For all of you who missed it, which is pretty much everyone, FIBA, the international basketball body modified many of their rules to parallel those of the NBA. Here is an overview:

“BEIJING – International basketball is going to look more like the NBA after two major rule changes take effect.

The three-point line will move back and the three-second area will change shape starting in 2010, the sport’s world governing body announced Saturday.

After Oct. 1, 2010, FIBA will begin using the new rules for major events such as the Olympics and world and continental championships.

The three-point line will move from 20 feet, 6.1 inches to 22 feet, 1.7 inches. The NBA line is 23-9.

FIBA general secretary Patrick Baumann said it was likely FIBA would move toward the NBA distance in the next 10 years.

FIBA also will reconfigure the three-second area to match the NBA shape, going from a trapezoid to a rectangle. “

The only major disparity that won’t change is that there will be no “cylinder” above the rim as there is in the NBA. The current FIBA rules will stay in place.

This is important news for several reasons:

1. Maybe with American kids growing up playing and practicing by rules that closely mirror NBA and college rules, we can use younger, amateur players rather than having NBA owners pay for the salaries of players so that GE can make millions of dollars and show a couple games on CNBC at midnight. Do I sound bitter here ? I of course am. Nothing dumber. The Olympics is not about national pride, its about billions of dollars. Ok, off that soap box.

2. If the rules are close enough, it creates the remote, but still possible opportunity for international officials to become NBA officials. That would expand the talent pool by thousands , which is a good thing.

3. What I am guessing is the real reason behind the change is that it makes it easier to franchise the NBA brand of basketball internationally and for American basketball fans to get understand it and get behind it. That is a good idea. (I’m all for international use of NBA players when we get paid for our players to participate. It’s that old American capitalistic concept of I Pay, You Pay)

4. It creates an additional development league for the NBA. If players who are too young for the NBA want to earn a living playing basketball, they can go to Europe, prove themselves, get paid and learn the game in an environment comparable to the NBA. That again is a good thing.

4.

ShareThis

Everyone seems to think that the over riding issue in the media business is technology. What impact will the internet have ? Where will people consume media, which media and how ? If you can find everything and anything on the internet, why would you need or want anything else ?

All fun questions to discuss, but none really matter. The only question that really matters is are you ubiquitous or not ?

The media business used to be ubiquitous by default. Broadcast TV was the ubiquitous outlet for visual entertainment. When it perceived the threat of cable networks, it built and bought all it could get its hands on to squash the threat to their ubiquity.

The Newspaper used to be the ubiquitous source for volume information. It was the only place you could get all of yesterdays news and information ,along with relevant display and classified advertising. When there was a perceived threat from 2nd and 3rd dailies in cities, there were price wars and consolidation to maintain as much ubiquity as possible.

The radio industry used to be the ubiquitous source for free music and audio entertainment. When perceived threats such as the internet came along, they merged and consolidated to try to fight threats with mass.

When the internet came along, there was a perceived opportunity for ubiquity in the delivery of audio, video and text. The internet could offer anything to anyone, anywhere. So businesses were defined and delivered to attempt to accomplish the goal of “replacing” traditional media in any way it possibly could hoping to become ubiquitous.

As the “Ubiquity Wars” of the past 14 years have been fought between old school and new school media, the reality is that the result of these wars is that newspapers, radio and TV have lost their ubiquitous status, but the internet has not gained it either, resulting in business models that are out of kilter.

The problem with newspapers is not simply that their revenues are declining, its that they are constructed to be ubiquitous in their marketplace. Their cost structures are the problem.

Look at it this way. If newspapers didnt exist 5 years ago, and all we had was the internet for news and information, and all of a sudden a modern day Horace Greeley came along to found the first print newspaper last year, we would be talking about how amazing it was that such an analog medium found an audience. The difference would be that as a startup, with startup expenses, a newspaper could

ShareThis

I’ve been in the technology business for a long, long time. There was a point in time where it seemed a no brainer that everything that could be presented on a digital device would be, and everything else would go the way of the horse and buggy.

