Again, please let me be crystal clear on what I think is the most important poiunt here: I was told this was a private individual who just wanted to help me personally. It had nothing to do with the site, politics or anything else. I was told it was just someone who decided they could help another person. That is why I said yes.
And after he found out it was Moore, he could have said no, take it back, I can’t accept it. He didn’t. Since he didn’t, he now doesn’t have a beef.
Geez, my head is still spinning from reading all the updates. Kudos to Sethery, CM, Duck and others for their persistence. It can’t be easy slicing up an Applepie when it’s going round and round and round in circles.
think JimK mentioned he avoided signing up for a government program on principle.... A private donation from a benefactor seemed more the high road.
JimK’s self employed and wasn’t doing well financially at the time (my understanding of the facts). He probably qualified for an existing government program.
Why not let JimK speak for himself on this, and explain why he felt better about keeping money from someone who he was making a career out of attacking as morally wrong than exercising his rights to tax supported services. He might also say what is wrong with Moore’s analysis of problems in the US healthcare system from his point of view as someone who couldn’t get care.
Geez, my head is still spinning from reading all the updates. Kudos to Sethery, CM, Duck and others for their persistence. It can’t be easy slicing up an Applepie when it’s going round and round in circles
Why not add something to the debate? Explain how JimK was “injured’ by receiving $12K for his wife’s medical bills and a big publicity boost for his website. HINT: repeating the word “exploited” is meaningless.
f the anonymous exploitation thing is no big deal to you (in fact, a GOOD thing), I can’t possibly understand why keeping the money would be. You need to describe in vivid detail where your ethical lines are, because they seem to be nothing but random doodles.
What’s the ethical issue? You keep bringing up the phrase “anonymous exploitation,” without explaining what the beef is, How was JimK damaged or hurt? He got $12K and a publicity boost. Please say exactly how anything but his feelings were hurt.
Basically, Moore has tried to undermine JimK’s grounding to mount a philosophical critique of Moore’s politics and tactics. JimK has always argued that he disagrees with Moore’s political views, and also that Moore expresses those views in a manipulative and dishonest way. (You’re entitled to disagree with JimK’s critique, that’s fine). Now, by donating this money, Moore has put JimK in a position where he looks like an ungrateful buffoon if he continues to criticise Moore, even though the philosophical substance for JimK’s opposition to Moore haven’t changed.
In other words, when Sicko comes out, JimK might write an article saying, “I didn’t like this film because of this and this and this”. Only now, JimK’s critics can avoid the substance of JimK’s opinion and simply say, “Hey, isn’t that the guy Moore gave all that money to, what an ungrateful moron”.
Now, I’ll accept that JimK may have benefitted from this too (in publicity and through his wife’s health). Applepie, you seem to be weighing up the benefit to JimK and the hurt to JimK and concluding that the benefit far outweighs the hurt and so what is everyone so upset about.
But here is the crux. Moore didn’t give JimK any choice. He didn’t say, “Now JimK, it’s Michael Moore here, I’d like to give you some money for your wife and then put you in my movie”, and then give JimK the chance to weigh up the pros and cons of accepting the offer. But, no, Moore didn’t do that. He gave the money anonymously, then stuck him in the movie without asking.
“ANONYMOUSLY”! There’s that word again.
Now isn’t that an ethical issue? Isn’t that exploitative? Once again, if you can’t see that, I don’t know what else anyone can say.
Now, I’ll accept that JimK may have benefitted from this too (in publicity and through his wife’s health). Applepie, you seem to be weighing up the benefit to JimK and the hurt to JimK and concluding that the benefit far outweighs the hurt and so what is everyone so upset about. But here is the crux. Moore didn’t give JimK any choice. He didn’t say, “Now JimK, it’s Michael Moore here, I’d like to give you some money for your wife and then put you in my movie”, and then give JimK the chance to weigh up the pros and cons of accepting the offer. But, no, Moore didn’t do that. He gave the money anonymously.
C’mon. JimK learned a fair ways back that Moore was the source of the donation. At that time, he could have sent the money back, or promised to. He didn’t. Since he didn’t, he has to let the facts speak for themselves. He can and has tried to tell everyone he’s a victim being exploited by Moore, boo-hoo. But saying this doesn’t make it so. Most people not ideologically pre-committed to Moore-hatred will just see a churlish ideologue whose whining about receiving $12,000 much-needed care for his wife + a big publicity boost for his site.
But that’s just my opinion. But, hey, you’re welcome to send me $12,000. I’ll call it evil if you like,no problem.
"But that’s just my opinion. But, hey, you’re welcome to send me $12,000. I’ll call it evil if you like,no problem. “
“ Since JimK doesn’t need this money but doesn’t want to give it back to Moore he should send it to me and it would solve the problem once and for all. “
Now, I’ll accept that JimK may have benefitted from this too (in publicity and through his wife’s health). Applepie, you seem to be weighing up the benefit to JimK and the hurt to JimK and concluding that the benefit far outweighs the hurt and so what is everyone so upset about. But here is the crux. Moore didn’t give JimK any choice. He didn’t say, “Now JimK, it’s Michael Moore here, I’d like to give you some money for your wife and then put you in my movie”, and then give JimK the chance to weigh up the pros and cons of accepting the offer. But, no, Moore didn’t do that. He gave the money anonymously.
