In addition to school-work I have been occupied at Isocracy:

In response to a post on the Isocracy Network, I wrote:

--
The Platonic vision of citizenship is one I respect tremendously: a good citizen is one who is active in the politics of his society. I think you have characterized the relationship between pundits and the citizenry as one between father and son. I do not obey my pundit as I might my father. I do admire Jon Stewart's particular talent of using humor to be critical.

Aren't pundits being good citizens? They are actively involving themselves in the politics of their society the only way they know how. Being involved in politics doesn't mean making unilateral decisions as citizens; being involved means being willing to join a discussion and talk. One of the foundations of the Isocratic charter is the hope that policy (be it foreign policy or economic policy) would be tailored on a case-by-case basis to the needs of the problem. The solution would be arrived at through discussions.

If the relationship between pundit and citizen has grown to become paternalistic, that is the fault of the citizenry, not the pundit. We all ought to be pundits; we all ought to offer our own analysis and opinions. The key is that the pundit-citizen must be willing to discuss his view and modify it accordingly.
--

As a regular blogger, your correspondent is understandably defensive about his role as an opinionated commentator!