Then something crazy happened. I got older. No matter how hard I tried to stop the aging process. I couldn’t. Like every one else, my eyes got worse. I turned into one of those people who needed a candle or flashlight to see the check after dinner. I turned into one of the people who squinted when reading labels.

I also turned into one of those people who squinted when reading my phone and PDA.

On the positive side of life, I turned into one of those people who had kids. Two of them. The best thing I ever did. Having kids defined a universal algorithm of life that I really didnt understand when I was a kid selling PCs and writing software. The algorithm is defined as follows, the more time my kids have on their hands, the less time I have available.

Age has redefined how this technology savvy person consumes media and I think I am representative of a growing, not declining market.

First of all, Im a big believer now that “if the news is important, it will find me” . I don’t read any medium to get the latest headlines. I have enough RSS feeds and email alerts that if its important, the breaking news will find me quickly.

I also don’t have a lot of discretionary time to just find entertainment. I follow the path of least resistance for my general entertainment. I set my DVR to record far more programs than I will ever watch. If there is even the slightest possibility I will like a TV show, i will add it. (Which i think everyone with a DVR does as well). Which means that I always have all the tv entertainment I need for my tv watching time. It also means that Im not one of those people who looks to the net for entertainment. Thats way too much work. No one with a life has time to troll through online videos and find enough entertainment to kill their vegetation time after the kids go to bed. I cant think of anything more ridiculous than spending an hour sampling Youtube top 100 videos to find a couple 3 minute gems.

I want my entertainment how I want it, when I want it, where I want it. Not how 16 year old kids want it.

The same concept applies to how I consume Newspapers and Magazines. I read the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal pretty much every morning. I’m not a big reader of the locals or the USA Today. The Times and Journal are relevant to keeping me up with business issues, while the Times alone also keeps me up to speed with original content (as opposed to AP stories which are everywhere online) about national and international issues. I can read them both when its more convenient to read a newspaper than look at a PC or PDA. For me, that may be at breakfast or lunch, on a plane, or while riding a workout bike. The newspaper platform makes it easier to read extended stories. I can take it with me anywhere and read it anytime I want. Something I can’t do with a PC, while a PDA isnt conducive for someone my age to read multi thousand word stories. So newspapers are a great medium for me.

The same applies to magazines. Because they can come with me anywhere, are lightweight and easy on my eyes. I can read them how, when and where I want.

Then there is the sore butt consideration. If you sit at a desk as much as I do, answering emails, watching programming for HDNet and keeping up with my business, sometimes you have to get off your chair and make sure your legs still work. I plan my breaks knowing I can still be productive reading those most portable of platforms, the newspaper and magazine.

I realize all of this makes me an old school geek. I personally think there are a lot of us and every day one of you ages into my category.

Which begs the question of why old school mediums like Broadcast TV and newspapers are struggling so much. The answer is simple. In the past, these were the ubiquitous platforms for entertainment and information. Newspaper, TV and Radio. That was it. That is no longer the case.

In todays world the mediums have been segmented by demographic, but the cost structure of the mediums is still built to support ubiquity. This is a problem not just for Broadcast TV (cable networks have always been defined for niches) and newspapers but for the internet as well.

ShareThis

Is it possible for the shot clock to have more time on it than the game clock ?

Those of you paying close attention to the Suns vs Spurs game might have noticed during the 2nd overtime, Ginobli grabbed a huge rebound and while he was expecting to get fouled, the shot clock turned over to 24 secs and seemed to be stuck there.

Then as the game clock continued to wind down, an interesting thing happened. The time left on the shot clock was HIGHER than the time left in the game. The shot clock was showing 24 secs while the game clock was at 23.6 seconds and counting down.

How can this possibly happen ?

By Design. This is right and exactly the way the NBA clocks are designed to work

Its because of the way the software for the shot clock is designed to work. When the shot clock starts counting down, it doesn’t start counting at 24.0 seconds. It actually starts counting at 24.9 seconds. So when the shot clock changes from 24 to 23, that means the shot clock has counted down from 24.9 and has changed to 23.9.

