I agree with you - so much pressure to write dulls the supply of good material. Topics become narrower and narrower, academics have to sit around a dream up angles to approach new topics - and this leads to enormously useless abstractions that have no intellectual or pratical utility.
Well, in all seriousness, different parties have different priorities, that should not surprise anyone - but the idea that the federal government should lavish academica with research grants doesn't comport with the functions of the federal government. So while I understand how the game is played and the differences based on who is living in the White House, I am not particularly impressed with the idea that an academic has a right to complain that the federal teet has gone dry when it was more of a privilege, not a right.
Rest assured, my complaints about how the federal government spends its money are distibuted on both sides of the aisle.
Yes, but this is no more than a political ax waiting to be ground. I suspect what you label as 'waste' is largely funding designated to projects that don't line up with your political preferences - and I don't think that is very weighty criticism. The better criticism is to define first what the government should fund - no, not everything - and then decide whether the money devoted to those areas is being wasted.
I think the first question is more important than the second one.
I mean this seriously - what is the point of that project?
Heh, well, with one big qualifier, getting back to the point of the thread - tenure.