Drudge had several links about the new DePalma film that DePalma admits was made to smear the US Troops and change the minds of the public on the war in Iraq.

Guess DePalma wasn’t aware the soldiers involved went to jail, and that rape is not US policy, unlike the 1.5 million women raped by the Red Army at the end of World War II.
This is only one of several films that Hollywood plans to make as anti Bush propaganda.

When I hear this, I wonder where is the film about Chief Wiggles, but never mind. Common sense suggests that maybe those blowing up markets, ferries, or Shiite shrines might be worth criticizing, but never mind. Must relive one’s glory days…must relive one’s glory days…
Films are made by multinational corporations, and need to make a profit. Or are they?
Michael Moore makes his own films. He is funny and brilliant, and enjoyable even if you don’t agree with him.

But why would a major studio make such a “downer” film that will lose money?

Again, Drudge has the answer: They didn’t. DePalma’s film was funded by a dot com millionaire named Mark Cuban. Drudge’s link is to a right wing site, so take every thing with a grain of salt.

But the Wikipedia biography on Cuban suggests his money was made in the dot com boom, and he was one who got out before it went bust. Most of the stuff on his dot com activity is old LINK. Wired essentially says he’s a “has been”. His investment advice in this article is mush…
But a more interesting enterprise by Cuban’s was a website called Sharesluth, which was supposed to be exposes on businesses, starting with an expose on a company who was supposed to be making alternative fuel.

But the site raised some eyebrows. PBS has a report about questionable ethical practice of investing in companies that his website/investigative reporter plans to investigate.

But while Carey (the investigator) will not own any individual stocks, Cuban has decided to make investments based on the companies Carey is investigating. These investments are the sole source of income for the new site, which has no advertising and is free of charge to read. But there’s a Catch 22 in the business plan of Sharesleuth: If the site predictably produces journalism that hurts companies’ stock prices — and Cuban trades on that by shorting the stock (betting it will go down) — then he might be investigated for securities fraud by the SEC….

“It doesn’t, but that’s OK,” Cuban said. “Hopefully I never have to cover [my short trades], if the quality of work is good and we uncover more companies and situations like Xethanol, the return can be lucrative. It just doesn’t have to be fast. We don’t have a staff of 900. I can afford to be patient.”

On the day that the Xethanol report was published on Sharesleuth, its stock went down 14% to $5.95 — and that’s way down from the price of $12.65 when Cuban shorted 10,000 shares of Xethanol stock back in May. Yesterday, the stock was at $5.09. Sharesleuth promises to be a strange journalistic venture, where the site’s owner will profit on information he gets ahead of publication. Various bloggers and journalists already are calling it an ethical mess .

The Houston Chronical’s business page echoes that of PBS:

Based on its first project, Sharesleuth is simply a tout sheet for short sellers. It exists primarily to make a billionaire basketball maven even richer.

All this was 2006. A lot has happened since then, but the webpage is no longer functioning. The last page of the now defunct website claims an orthopedic company’s emails contradict the information given to a court, essentially accusing that company of perjury. Since the case is in litigation, something is going on.

So the millionaire has now passed on, and has decided smearing American soldiers is the way to regain his fame.
Presumably the film will be applauded by Hollywood, win a lot of awards, and be used by the world’s anti Americans to become a recruiting film for Islamic terrorists, but never mind.

The really bad news about the film is that an anti war blitz by Hollywood may end up backfiring on Hillary Clinton.

The way the Democrats won Congress was not their anti war stance, but because they fielded a lot of “Blue dog” Democrats to woo back the Reagan Democrats.

A lot of us who are Reagan Democrats have relatives in Iraq, and smearing the troops instead of the policy is not smart.

Attention Hillary: Now is the time for your Sister Soljah moment…

Soldiers families vote, too.

——————————-]

Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the rural Philippines. Her web page is Finest Kind Clinic and Fishmarket.

Be Sociable, Share!