This also means that when the shot clock shows 1 second left, there can be anywhere from 1.9 seconds to 1.0 seconds left. This approach allows the shot clock to go off and sound the horn as it turns from 1.0 to zero, having counted down 24 seconds from 24.9 to .9 . So there could be 1.7 seconds showing on the shot clock, .9 seconds left in the game and there still could still be a shot clock violation if a shot isnt off before there are .2 seconds left in the game.

If it wasnt done this way, we would have to have tenths of a seconds on the shot clock. Which could be better or worse , depending on your point of view.

Either way, the one ever present fact in NBA games is that the end of any quarter, its very possible to have more time on the shot clock than on the game clock, with the shot clock still in effect. So when you see this, it doesn’t mean that there is a clock problem, it means the software is working as designed

ShareThis

The biggest challenge for advertisers today is to get people to watch their commercials. With all the technology and alternatives to watching commercials on TV I would think that advertisers would do everything humanly possible to eliminate any elements that would immediately trigger a viewer to fast forward to change the channel.

Is this not commen senese ?

If it is, then why in the world do advertisers

JACK UP THE VOLUME OF THEIR COMMERCIALS ?

This annoying “feature” is more pronounced in home theater and surround sound based systems. I can’t think of anything that pisses me off more than to be watching a TV show and to all of the sudden be blasted by a commercial from all sides of the room. Its the ultimate command to change the channel or fast forward.

SO WHY ARE ADVERTISERS SO STUPID ? Turn down the sound, maybe people will lean forward and listen !

ShareThis

There is a game played by CEOs with the corporate issuance of lottery tickets. Otherwise known as stock. Stock can be issued in any number of ways, shapes or forms. Warrants, options, restricted or unrestricted stock. No matter what you call it, every CEO hired, is asking for equity knowing that their only goal is to hit the jackpot and create a pool of wealth that puts them in the “fuck you” wealth category. Thats enough money to buy or rent just about anything you can think of and put you in position to never have to work again. You just live off the cash in the bank.

Put another way, every hired CEO is looking to be in a position to look in the mirror , smile and tell themselves they have made it. They are living the American dream. The only way to do that is to grab as much equity equivalents as you can and do everything you can to get that stock price up as high as you can while periodically liquidating the stock and stuffing the cash in your bank account.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. Any CEO who doesnt take advantage of this golden ticket opportunity is an idiot. In fact, although I don’t have actual numbers, I would hazard a guess that more than 95pct of CEOs hired to run companies with a billion dollar plus public market caps probably do get themselves to the position of having more than 10mm dollars in equity very quickly. While those who manage to hold on to their jobs a while and not screw up too bad, can relatively quickly get past the 25mm dollar in equity mark and reach the 50mm dollar mark with in 10 years. Its actually pretty tough to screw up and not get there if you have any brains at all.

Why ?

Because you have the entire Mutual Fund, Hedge Fun and Brokerage industry doing everything they can to get you there. Think about it.

You can’t turn on CNBC or Fox Business without them cheerleading the market to go up. Every man, woman, child, fund, index or interested party who buys the stock is doing everything they can to get the stock of the company to go higher. They don’t really care how you run the company and they care less about the results of the company than they do about the performance of the stock. Heck, even if they did care, shareholders dont really own anything and have zero say in the company. If you really dig into it, its the ultimate in social networking. Everyone who owns the stock belongs to the fan page or group for the stock and they are telling everyone they can how wonderful the company is and why the stock will go up, all while praying it does so.

Its the American way and it works ! Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent every year by brokerages telling every American that the stock market over time will go up 7pct per year. All you have to do is diversify and hold onto your stock long enough. For better or worse, everyone believes it.

With all of that social networking power, call it stocksourcing behind stocks, how can CEOs not get rich ?

The problem with all of this is that there is a huge disconnect between the CEO and shareholders doing well and those who work for the company doing well

Yes, its true, particularly in markets like we are experiencing now, stocks can hit 52 week, or even multi-year lows.(although more often than not, in spite of low stock prices, market caps have increased).

