Janet Albrechtsen, and take that Noel Pearson, and David Flint and David Smith and take that Boris Johnson ...

(Above: a flashback in time, click to enlarge, because ... well because we can, and there's more here at the National Archives site).

The anonymous editorialist at The Australian strikes again, chortling joyously about the standards of Australian universities in A blueprint for building on world-class research:

Australia has no reason to be complacent in an increasingly competitive sector, but in a nation of 22 million, the ability of our top dozen universities to excel across broad fields is encouraging.

The oblivious gherkin seems completely unaware that these universities specialise in churning out tertiary-educated elites, who quite likely will develop a taste for coffee and chardonnay, and so ruin western civilisation, while refusing to develop a schizophrenic taste for Murdoch-dominated media.

Why only a little while ago, back in December in The price we pay when journalists lose the plot, the anonymous editorialist was scribbling furiously in support of Chris Kenny's leet bashing:

There is a deeper malaise, as Chris Kenny writes in our pages today, born of the tendency for journalists to come increasingly from a tertiary-educated elite with a "disdain for the vulgarity, ignorance and prejudices of working families and their suburbs". This mind-set dominates the ABC and Fairfax press, generating a false narrative of politics.

There, that's better. Back into your cages, you filthy deviant tertiary-educated elites, and let's not have you poncing about with air and graces regarding your tertiary-educated competitiveness with the ROW.

Speaking of elites, there's nothing more leet than a handsomely paid member of the commentariat, given a generous stipend to sit on their bum and bash out screeds of abuse on their no doubt nicely styled portable (well you can use a desktop if you like but that excludes you from leet consideration).

And speaking of leets, why it's leetish, some might say loutish, Dame Slap day, and who is Janet Albrechtsen bashing around today? And amazingly, it's bash Noel Pearson in Radical approach hinders Aboriginal cause, because Pearson is the man propagating a dangerously radical proposal regarding the alteration of the Australian constitution.

Pearson has had a charmed run in The Oz, as the aboriginal leader most likely to fall in with conservatives, follow the Liberal line, and do hearty GGB (Gillard Government Bashing), but his proposal to allow aborigines to vote first on any rewording of the constitution involving them - before the general populace - has got Dame Slap going.

Pearson has run his line a couple of times in The Oz, in Aboriginal referendum a test of national maturity, and Seek indigenous views ahead of full referendum, and was also given extensive coverage in Noel Pearson tells Julia Gillard: give us first vote.Which was then followed up the news that Langton backs Pearson referendum model, which saw Marcia Langton fall in to line, followed by the news that Shane Stone had also seen the light ... and fallen into line. (Shane Stone backs indigenous vote).

It looked like a full blown parade was being marshalled together for a splendid dose of GGB, with a sign that Tony Abbott was weakening (Abbott shifts his position on vote), only to read on and discover Liberal MP Ken Wyatt had rained on Pearson's parade.

And now Dame Slap has entered the ring (phew, mix those metaphors please):

Noel Pearson's proposal that any recommendation for constitutional acknowledgement of indigenous Australians be first voted on by Aborigines was expressed in Pearson's usual articulate, passionate and elegant fashion. Regrettably, arguing a proposition beautifully won't always rescue it from being just plumb wrong. Indeed, worse that that, it is the sort of radical proposition that may lead those well disposed to a moderate, mid-course proposal to despair about the possibility of a balanced outcome on matters indigenous. And when sensible discussions are at risk of being hijacked by extremes, then sensible minds will be tempted to forget the idea for constitutional change entirely.

Noel Pearson a dangerous radical extremist? Sorry Mr Pearson, that's an end of the matter, Dame Slap has spoken ...

Along with a hearty dose of PCB (Pearson Column Bashing), Dame Slap takes out Ken Wyatt (a lack of discipline, or crafty political point huntin)g, and delivers a hearty dose of constitutional fundamentalism worthy of the best American tea partiers worshipping their founding fathers (who did their very best to wipe out slavery and ensure paradise on earth, or so Michele Bachmann told the world, thereby setting off ruminations on America's History).

