He accepted the money as an anonymous donation. But it isn’t anonymous if the person then takes advantage of the situation. JimK was cynically lied to and manipulated in order for Moore to make a point. If that is the level he must stoop to make his point, it doesn’t say much for his abilities.
How do you equate private charity to socialized medicine? I believe in charity and donate quite a bit. I don’t demand that the government confiscate money from other people so that I can stop donating.
He accepted the money as an anonymous donation. But it isn’t anonymous if the person then takes advantage of the situation..
No, it isn’t anonymous if the donor is known.
JimK was cynically lied to and manipulated in order for Moore to make a point.
lied to how? The point wasn’t about JimK but about American healthcare. Maybe JimK should speak out on that, about a system that gives him no alternative but to rely on charity
If that is the level he must stoop to make his point, it doesn’t say much for his abilities.
Wow! Maybe you should go out & show us all how it should be done.
How do you equate private charity to socialized medicine? I believe in charity and donate quite a bit. I don’t demand that the government confiscate money from other people so that I can stop donating.
But you object when Michael Moore donates because government isn’t stepping in, to make a point not about JimK, but about the healthcare system.
I don’t object one bit to Moore donating. I object to him offering an anonymous donation, then exploiting it in his film and for publicity. Clearly, Moore can do no wrong in your eyes, and should be able to buy the silence of his critics for $12,000.
If you accept my other point about the two being inextricably linked, you can no longer dodge the one question by simply answering the other.
Victoria:
So if I alone can’t solve a partcular person’s problems, that’s proof to you that the government must solve that problem for everybody?
If you’re going to insist on dodging my question about equating private charity and socialized medicine, I’ll have to insist on asking it again. (Note to self: exclude personal anecdotes from future replies to Victoria. She’ll respond to the anecdote instead of the question at hand.)
He accepted the money as an anonymous donation. But it isn’t anonymous if the person then takes advantage of the situation..
No, it isn’t anonymous if the donor is known.
JimK was cynically lied to and manipulated in order for Moore to make a point.
lied to how? The point wasn’t about JimK but about American healthcare. Maybe JimK should speak out on that, about a system that gives him no alternative but to rely on charity
If that is the level he must stoop to make his point, it doesn’t say much for his abilities.
Wow! Maybe you should go out & show us all how it should be done.
Did the donor make themselves known when they made the donation? No. So it was donated anonymously. And it was accepted anonymously. As far as I am concerned, that was the understanding on which the money was offered, and the money was accepted. By giving on this basis, you lose the right to claim anything later. That is the whole reason why anonymous donations exist. People don’t do it for any other reason but because they fundamentally believe that it is the right thing to do. But then Moore changed the game 180 degrees. This is basic entrapment. Setting it up to look like one thing, and then making it into another.
The point, to JimK, was about money for his wife. It wasn’t about American healthcare at all. Moore made it about that later.
It doesn’t sound to me like he exhausted all his possibilities. The offer came up and he took it. Presumably he could have mortgaged his house, and carried out a whole number of other things before relying on charity (such as family members). But he chose to rely on the charity that was specifically and (apparently) anonymously offered.
Moore may make many good points in the film, I don’t know. But at this point in time, the biggest story to come out of the whole deal is his underhanded exploitative behaviour. If it’s a good film, it’s a shame he has to tarnish it so badly by doing something so stupid.
How do you equate private charity to socialized medicine? I believe in charity and donate quite a bit. I don’t demand that the government confiscate money from other people so that I can stop donating.
But you object when Michael Moore donates because government isn’t stepping in, to make a point not about JimK, but about the healthcare system.
The problem is not that he donated, but that he pretended to do it ANONYMOUSLY.
Anyone who thinks his donation wasn’t a set-up for the film needs their head examined. Actually, you all seem to be saying it specifically WAS for the film. In which case, please explain why the donation was originally made ANONYMOUSLY, unless it was so that it would be accepted, and then Moore could change the rules?
Moore gave JimK $12,000 JimK desperately needed to care for his sick wife, and then gave him an enormous publicity boost for this website by including it in the film. If this is exploitation, I think a lot of rightwing website operators would love to be exploited this way. Moore is suppposed to apologize for possibly saving JimK’s wife’s life? For boosting JimK’s hits?
Actually, you all seem to be saying it specifically WAS for the film. In which case, please explain why the donation was originally made ANONYMOUSLY, unless it was so that it would be accepted, and then Moore could change the rules?
I can’t read Moore’s mind. Why is the anonymous thing such a giant issue? He didn’t sign a pledge. He just gave the money. Maybe he was planning to put it in the movie. But he made no pledge, or promise or anything else to JimK. He just wrote JimK a check, which JimK cashed -and then didn’t return when he found out the source.
And here’s the other thing. If JimK had, once he learned Moore was the source, said, sorry, I can’t accept this; I intend to return it as soon as I can, this is tainted money,then yes, Moore should not and I think would not have included it in the film.
But JimK didn’t. Why? I’m not going to read his mind.
Moore gave JimK $12,000 JimK desperately needed to care for his sick wife, and then gave him an enormous publicity boost for this website by including it in the film. If this is exploitation, I think a lot of rightwing website operators would love to be exploited this way. Moore is suppposed to apologize for possibly saving JimK’s wife’s life? For boosting JimK’s hits?
As far as I am aware, he didn’t “desperately need it.”
