!!!"

(Don’t make the mistake of assuming the commenter is a genuine feminist. His or her earlier comment about Dowd was, "You can see by the look on her face what she’s really after is a good thwacking".)
What made me laugh in disbelief was the solution offered by Blair’s US-based blog administrator, Andrea Harris, who promptly responded:

"You mean they [Australian country women] have no access to the word "no"? Heck, this is a problem. They’re the best birth control device in existence, and they’re free. I’ll ship a crate of "noes" down there pronto. Until then, advise the young ladies to use the aspirin treatment (take one aspirin, place between knees, hold knees firmly together to keep the aspirin in place).
PS: you might want to check the closets of your local progressive "feminist" group for the various noes and spines they’ve removed from young women throughout the years in their campaign to make every woman on earth available to any passing male (under pain of being considered "frigid," "virgins," etc.), despite the fact that studies have shown that women who don’t have sex are not, in fact, in danger of dying from some painful disease or going mad. We let this campaign of theft go on for too long in the US and we still have a huge problem with bevies of young spineless women who can’t say "no." Don’t let it happen to your country!

Yeah, well preaching abstinence really works. In Harris's country, as a visiting American academic, Dr Jean Kilbourne recently told Paola Totaro, "at school the only sex education message [children] receive is a ‘just say no’ total abstinence message. That doesn't work, just as it didn't work for drugs. One of every 10 girls under the age of 20 becomes pregnant in the US."
And note, it’s commercial interests selling sex, not feminists.
Sorry, but young Australian women are not spineless if they are having sex. And in any case, who says the women in question are "young"? Older, maybe even (heck!) married women might need access to family planning services. But no, Harris thinks country women should just close their legs. Either that or issue chastity belts to girls on entering puberty, I suppose.
Harris displays a breathtaking ignorance about feminism when she writes that feminism has been about "making every woman available to any passing male". My fellow feminist readers and writers, could I just ask you, exactly how many times have you argued that women should be sex machines and not frigid virgins?
I hope Andrea Harris is doing the gene pool a favor and taking her Aspirin like a good girl each night.

dimple envy

Ha,ha. George Clooney has invoked Tim Blair’s ire by revealing "he is proud to be denounced as unpatriotic for questioning US policy because he wanted to be on "the right side of history". The interview Blair refers to was conducted to promote Clooney’s new films, described in the linked story as an "unflinching look at the ways extremism and political instability are fostered by the interests of big oil". Blair, who would clearly rather flinch, wants to fob Clooney off as just a pretty face.

"George, if you hadn’t won the genetic chin lottery, you’d be on the serving side of a McDonald’s drive-thru. You ain’t in the movies for your mind, boy."

Take that, George! On the chin!
If you read what Clooney actually said, he sounds rational enough. And this is the crux of it:

"If it's an attack, it's because you're asking questions," Clooney said.

The Left isn’t allowed to ask questions, because if they do, they’re "lunar", "vitriolic", "politically correct" and "unpatriotic".
Oh, and now "too good looking", as well. I guess we can live with that last one.

puffed up piece

It’s a bit silly to have to point this out to the Australian newspaper’s political editor of all people, but Dennis Shanahan is simply ignoring the fact that only about half the Australian people actually voted for John Howard. For example, I think the following edits are necessary to this paragraph:

John Howard is…someone half the Australian people have elected four times. He is the one half the people identify with and he is the one they half the people trust (even if they disagree with him) to be steady and to admit mistakes [say what?-Ed].
This is the Howard whose record, complete with backflips, blemishes and blots, they half the people accept as legitimate. This is the Howard who has established two-way communication with half the Australian people and who instinctively understands their the concerns, interests and aspirations of half the people like few leaders before him.

When Shanahan writes, "[Howard] has had more vitriol directed towards him than any prime minister since Billy Hughes" it just doesn’t ring true when you remember how much Paul Keating copped. And why must genuine criticism from the Left always be repackaged as "vitriol"? Is our democracy so feeble that the Prime Minister must be regarded as above reproach by all sections of the electorate?

"Much of what is thrown at Howard is, by extension, thrown at the Australian people: they are too stupid to vote the right way, they are racist, they are boorish, apathetic and conservative. The people take exception to this elitist view, and Howard understands them instinctively.

"By extension"? By whose extension except Shanahan’s? I mean, since when is a direct criticism of the Prime Minister’s behavior a criticism of Australians generally? When and where exactly have the political failings of John Howard—Iraq or AWB or ‘children overboard’ or whatever—been attributed as failings of the Australian people? It just doesn’t wash.

"Howard has used hostile media to cement his relationship with the voting public and reinforce the view that he is one of them."

What about the friendly media, like Shanahan himself? Isn’t it useful to Howard to have people like Shanahan endlessly reinforcing stereotypes about the Left, ie. of elitism, political correctness, vitriol? It’s the friendly media who does Howard a huge favor by endorsing his philosophy that it’s best to be pragmatic rather than principled in the real world, so lying, buck-passing and sticking your head in the sand are all acceptable behaviors. The thing is, the Left is not being pointlessly "vitriolic" when it stays on Howard on issues like AWB or Iraq. It is vastly important that Howard is held to account, not least because he only acts for half of us.

"By portraying Howard as a prisoner of his own conservatism, his opponents profoundly underestimate his capacity to change."