Yes, its true that CEOs see the value of their holdings shrink. However, unlike lottery tickets whose value goes to zero when you dont hit the number, the CEO equity positions retain their upside and history has shown us that if they go far enough underwater, they will get repriced and /or reissued. All in the name of keeping the CEO happy. So while CEOs may get “less rich” for awhile, the game is stacked so that a downturn gets them happy real fast when the upturn comes.

The disconnect is that there is a big difference between not making Wall Street happy and not making money.

The pressure from Wall Street is to grow earnings forever. Not matter what it takes. This isnt a problem when a company is doing well. EVeryone is happy. But when the economy hits a bump like it has now, when the market is hitting a bump and stock prices are declining, like it is now, the pressure comes. Everyone owning the stock reacts and whats to know what the CEO will do to get the price back up. This, as they say “is where the CEO earns their pay” Unfortunately, what this really means is that everyone who works for that company is at risk. At risk of losing their jobs, benefits, raises, you name it. Its at risk.

All of which is a long winded way of saying that employees live in the corporate cash zone, CEOs and the top few in management live in the equity/lottery ticket zone.

Those in the cash zone always take the first hit. People,places and things that consume cash are the first things to go because cash expenses immediately reduce earnings. If you or anyone like you consumes cash, unless someone upstairs thinks you generate a straight to the bottom line return on the cash expenditure, you are about to become a corporate ghost. Your person, place and thing will be memorialized as a cut to increase earnings mentioned in a press release that wall street will cheer and use to push up the stock price.

What makes me sad about all of this is that I really think that in this country if there truly was a connection between shareholders and management, that if given a choice by profitable companies, most of us would choose to hold on to our shares and accept an expanded PE for some period of time in exchange for people keeping their jobs.

I would love to receive an email from a company I own saying something to the effect of:

Dear Shareholder,
We are facing a very difficult decision that we would like your feedback on . Our earnings per share last quarter were 20 cents, and for the entire last year, 80 cents. Because of a downturn in business caused by XYZ factors, we face the choice of making 10 pct less, or cutting headcount and related expenses in order to maintain our earnings and possibly even grow our earnings a couple cents this year.

As a shareholder, we would like to ask you whether you would consider allowing us to retain these valued employees. We recognize that it would require you accepting a PE multiple 10 pct higher than the current market. We hope you would be willing to make this concession. We think that the jobs this will save will return far greater value to shareholders over the long run.

We look forward to your vote.

Personally, Im willing to give a higher multiple in exchange for saving people’s jobs. At least once.

Unfortunately, this of course is a fantasy that can’t happen in this country.

Which brings us back to CEO Pay.

As long as CEOs live in the equity/lottery ticket zone and employees in the cash zone, CEO pay is going to be outrageous relative to everyone else.

The only possible way to change this is to put CEOs in the cash zone. Make companies generate 100pct of their compensation in cash that is 100pct expensable in the quarter paid. Thats not to say they cant own stock. Hell yes they can own stock. But make them buy it either on the open market, or as part of the programs that make stock available to every company employee, on the same terms. They are getting paid enough in cash and if they believe in their ability to run the company, they can put their money where their mouth is. Eliminate all the free lottery tickets. Make them buy stock, options, warrants, whatever, on the same terms as everyone else can.

Shareholders tend to ignore how much stock is given to management, they don’t ignore cash. Companies will always be a lot more stringent with their cash, whether its paid to the CEO or anyone else. CEO cash compensation will go way up, but total compensation will come way down. More importantly , CEOs getting paid huge sums in
cash will stand out like a sore thumb when things arent going so well. They will be treated like everyone else in the cash zone and held far more accountable for their work.

Of course this is all just my opinion, but to me its a good thing for all involved. The rich can still get richer, but everyone shares in the risk.

ShareThis

There is a dirty little secret in the cable industry. Its being kept secret not by the cable distributors, but by the big cable networks. End this practice and the United States goes from being 3rd world by international broadband standards, to top of the charts and exemplary.