C’mon. JimK learned a fair ways back that Moore was the source of the donation. At that time, he could have sent the money back, or promised to. He didn’t. Since he didn’t, he has to let the facts speak for themselves. He can and has tried to tell everyone he’s a victim being exploited by Moore, boo-hoo. But saying this doesn’t make it so. Most people not ideologically pre-committed to Moore-hatred will just see a churlish ideologue whose whining about receiving $12,000 much-needed care for his wife + a big publicity boost for his site.
But that’s just my opinion. But, hey, you’re welcome to send me $12,000. I’ll call it evil if you like,no problem.
I’m not ideologically pre-committed to much at all. Earlier on, Mike B called me and CM pinko commies. (CM’s much more of a commie than me) I just call it like I see it.
As for arguing over when JimK found out about Moore, you seem to be wriggling out of the question. So let me ask it directly. Here we go, focus now.... Was Moore’s behaviour ethical? Is it ethical to offer someone an anonymous donation and then put that story in a documentary without asking them, particularly when that person has been a critic and their participation in the documentary could be potentially embarressing.
You seem to be focused on who has benefitted and who hasn’t. I’m asking you, who behaved ethically and who didn’t. Can you seriously argue that Moore’s behaviour was ethical?
Was Moore’s behaviour ethical? Is it ethical to offer someone an anonymous donation and then put that story in a documentary without asking them, particularly when that person has been a critic and their participation in the documentary could be potentially embarressing
Why not? JimK isn’t “participating” in a documentary, he’s one of the subjects of a documentary. And it may come as a huge surprise to you, but documentaries often embarrass some of their subjects. Paul Wolfowitz, I am sure, would have preferred that Moore not use the footage showing him licking his comb: it was embarrassing as all hell.
The issue is, what actual hurt or damage did JimK suffer? And I’m having trouble seeing anything but benefits.
I find it unethical to put up a fundraiser mentioning your sick wife in order to get money you don’t need.
I have no qualms with what Moore did as long as he describes it as it happened in his documentary.
Ah poor Victoria, always struggling to keep up. It’s been pointed out both here and on the front page (quite obviously) that no fundraiser was held. What actually happened (and do try to keep up) is that JimK blogged about the problems his wife was having and if anyone could suggest a better insurance policy for them (which they then found through the help of people who read it). They weren’t asking for money, just advice. Tricky to get your head around, I know.
There’s that compassion for the “little guy” for which Moore fans are renowned.
Yup, it’s amazing, isn’t it? Somehow, all Moore’s tactics are excused because he is “looking out for hte little guy”, even the tactic that involves stepping on the little guy because it fit’s the narrative.
I think I may have figured it out:
Applepie - 20 May 2007 05:43 PM
Oh, c’mon. The plea was for compassion for “the little guy.” JimK has been loudly badmouthing and baiting Moore for years. I really don’t think “little guy” is a synonym for “loudmouth blowhard,” but maybe I’m just not conservative enough.
It’s all in how you define “the little guy”.... to these people, someone like Moore can exploit anyone he wants, provided that person disagrees with them politically/socially/whatever. Those people aren’t really the little guy....
That is definitely consistent with what we’re seeing here. “Little guy” is defined more by political sympathies than actual financial capabilities. All “little guys”, by definition, support Moore and his work.
f the anonymous exploitation thing is no big deal to you (in fact, a GOOD thing), I can’t possibly understand why keeping the money would be. You need to describe in vivid detail where your ethical lines are, because they seem to be nothing but random doodles.
What’s the ethical issue? You keep bringing up the phrase “anonymous exploitation,” without explaining what the beef is, How was JimK damaged or hurt? He got $12K and a publicity boost. Please say exactly how anything but his feelings were hurt.
An anonymous donation is an act of charity with no strings attached, offered and accepted in good faith. The good faith offer is premised on the belief that the recipient will use the money for what it’s intended. The good faith acceptance is premised on the belief that there are no strings attached. JimK used the money for what it was offered: insurance premiums. Moore waited a year, then announced in a press conference hours before his movie’s premire that he made the donation, and the donation is played out in a supposedly humorous gag in the movie itself. In other words, there were strings attached. These strings were not conveyed to JimK at the time of the donation, in fact never conveyed directly to him. JimK’s good faith in an anonymous donation was exploited (I don’t give a flip that you don’t care for that word) by Moore for his movie. That’s my beef. Get it yet?
You and Victoria not only see nothing wrong with Moore’s actions, but insist that JimK should be grateful for the publicity and now even owes Moore something. If this is what charity means to you, I now know why you’d prefer the government handle these things. Your cohorts use charity to try to make puppets of others, while you come in and blame the target. Here’s the thing: if I can’t trust your motives when it comes to plain old charity, how in the hell can I trust your motives with what you demand our government do for/to everybody?
History teaches that the vaste majority of those who proclaim to speak for the Masses are full of shit, as are those who loudly gather around said orators.
You and Victoria not only see nothing wrong with Moore’s actions, but insist that JimK should be grateful for the publicity and now even owes Moore something. If this is what charity means to you, I now know why you’d prefer the government handle these things. Your cohorts use charity to try to make puppets of others, while you come in and blame the target. Here’s the thing: if I can’t trust your motives when it comes to plain old charity, how in the hell can I trust your motives with what you demand our government do for/to everybody?
How was JimK “made a puppet??” He’s free to go on attacking Moore and his motivations, belittling Moore and saying nasty, vicious things about him and trying to embarass him at every opportunity. He even has a bigger audence for doing this. But he’s a victim. But he’s a puppet. But he’s embarrassed.
