Viacom Tells Vivendi They Want To Be Part of The Next Round of Bidding

[Digger]

Viacom throws its hat into Vivendi ring-sources
Thu June 26, 2003 11:25 AM ET
LONDON/PARIS, June 26 (Reuters) - U.S. media giant Viacom VIAb.N has thrown its hat into the ring for some of Vivendi Universal's EAUG.PA V.N U.S. entertainment assets, sources familiar with the situation said on Thursday.

Viacom, home to Hollywood's Paramount studios and the MTV cable network, has told Vivendi it is interested in the cable television channels and wants to be included in the second-round of the auction of its entertainment assets, the sources said.

Viacom's interest brings to six the number of contenders in the auction of the Vivendi Universal Entertainment (VUE) film, television and theme park business. The sources said Vivendi Chief Executive Jean-Rene Fourtou would present all six scenarios to the Vivendi board at a regular meeting on July 1.

Two sources said Viacom could extend its interest to other unspecified assets. But all the sources agreed that whatever happened, Viacom did not want Vivendi's Hollywood studio.

"Viacom has expressed its interest in the cable television channels to stay in the process through to the next round," said one source familiar with the situation.

Viacom declined to comment. Vivendi was not immediately available to comment.

The other five contenders in the VUE auction are: groups led by Edgar Bronfman Jr and oil billionaire Marvin Davis; cable group Liberty Media Corp. L.N ; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer MGM.N and General Electric's GE.N NBC.

[uisceboo]

Link for this article:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2996593

Just goes to show you haw quickly things change in this business!

[trubador]

In another article, it mentions that Viacom is interested in the Sci-Fi Network *AND* the USA Network (and possibly other assets, but NOT the Holllywood Studios). That's the first time I heard that. Before this announcement, Viacom mentioned that they were interested in Skiffy only. They've widened their interest (I gather to make their offer a bit more appealing to Vivendi). Interesting.... verrrrrry interesting.

[vhsiv]

P - O - K - E - R ?

[trubador]

Funny you should mention that! I've been watching the World Poker Tournaments on the Travel Channel (last night was the final table for $1-mil). This bidding process is DEFINITELY a high stakes poker match, no-limit hold 'em! May the flop be friendly to Viacom, and may Diller cry at the river.

[Digger]

Hey Trubador, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one addicted to the World Poker Tour! Those guys are nuts! Makes my $1 ante games look really pathetic.

As for the interest from Viacom, I never had any doubt that they still had strong interest. They were always mentioned as possibly getting involved somewhere down the line even though they didn't make a formal bid on Monday. In several articles it was said that they might make a later bid. It has also been stated that Vivendi still wanted bids from people only interested in pieces of the business despite their announcement of "All or Nothing at All" because then they could act as brokers and get some of these companies together to make one consolidated bid. The more people involved the better for Vivendi. And in the case of these assets it definitely appears that the parts are worth more than their sum (at least to some). I'm not surprised that Viacom said they had no interest in Universal Studios. Not only is the return for movie studios low (around 5% or so I'm told) but because they already own Paramount there might be some anti-trust concerns if they were to buy another studio.

I would love to get a look at the bids (I'm a finance geek, what can I say). I wonder if the bids give specific values for each asset. It would be really interesting to see the difference in values that each bidder had for each asset. Would Vivendi then use the highest bidder in the first round as a "stalking horse" to get some of the other bidders together? I wouldn't be surprised if they did. In fact I would be surprised if they didn't. There are sure to be a lot of new stories in the coming days, especially after the July 1 board meeting. Details are sure to leak out.

[trubador]

Yeah, Dig.... I stumbled upon the Travel Channel's broadcasts a couple months ago. Last night's final hand was amazing! Fourth Street delivers a full house to the Russian kid, then the River Card delivers a straight to the Junk Bond guy from Nevada. That kid started playing poker only 18 months ago, and entered the tournament on a $180 satellite. And he walks away with half a mil, coming in second... ahead of all those pros. WOW!

Meanwhile... re: Viacom, I think think since they included USA Network in their "interest" package, they may be able to pull this thing out. And I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple sneak in to try and get Universal Music Group.

[Darth Buddha]

I'd like to see Apple get the music. Their I-Tunes is going to make the major record lables obsolete... and with the draconian measures they are launching to combat peer to peer, that would be a richly deserved fate.

Any file I've EVER gotten ahold of that way either got deleted because I didn't like it, or led me to buy the CD... so I just don't see it as that big of a problem.

[grinner]

Originally posted by Darth Buddha
I'd like to see Apple get the music. Their I-Tunes is going to make the major record lables obsolete... and with the draconian measures they are launching to combat peer to peer, that would be a richly deserved fate.
I read an interview a while ago... don't remember where, but it stated that Steven Jobs and Apples goal was to kill the market for full length albums. Artist could release the singles and people would just download the songs they want and make their own albums. The Artists would make more money according to the article because they would have more control over their music... and it would destroy the record industry.
There is talk of the record industry suing Apple over the I-Tunes technology.

