Unfortunately, the PhD does not make one a philosopher or theorist in this country; it makes one a scholar of the subject. Instead of going the ing of the subject, PhD's have become professional academics, i.e. they have become professional *commentators* on their fields. I never found people philosophizing in my philosophy classes. Rather I heard people talk about other philosophers and quoting someone who wrote something about someone else.

I think the case might vary in the hard sciences, where one must be a scientist in order to earn one's PhD (as far as I know). But you do not have to be a sociologist to get your PhD in Sociology or a philosopher to get a PhD in philosophy. Basically, it only means you can BS about your subject ad infinitum and ad nauseum and on cue. We must be cautious not to jump to a common logical error and assume that because the PhD only proves the above that one cannot *also* be an excellent intellectual as a sociologist or philosopher. But I make the distinction between academic and intellectual, between scholar, whose job it becomes to publish publish publish publish about commentary on other people's work, even if its crap, under the pressures of market forces and modern competitive marketplace of the universities; and the person who truly seeks knowledge, wisdom and wonderment in the world. Again, academic and intellectual not mutually exclusive, but also not necessarily coupled.

Time for The Daily Show with John Stewart. Now there's a sharp guy whose intellect can put anybody to shame.