Make this change and Net Neutrality becomes a non issue. There is plenty of bandwidth for everyone.

What is the dirty little secret ?

That your cable company still delivers basic cable networks in analog. Why is this such an important issue ? Because each of those cable networks takes up 6mhz. That translates into about 38mbs per second. Thats 38mbs PER NETWORK.

USA Network, 38mbs. ESPN, 38mbs. MTV 38mbs. VH1 38mbs.etc, etc, etc.

If we want to truly change the course of broadband in this country, the solution is simple. Just as we had an analog shutdown date for over the air TV signals, we need the same resolution for analog delivered cable networks.

Transition basic cable networks from analog to digital over the next 3 years and all of the sudden there will be hundreds of megabits available on the smallest cable systems and more than a gigabit of bandwidth available on the largest.

Of course the cable networks themselves would fight this. It could reduce their subscriber counts. God forbid that USA Network and other basic cable nets do not reach every household that doesn’t have a digital set top box. That is of course far more important than the upside to our entire country that plentiful bandwidth creates. Right ?

So for all of you netizens out there, drop all the Net Neutrality efforts and focus on pushing analog cable networks to digital and you kill two birds with one stone. You eliminate any issue of Net Neutrality with bandwidth a plenty, and you immediately make our nation bandwidth competitive with every nation in the world. In fact, done right, we become the envy of every nation in the world. All without a single backhoe or blade of grass in a yard harmed.

I might even have to change my stance on internet video reaching broadcast quality !

ShareThis

First of all, I speak for myself and not the NBA. My opinion really doesn’t matter on this issue because it is governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement and I can assure you that I have minimal influence on what is included in that document.

If it were up to me, I would raise the age limit to 22 or when your class graduates from college. Why ?

It’s not because there are not 18 or 19 year olds who can’t play in the NBA. There always have been, and there always will be. Doing what is right for the NBA is about far more than basketball talent.

My logic is simple.

If a kid is NBA ready to play at 18 or 19, he will be NBA ready at 22. They don’t forget how to play basketball and they don’t get worse. What does change considerably between the ages of 18 and 22 is the maturity level of the kids. Ask any 22 year old in college if they are more “worldly” and better prepared to deal with life post college than they were when they were 18 or 19.

The ability to better deal with the real world is of huge importance for anyone entering a profession. I’m not saying every college graduate is automatically mature. They aren’t, but again, those who are immature at 22, were probably far less mature at 18 or 19.

From the perspective of an NBA owner, maturity is far harder to qualify than talent. Can he manage the personal side of his life ?When friends, relatives and hangers on are coming out of the woodwork asking for something. I know that when I first started making great money, it was difficult for me, in my late 20s to deal with who to say no to. How is a 19 year old going to say no to people who he has grown up around and are still his close friends ? How is he going to deal with the gold diggers ? A 1 or 2 week “Scared Straight” class by the NBA isn’t going to do the job.

Can he deal with all the obligations that come with living on your own, and being in a job that requires you traveling more often than not ?

Does he have an understanding of financial principals ? To a 19 year old kid without financial training, a million dollar contract makes him a millionaire. There is no concept that 50pct goes to taxes and that by the time he pays his bills, he has a great job, that pays great money, but he isn’t at a level that allows him to spend without limit. Unfortunately, there are far too many agents that won’t have the tough love conversations with their clients until its too late.

Which means that all the emotional strain that comes along with being 19 and entering a new profession is introduced to the team. It becomes our obligation to help the player deal with all of this. We get the questions about whether or not he should buy a gun because his buddy tells him he needs one. How to set up a checking account or to get a new drivers license or get a passport. How to deal with breaking up with a girlfriend who now wants money. And that’s not the worst of it.

Raising the minimum age is not about talent, its about maturity. Maturity matters to this league. Mature players are marketable players. Mature players generate far less strain on the league. Mature players can take care of themselves. Mature players understand the business of the NBA and how they can positively impact it to their own benefit.

Look at the two big black eye events that NBA has suffered the past several years. How many of those players are “early entrants” ? Maturity matters.

