You state that you are an independant man who “will never accept any label or ideology”, but then you label yourself as an Afghan and you say that “we Afghans have our own religion.”

First, if you Afghans have your own religion, what is it? Second, if your an Afghan having your own religion then that religion is your ideology! You are contradicting yourself!

Finally, you are just mad because your commie penis is so small that you piss on your balls.

But in all seriousness, the major issue wonks and nerds face is that they need to write to their audience – their employers – in order to get paid. Whether that means keeping your mouth shut during budgeting meetings or making sure Boeing gets a plug, its a serious hurdle to leap.

And of course we all simplify. The question, as you said, is how do we do it. You have to take out some variables and try to read through the noise, it all depends on what thesis you’re trying to prove and what objective you’re trying to reach. We’re all flawed in our outlooks, but I myself am just trying to find the best way for me myself to get some change going.

Before the meeting, I had a strange feeling that my professor would lobby me to enroll in a Ph.D program. After all, members of the academic community often boast their own field, hoping that others would follow where they left off. But to my surprise, he said the exact opposite of what I expected. ‘Academia is not for everyone’ he warned, and more often than not a doctoral degree will serve as a disadvantage for those who want to work in the U.S. Government.

How could this be? Well, it’s simple; the divide between practitioners and academics is extremely wide. Practitioners view academics as a remote class of people who are more interested in research for research sake, rather than research for applied problems. Practitioners want answers for today’s complex issues, like the national economy or America’s numerous foreign-policy concerns. A doctoral candidate may not be the best person for this type of job.

I’m still a bit puzzled by all of this.

You know, sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don’t, but you are a consistently interesting blogger. But to the main points of your post:

Ah, academia (wonk world is a complete mystery to me, except as I see bits of it filtered through the blogs I read.)

Academia lacks transparency such that there exist two “worlds” – academia’s idealized version of itself, and the grittier reality of political fiefdoms, bureaucratic wrangling, and personal professional jealousies or competition. Academia, as it exists in the U.S., big academia anyway, is corrupt. But if you make that statement, many academics think that you are a loser who couldn’t make it in the publish or perish tenure-track world, or maybe, that you are just a plain old loser.

But is is corrupt. You know it, I know it, pretty much everyone knows it, and I’m not sure what you do about the mass-psychosis of knowing something and not acting on it. Perhaps I am being too negative, but the stories almost anyone could tell from academia! Stories of spouses of important faculty, or chairs, gobbling up departmental resources, students pressured or threatened, committees for awards packed with personal favorites, intellectual incrementalism and group-think. I don’t know. Academia produces some very good research, I just wish it would turn its formidable intellectual skills toward studying itself, sometimes.

I doubt that will ever happen. It hums along, content to dispense advice on how the larger world should run itself, but it can’t even keep house itself.

Aw, ignore all that. Venting about past experiences, I suppose.

Are you a member of Hizb ut Tahrir? Come over to Afghanvoice forum. Let’s have a debate there about HUT.

ws