Australians regard the Constitution as a fundamentally sound document to be changed only incrementally and after careful deliberation. Speculative thought bubbles about new rights and new electoral processes will only guarantee a bitter debate. And failure.

Actually the way the Constitution frames referendum requirements - a majority of votes and a majority of states - is the reason most referenda bite the dust, even the most blindingly non-partisan and sensible ones. It takes a Herculean effort to overcome the inertia built into the system, and so overcome Newton's First Law of Motion.

Along the way, Dame Slap takes a slap at the peculiar notion that the Australian people might be able to vote for a President in any future republic (even one selected from say five nominated by politicians) as a kind of dangerous radical, extremist notion. Yes, there's not much point living in a democracy which encourages people to vote, but it's a nice segue over to a mention of Boris Johnson's unseemly, gloating Even Aussies love the Queen, it's in the blood.

As well as dancing on the grave of republicanism, Boris tells us that he was once a visiting professor of European thought at Monash University, given to drinking Victorian bitter in a bar and delivering these kinds of bon mots:

On that particular evening, I was teasing some of my colleagues about their ever-so-slightly correct way of thinking. There was a scholar of gender studies and a theorist of animal rights, and there was some tut-tutting when I suggested that Aboriginal art could not really be compared in quality with, say, the masterpieces of the Florentine Renaissance.

Indeed. In much the same way as most Europeans note that with the exception of Turner, British art for centuries has inclined to be shyte. But moving right along:

But what really got them going was when we moved on to the constitution. Tell you what, I said, I bet you the Queen is still the Australian head of state in - and I paused, trying to think of a date so far in the future as to make the bet seem fair - the year 2000! A throaty cackle went up from the group. ''No way, mate,'' they said, republicans to a person.

Boris moves on to celebrating The King's Speech, and its reference to the future king being about to reign over Australia, and demanding he be paid for a bet he made, and marvelling at the human need for hereditary authority, and discovering tears pricking his eyes at the sight of the king doing his thing, and being tremendously thrilled by the public's fascination with royalty, and the way that celebrity will triumph, with royal wedding mugs and dishcloths triumphant, and so on and on in the usual nonsensical British way, but here we must pull him up short.

It seems that Boris hasn't yet discovered that the Governor-General is actually Australia's head of state ...

Henceforth Boris, you are declared to have lost your bet, and all your monies, lands, rights and entitlements are forfeit to dinkum diggers, who have read Sir David Smith's Why The Governor-General is Australia's Head of State.

You see Boris, we live in a "crowned republic". Yes, Boris, we're already a republic, and you just haven't caught up with the news. Too much time spent drinking in bars with Monash radicals.

For your further information and insight, we refer you to David Flint's The Head of State Debate Resolved:

Yes Boris, the crowned republic even has its own website, but you can also find the valiant Flint lurking at the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site, and brooding about his cleverness, as in Crowned Republic: Canadian praise, NZ republican outrage:

“Retreating behind the walls of a "crowned republic" may be grating to the royalist, but there are circumstances when strategic retreats and partial evacuations are necessary, and when obstinancy no longer serves the public interest. The staunch royalist may shout from the rooftops that Australia is not a crowned republic, that it is an independent kingdom, a commonwealth realm and a constitutional monarchy, as evidenced by it having a Queen, but what good are semantic plumes when the country was long ago sapped of its royalist spirit?

You see Boris, even the monarchists turn out to be stout-hearted republicans, who refuse to recognise that the Queen is the head of state. Hand over your hundred bucks at once, and never drink Victoria Bitter again.

Sure it's named after a Queen, but it's the drink crowned republicans favour, and they have no truck with mere monarchists blathering on about the Queen being head of state.

Now you can live on in Britian, humbled, and a lot wiser, once you've handed over your hundred smackeroos ...

Unless of course you contend that Flint and Smith are barking mad ...

So many loons, so little time ...

(Below: it turns out that Karnzia is also a crowned republic, here. So many loons, so little time).