Oh very droll.

On identifying suitable candidates for the Institute of National Self Importance, or Institute of Finger Wagging Nag, even Pompous Institute, perhaps we could start here at OLO?

One immediate method is to just look at the self proclaimed intellectuals - Anyone posting with a classical Greek tag, should be pushed volunteered immediately, (hint, many of them start with P)

Anyone who spends far too much of their life researching and posting links to win link battles with anyone else, thus proclaiming high ground based on search engine results - understanding what is posted is optional.

Anyone who responds.

At least the above mentioned should be in the pool for first elimination.

It would be interesting to trace the origins of this pretentious but amusing term. It's really a creation of the media's need for people who'll comment on anything at the drop of a hat, but at least one American university has a doctoral program to develop public intellectuals, so perhaps this should be a requirement for Ken's registration. On the other hand, perhaps we could identify public intellectuals by asking Ken to list the commentators he disagrees with.

I only hope the author is joking.

RE “the fact that the profession of public intellectualism is completely unregulated.”

I can think of nothing worse than “public opinion” being “regulated” especially by socialists operating under a manipulative troll like Krudd and his union sponsored brethren.

Of course the “free-market libertarians” would never pursue a strategy of pointless regulation anyway.

It reminds me of old Vladimir’s maxim

“It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”

This proposal, assuming it is serious, is a request for the likes of comrade Lenin to intervene in the rationing of freedom of expression; remembering that several million Kulaks died when Lenin "rationed" and regulated their freedom.

I am working on the basis that this is a tongue-in-cheek article and not something which anyone would ever seriously propose.

Col, it's posted under Humor and Satire - it is just a dig at some of the puffed up ones amongst us and for some of the press who want to boost the credibility of their sources.

Not unlike the first Gulf War when journalists were left interviewing each other and scrambled to get quotes from the journalists deemed, by themselves, to be most important and knowledgeable. It was hilarious.

The whole public intellectual lofty viewpoint (sneering) and National Treasure label are just elitist terms, for self indulgence .. the riff raff merely use the term "wank*rs"

Some of them spend way too much time at the back patting machine, courtesy of the ABC and Age, New York Times, Guardian etc.

Is a person who writes a critique of "public intellectuals" a public intellectual?
Does the entering into the dialogue and deconstructing the notion of public intellectualism constitute public intellectualism?
Has the author registered their public intellectual status?
What safeguards have been explored re confidentiality issues with regard to this register?
And who knows where this will lead? Next thing he will be suggesting a register of right wing commentators guilty of hypocrisy.
I say stop now before we see the end of cvilisation as we know it.

I think he's being ironic Col, seeing as how most 'public intellectuals' like to propose new regulations.

I'm more worried about the 'Social Commentators' than the 'Public Intellectuals'.

I suppose they're basically different species of media whores.

rpg,

'On identifying suitable candidates for the Institute of National Self Importance, or Institute of Finger Wagging Nag, even Pompous Institute, perhaps we could start here at OLO?'

Indeed.