When people would talk about NBA image problems, and you ask for specific players, its not about black vs white, tattoos vs non, its about mature vs immature. Its that simple.

The younger the player the greater the maturity risk. The greater the maturity risk, the greater the risk to the entire future of the NBA.

I don’t know how we can measure maturity and make it a covenant of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The closest definable measure we have is age. Which is exactly why I’m all for a 22 year old age minimum.

Given all the comments, I wanted to add an update here:

ShareThis

It’s no surprise to readers of this blog that he doesn’t like me. He seems to always find a way to spout lies and pass them off as legally permissable opinion. It’s gotten to the point of becoming comical.

Yesterday, at the Mavs vs Suns game, there was a guy yelling at me “How is Chavez ?, How is Chavez ?”. So i walked over to him and his daughter sitting next to him and asked him what in the world he was talking about. So the guy says, ” How is your friend Chavez , you know from Venezuala ?”. So I gave him the obvious response of ” I don’t know him and definitely don’t support him, where in the world did you hear this nonsense ?”. Which of course was a dumbass question on my part. I dawned on me, just as it was coming out of his mouth “O’Reilly”

It doesn’t matter how many times I make it clear that I’m neither right wing or left wing, that I think for myself, O’Reilly just can’t resist making comments about me. But thats not the point of this post.

I enjoy finding out just how big a hypocrite OReilly is. One of our movie companies, Truly Indie, is distributing an amazing, amazing movie about those from the medical profession who choose to serve our country and the trials and tribulations they go through. Its called Fighting For Life . Our PR people contacted a variety of media sources who were very supportive of the film. I made sure to ask them specifically to contact foxnews and the OReilly show. I wanted to know that when Bill asked why there were not any pro troops films being produced and released, if he would get behind a movie that truly is.

You already know the answer. Our PR people received no response. When I emailed them directly, after the lack of response, this was our exchange

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Mark Cuban <mark.cuban@dallasmavs.com> wrote:

ask your boss why he never mentioned a movie we released last month, here is a review. He was sent a copy and our PR people contacted your office. I wanted to see just how interested you truly were in movies that supported the troops..

New U.S. Release
Fighting for Life
(Documentary)
By JOHN ANDERSON
A Truly Indie release of an American Film Foundation presentation. Produced by Terry Sanders. Executive producer, Tammy Alvarez. Co-producer, Jennifer Glos. Directed by Terry Sanders. Written by Sanders, Christine Wiser.

With: Crystal Davis, David Welling, Daniel Inouye.

The only people who seem immune to the politics of the Iraq War are also at its epicenter: the doctors and nurses who mend and tend to the wounded, and who provide the heart and soul of Terry Sanders’ “Fighting for Life.” Docu about combat medicine is getting a limited theatrical release and will likely follow the route of most Iraq War-themed cinema, onto the scrap heap of theatrical — which doesn’t make it any less of a film, but may make us less as an audience.
“Fighting for Life” apparently was originated by Sanders as a profile of the Maryland-based Uniformed Services U. of the Health Sciences, from which, the film tells us, 25% of active-duty physicians have graduated. It has also come under consistent attack by budget-cutting congressmen more concerned with the spoils of war than its casualties.
Having witnessed the work done in the field, Sanders broadened the movie’s scope to include combat hospitals, rehabilitative units and, inevitably, the horrendous physical damage. What’s onscreen is among the most disturbing footage to come out of the Iraq cinema experience: The squeamish might find the USU cadaver scenes even more disturbing than the images of soldiers’ injuries. But the footage makes a profound point about what kind of person can practice this kind of medicine at all, much less do it in a war zone.

Sanders and his crew probe relentlessly with their cameras, never recoiling from the most horrendous, bone-revealing injury, or from the long road of pain and disability ahead for most of the very young people on stretchers, or from the older but unjaded medical teams around them. Pic makes it clear how much recovery is going to be needed for everyone, and not just the legless, armless combat vets.

