And, like any animal that perceives it is under siege, the WSJ is hitting back the only way it knows how — taking up arms as an ideological warrior. What else would explain this screed against Kevin Rudd, whose government is enacting an economic stimulus package in line with most other developed countries.

Outside the confines of Canberra and Washington politics, the social mood is distinctly post-ideological, with an emphasis on policy that works rather than that which adheres to utopian doctrine. Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama both understand this; Obama explicitly campaigned on it. Yet within the echo chamber of the national capitals, ideology still runs rampant in the opposition parties — the Republicans in the US, who recorded exactly 0 votes for Obama’s economic bill in the House of Representatives, and the Liberal party in Australia, who implacably opposed the Australian stimulus package. This is not because they are offering some kind of coherent alternative to the current economic crisis, but because they are fighting an internal battle of relevance.

For the past decade, at least, the conservative side of politics has raised phony issues with which to take stances on to create reasons for their existence — in Australia, it was industrial relations, in the US gay marriage and ‘small government’. This hid the fact that modern national governments engage in little more than service delivery in the domestic sphere. The phoniness was readily apparent. Australian Workplace Agreements (AWA; individual employee contracts) were introduced in 1996. WorkChoices, designed to beef them up, and presented as ‘essential’ industrial relations reform was introduced a full decade later. Yet, in 2006, the total number of workers on AWAs was a mere 3%. In the US, George W. Bush presided over large expansions in government size, power and scope. The War on Terror gave fleeting legitimacy to the latter. Yet as an ideological totem, it was fragile, and any politician raising it as justification for action today is a laughing stock.

What peeves the WSJ so is Kevin Rudd’s political skill. He is delivering one message — of competence, and yes, hope — to the post-ideological masses, and splintering the Liberal opposition with an ideological message designed to break apart Malcolm Turnbull’s tenuous hold over his own party. It does not matter that Rudd’s 7700 word essay in The Monthly contained some minor errors, or strawmen caricatures of Hayek and his followers. No-one who votes cares about that. The only ones who do are in the political class. They work themselves up into a tizzy and end up kicking own goals. The right continues to describe the Rudd government’s plan as ‘Whitlameqsue’. Yet, who under 50 even understands this reference, or perceives it as an insult? The right continues to struggle by speaking only to its base, and this is clearly reflected in the opinion polls. How they will recover is a mystery, but they must do so soon. It is not healthy to have politics so one-sided.

So to change the amount of time before a call is sent to voicemail to 25 seconds you would type: **61*0411000321**25# and hit call.

To turn off Voicemail completely just type: #61#

The method of victimisation is terrifying to think about. These louts attack in groups. How are you supposed to respond to frenzied violence and hatred? Patriotic Australians everywhere must fully repudiate the behaviour of these clowns. It would be ineffective for responses to this behaviour to come merely from the targets. The rioters must see that their behaviour is utterly rejected by leaders who they identify as “like them”; White, Anglo-Australians, like our Prime Minister.

The potential for the Australian Flag to be a unifying symbol is almost limitless, but it has been co-opted as of late, disgracefully strewn as an object of hate. It’s time to take it back, and take our country back.