“I am unable to utter even the barest hint of a criticism because of their sizeable philanthropic efforts.”

Thank you for understanding and restating the point that “a lot of us” have been making about rich people and their charities. I’ll try to rid myself of ideology and find some common sense.

Of course it would be a good idea to send vaccines to developing countries, but Bill Gates expects to be fully compensated for shit like that. Charity is inadequate for such tasks. Virtue-signaling does impress some people though, and distracts them from talking about progressive taxation. 

What? The point is to make charity unnecessary, which Bill Gates seeks to prevent. Have you ever been the smartest person in the room?

“Charity is not a gift. Gift-giving implies reciprocity, an ongoing relationship. When requital is impossible, the act of giving remains outside mutual ties and charity becomes yet another manifestation of class structure, a sterile one-way act upholding the status quo.

Thus sayeth lord plutocrat: “Behold, ye peasants, I shall dazzle thee with shiny crumbs, that I may be redeemed of my many sins and saved--from the tax man.”

That’s a low bar, man. 

“Without nuclear we will never get past using carbon based fuels for power" is the industry's main talking point and is worse than untrue. We can get into that if you care to.

Where are you getting your information from? Nuclear IS the most expensive way to make power, even with public subsidy, and is so unsafe—according to the insurance industry, whose business depends on knowing these things—that nuke plants can’t get private insurance coverage. 

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows how “carbon dioxide emissions from the US electricity sector can be reduced by up to 80% relative to 1990 levels, without an increase in the levelized cost of electricity. The reductions are possible with current technologies and without electrical storage.”

https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2020/09/13/nuclear-reactors-make-climate-change-worse/

We must go to zero emissions—quickly and economically. Nukes take so long to build, cost so much and are so risky that only governments will insure them or subsidize them. They cost more to operate than the value of the energy they produce and Wall Street isn’t interested. The government says nukes aren’t necessary at…

What did your district have to set aside for recurring licensing fees? Those fees gouged piles of money from my rural school district and we still never had adequate computers for the students.

Who says so? Not insurance companies or investors, because it’s too risky and expensive. The market decides in the end.

I forgot to mention his secret plan to run geoengineering experiments over the heads of indigenous people in Sweden. They shut him down when they found out.

Stifling of innovation through overpriced licensing of crappy bloatware, gouging public schools through same, investing in for-profit charterized privatisation of schools, pushing nuclear long past its “sell by" date...

If there’s no problem then why are y’all upset at efforts to prevent problems from developing? What difference does it make what Republicans do?

Thank you for this. I’ve expected that most Latinos won’t adopt this ridiculous neologism. Prescribing artificial words for political purposes is obscurantist and authoritarian.

Blaming the victim...

I do think Esther’s articles ignore “kids” in general in favor of the cause. The ongoing story involves all children, as well as their parents and educators.