Well, I don’t agree that the Left does portray Howard that way. I think the Left is well aware that Howard chops and changes at his leisure. In the example Shanahan gives,

"After years of opposing Medicare and promoting private health insurance, Howard decided that the universal health insurance scheme was a pillar of Australian society that could not be undermined."

I wonder if, after years of opposing the Left, Howard will turn around and "decide" that the Left and "the mob"--for this is what the majority becomes when it disagrees with Howard--was actually right about Iraq. And then I guess we’ll be treated to puff pieces from the friendly media praising Howard for his quiksilver ability to move with the times.

happy birthday two you

Happy birthday to the love of my life, Harley, who turned two on Saturday. Best two years of my life so far, without doubt.

this is our life

Apparently I'm a Fourierian. Alain de Botton explains in the weekend Sydney Morning Herald (no link available) that Charles Fourier was a "fascinating and slightly crazy French political thinker of the 19th century":

In Fourier's ideal world, one might kick off with gardening in the morning, try some politics, shift on to art at about lunchtime, spend the afternoon teaching and wind things up with a go at chemistry at dusk.

Yeah, that's us. Only, over the next month there's going to be a lot of "kicking off with househunting in the morning" and a lot of "packing boxes at dusk". We have to move in three weeks and don't yet have a new address, which is scary. This place is getting bulldozed to make way for another row of holiday apartments. We've had quite a while to find a new place, but unfortunately houses rarely come up for permanent rental around these beaches and when they do, they are usually out of our price range. Fourierians find it a bit hard to scrape together $650 a week for rent.
Anyway, posting will probably continue sporadically for a bit longer. I really miss it...

we kid you not

Muslims do have too many children, insists rightwing columnist Angela Shanahan, who incidentally has nine children herself (happily, none of whom are Muslim.....yet).

"DANNA Vale's comments this week were a classic case of someone saying something everyone is thinking, but no one will say….Vale stated the obvious: that people who have children will be more numerous in the future than those who don't."

Well, no. What Vale actually stated was that Muslims—specifically--are out-breeding us.
Here, Shanahan begins by making the no-brainer case that Muslims have more children because (wait for it) they begin matching and hatching at a younger age, which is a consequence of their religious faith. It’s funny, actually, because Islamic women are doing exactly what Angela Shanahan has often prescribed for Australian women as the solution to declining fertility: be devout, marry young, have lots of kids, and forget about a career (those are for the menfolk). You’d think she’d be congratulating Islamic women on their lack of emancipation.
But Shanahan is deeply concerned about those fanatically-breeding Muslims. She warns, "Islamic fertility is an issue with economic and security ramifications." That’s right, security ramifications. Think of all those little terrorist babies being created. She spends the rest of her column elaborating about Muslim welfare dependency and entrenched unemployment, crime and potential terrorism.

"One of the biggest problems associated with high Islamic fertility [is] the explosive combination of highly concentrated numbers of young people and almost endemic unemployment."

Note that choice of adjective, "explosive". Somewhat loaded, with its connotations of terrorism, wouldn’t you say?

"If Australian Muslims were a prosperous community this wouldn't matter so much. However, unemployment is now affecting a the third generation. And continuing high fertility means that large numbers of children are growing up in households where no one has work."

She repeatedly states that problems of disadvantage amongst Australian Muslims are caused by high unemployment, yet she does not advocate trying to find ways of improving employment prospects for Muslims. All she offers is the vague conclusion that we need to "remove our PC blinkers and look at this growing, disaffected population of young people." I’m unsure what she would like us to do besides 'look at' (read: watch) these people. Chemically sterilise them, perhaps?

beyond the vale

This morning Alan Jones announced his support for Danna Vale’s extremist views. If it weren’t for the fact that Jones is generally conceived of as an important conservative opinion-maker to the masses, I would leave my response to epithets hurled at the television set, and move on. But it is disturbing that Jones is intent on validating and legitimising Vale’s statements. He seems to want to paint her as the second coming of Pauline Hanson, someone brave enough to "voice the very question that millions of Australians continue to ask" (ie, ‘will we all end up Muslim?’). Jones first explains that the Danish cartoon controversy proves that Islam is bad, dangerous and spreading, then goes on:

"Well, fast forward to Australia in the last 24 hours and the Federal Liberal MP, Danna Vale, is now under siege by the politically correct brigade because she dared to say that an annual abortion rate of 100,000 could result in Australia becoming a Muslim State in 50 years time. And that's all she did say. If the publishing of the cartoons is defended on the basis of free speech, where do Danna Vale's utterances fit in?"

Well, Alan, since you ask, I think they would best fit into a nice shady spot where the sun doesn’t shine. Certainly in the extremist margins, on the lunatic fringe. And honestly, aren’t we all sick of seeing that ‘politically correct brigade’ tag hauled out every time someone disagrees with a conservative? Are Vale’s colleagues Amanda Vanstone or Jackie Kelly also being ‘politically correct’ when they distance themselves from her views? Or does the nifty little label apply exclusively to the Left?

"The reality is, whether we like it or not, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world…Danna Vale was questioning what kind of nation we would be in 50 years time. But here we go again. Danna Vale is now paraded as the problem."

Jones, we get your drift. Islam heaps bad. Abortion heaps bad. Both killing off White Australia.
So, where does he want to go from here?