“Fighting for Life” is briskly paced, and there’s often a palpable, appropriate sense of disorientation parlayed through the roaming p.o.v., which can often leave a viewer wondering what exactly he or she is looking at — did that used to be a leg? It’s an artistic decision and a correct one, because as much as one might like to, it’s very tough to look away.

The film makes the most of the seemingly unlimited access provided by USU, whose administration was probably aware of just how valuable such exposure could be for their institution. Production values, especially the HD camerawork, are tops.
SPIRTUALITY AND PRACTICE: March 7, 2008: Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat’s review is posted to this site:
http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/films/films.php?id=17932

Film Review
By Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat

Fighting for Life
Directed by Terry Sanders
Truly Indie 03/08 Documentary
Not Rated

More than 25 % of active duty military physicians were trained at Uniformed Services University in Bethseda, Maryland. This engaging documentary by two-time Academy Award-winning filmmaker Terry Sanders presents the skill, dedication, courage, and compassion of the doctors and nurses who have graduated from this school that has been called the “West Point” of military medicine. Many of them are now serving in Iraq and Germany where they take care of the American soldiers and Iraqi civilians wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Treating multiple blast injuries, head traumas, and loss of limbs are daily occurrences for these medical professionals. As one of them says, “There’s nothing normal about war. There’s nothing normal about losing a limb or seeing our best friend die.” In a very emotional sequence, a wounded soldier is told that he will never walk again. Another soldier recuperating in America recalls the 18 operations on his body. Army Specialist Crystal Davis, who lost part of one leg and has to undergo intensive physical therapy for her other foot, refuses to give in to despair and depression.

In treating all these people, the doctors and nurses in the film come across as angels dispensing their own brand of miracles. They realize that many of the young men and women injured in combat will require treatment for the rest of their lives. The filmmakers of Fighting for Life had unprecedented access to combat support hospitals in Iraq, Medevac flights with wounded soldiers, and military hospitals in Germany and the United States. This enabled them to create an authentic and inspiring portrait of the life-affirming work of these doctors and nurses and the remarkable courage of their patients.

Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:56 AM
To: Mitchell, Ron
Cc: Melissa Raddatz
Subject: Re:

another link, just in case you want more info about a movie you ignored

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fighting_for_life/

m

From Fox News , OReilly Producer >
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:27 am, Mitchell, Ron wrote:

ShareThis

It’s no surprise to readers of this blog that he doesn’t like me. He seems to always find a way to spout lies and pass them off as legally permissable opinion. It’s gotten to the point of becoming comical.

Yesterday, at the Mavs vs Suns game, there was a guy yelling at me “How is Chavez ?, How is Chavez ?”. So i walked over to him and his daughter sitting next to him and asked him what in the world he was talking about. So the guy says, ” How is your friend Chavez , you know from Venezuala ?”. So I gave him the obvious response of ” I don’t know him and definitely don’t support him, where in the world did you hear this nonsense ?”. Which of course was a dumbass question on my part. I dawned on me, just as it was coming out of his mouth “O’Reilly”

It doesn’t matter how many times I make it clear that I’m neither right wing or left wing, that I think for myself, O’Reilly just can’t resist making comments about me. But thats not the point of this post.

I enjoy finding out just how big a hypocrite OReilly is. One of our movie companies, Truly Indie, is distributing an amazing, amazing movie about those from the medical profession who choose to serve our country and the trials and tribulations they go through. Its called Fighting For Life . Our PR people contacted a variety of media sources who were very supportive of the film. I made sure to ask them specifically to contact foxnews and the OReilly show. I wanted to know that when Bill asked why there were not any pro troops films being produced and released, if he would get behind a movie that truly is.

You already know the answer. Our PR people received no response. When I emailed them directly, after the lack of response, this was our exchange

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Mark Cuban <mark.cuban@dallasmavs.com> wrote:

ask your boss why he never mentioned a movie we released last month, here is a review. He was sent a copy and our PR people contacted your office. I wanted to see just how interested you truly were in movies that supported the troops..

New U.S. Release
Fighting for Life
(Documentary)
By JOHN ANDERSON
A Truly Indie release of an American Film Foundation presentation. Produced by Terry Sanders. Executive producer, Tammy Alvarez. Co-producer, Jennifer Glos. Directed by Terry Sanders. Written by Sanders, Christine Wiser.

With: Crystal Davis, David Welling, Daniel Inouye.

The only people who seem immune to the politics of the Iraq War are also at its epicenter: the doctors and nurses who mend and tend to the wounded, and who provide the heart and soul of Terry Sanders’ “Fighting for Life.” Docu about combat medicine is getting a limited theatrical release and will likely follow the route of most Iraq War-themed cinema, onto the scrap heap of theatrical — which doesn’t make it any less of a film, but may make us less as an audience.
“Fighting for Life” apparently was originated by Sanders as a profile of the Maryland-based Uniformed Services U. of the Health Sciences, from which, the film tells us, 25% of active-duty physicians have graduated. It has also come under consistent attack by budget-cutting congressmen more concerned with the spoils of war than its casualties.
Having witnessed the work done in the field, Sanders broadened the movie’s scope to include combat hospitals, rehabilitative units and, inevitably, the horrendous physical damage. What’s onscreen is among the most disturbing footage to come out of the Iraq cinema experience: The squeamish might find the USU cadaver scenes even more disturbing than the images of soldiers’ injuries. But the footage makes a profound point about what kind of person can practice this kind of medicine at all, much less do it in a war zone.

Sanders and his crew probe relentlessly with their cameras, never recoiling from the most horrendous, bone-revealing injury, or from the long road of pain and disability ahead for most of the very young people on stretchers, or from the older but unjaded medical teams around them. Pic makes it clear how much recovery is going to be needed for everyone, and not just the legless, armless combat vets.

“Fighting for Life” is briskly paced, and there’s often a palpable, appropriate sense of disorientation parlayed through the roaming p.o.v., which can often leave a viewer wondering what exactly he or she is looking at — did that used to be a leg? It’s an artistic decision and a correct one, because as much as one might like to, it’s very tough to look away.

The film makes the most of the seemingly unlimited access provided by USU, whose administration was probably aware of just how valuable such exposure could be for their institution. Production values, especially the HD camerawork, are tops.
SPIRTUALITY AND PRACTICE: March 7, 2008: Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat’s review is posted to this site:
http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/films/films.php?id=17932

Film Review
By Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat

Fighting for Life
Directed by Terry Sanders
Truly Indie 03/08 Documentary
Not Rated

More than 25 % of active duty military physicians were trained at Uniformed Services University in Bethseda, Maryland. This engaging documentary by two-time Academy Award-winning filmmaker Terry Sanders presents the skill, dedication, courage, and compassion of the doctors and nurses who have graduated from this school that has been called the “West Point” of military medicine. Many of them are now serving in Iraq and Germany where they take care of the American soldiers and Iraqi civilians wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Treating multiple blast injuries, head traumas, and loss of limbs are daily occurrences for these medical professionals. As one of them says, “There’s nothing normal about war. There’s nothing normal about losing a limb or seeing our best friend die.” In a very emotional sequence, a wounded soldier is told that he will never walk again. Another soldier recuperating in America recalls the 18 operations on his body. Army Specialist Crystal Davis, who lost part of one leg and has to undergo intensive physical therapy for her other foot, refuses to give in to despair and depression.

In treating all these people, the doctors and nurses in the film come across as angels dispensing their own brand of miracles. They realize that many of the young men and women injured in combat will require treatment for the rest of their lives. The filmmakers of Fighting for Life had unprecedented access to combat support hospitals in Iraq, Medevac flights with wounded soldiers, and military hospitals in Germany and the United States. This enabled them to create an authentic and inspiring portrait of the life-affirming work of these doctors and nurses and the remarkable courage of their patients.

Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:56 AM
To: Mitchell, Ron
Cc: Melissa Raddatz
Subject: Re:

another link, just in case you want more info about a movie you ignored

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fighting_for_life/

m

From Fox News , OReilly Producer >
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:27 am, Mitchell, Ron wrote:

ShareThis