[trubador]

Well, it can't be the Big 5 major label conglomerates (maybe under the guise of RIAA) who would want to sue Apple, because they all gave the legal okay to have part of their song catalogs available via i-Tunes. Apple's has had 5 million downloads since i-Tunes "went live" (much better than Pressplay, Roxio, MusicNet, etc...) because there's no monthly fee, a decent number of duplications available to the end-user, and only 99-cents per song. Imaging what's going to happen when i-tunes goes Windows before Christmas? And then if they get a fuller catalog available? Apple is already in serious discussions with a large Indie label consortium.:aok: :aok: :aok:

[Javora]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Viacom buys all of the cable channels and then sells off what it doesn't want or need. That might be easier and maybe even cheaper than paying for all of the start up costs to start a channel up from scratch. Either way I am glad to see that Viacom is still in the hunt.

[Digger]

This story from the Hollywood Reporter puts just a slightly different spin on things:

Viacom pursues VUE partner status

The noise surrounding the sales process for Vivendi Universal's entertainment assets continued Thursday as new details about some bids emerged and Viacom positioned itself as a potential partner for the groups that have submitted formal bids. Viacom did not submit a formal takeover offer for Vivendi Universal Entertainment assets by a Monday bidding deadline because it was only interested in cable's Sci Fi Channel and potentially the USA Network. But sources said Thursday that the entertainment giant has since Monday expressed to Vivendi Uni its interest in the two networks and a potential alliance with other bidders for a broader array of assets . By doing so, Viacom remains a part of the sales process rather than having to watch it from the outside. "Viacom wants to be in there to know what is going on," a source said. A spokeswoman declined comment. (Georg Szalai and Nicole Sperling)

[kechara420]

June 26, 2003 7:08 p.m. EDT

Viacom Expresses Interest
In Vivendi's Cable Networks

By MARTIN PEERS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

NEW YORK -- Days after Vivendi Universal SA's deadline for bids in the auction of its entertainment businesses, Viacom Inc. informally told the French company it was interested in buying the French company's cable networks, including the USA and Sci Fi channels, and possibly its TV production business.

Viacom's move, made in the past couple of days, had been expected. Vivendi wants to sell the cable networks together with its Universal Studios film business, but Viacom isn't interested in buying the film studio. As a result Viacom didn't submit a formal bid before the deadline last Monday.

But Viacom doesn't want to be left behind as the auction moves ahead. Vivendi's board is due to meet early next week to review five bids received from groups including Liberty Media Corp., General Electric Co. and an investor group led by former Seagram Co. CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. Viacom's interest can now be considered alongside the other companies. A Vivendi spokeswoman declined to comment.

[kechara420]

from www.nytimes.com (free registration)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/27/business/media/27VIVE.html

June 27, 2003

M.G.M. Bid to Vivendi Is Gaining Stature
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN and GERALDINE FABRIKANT


Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, long considered a dark horse bidder for Vivendi Universal's entertainment assets, is emerging as a serious contender in the contest, executives involved in the auction said yesterday.

The MGM offer values Vivendi's nonmusic entertainment assets at $11 billion — within the range that industry analysts had expected the bidding to begin. More significant, it gives Vivendi the option of either retaining a 20 percent stake in the entertainment properties or cashing out by selling shares in the combined company to the public as soon as a deal is completed.

The details of MGM's bid, described by the executives, are the most complete to emerge since Vivendi accepted formal offers from four bidders on Monday. Some of the other bids give Vivendi less flexibility by requiring it to retain a 30 percent stake in the entertainment assets, the executives said.

The other formal bids were submitted by Liberty Media, and two investment groups, one led by Edgar Bronfman Jr. and the other led by Marvin Davis. Those bids, the executives said, ranged as high as $15 billion, though they included Vivendi's Universal Music Group, which MGM's offer did not.

Liberty is still seen as having the inside track because it is cash rich and because its chairman, John C. Malone, is so intent on winning that he made two offers — one for the nonmusic assets only, and a second that would include the music group.

Vivendi and MGM declined to comment.

Vivendi, trying to distance itself from a financially disastrous media-buying binge by its former chairman, Jean-Marie Messier, has been looking to sell its Vivendi Universal Entertainment unit, which includes the Universal film and television studios, the USA Network and Sci-Fi Channel cable networks, and the Universal theme parks. It is also willing to sell its Universal Music Group, either separately or as a part of a blanket deal.

Yesterday the media giant Viacom told Vivendi that it might be interested in buying the cable networks, and possibly the television studio, according to an executive close to the negotiations, though it still has not submitted a formal bid. The NBC unit of General Electric earlier this week sent a letter expressing its potential interest, without specifying any Vivendi assets. NBC has not submitted a formal bid, either.

Vivendi's board plans to meet Tuesday in Paris, where the company is based, to begin considering the bids. A deal is not expected for weeks or even months, which could give either Viacom or NBC time to submit their own formal offers.

MGM's $9 billion bid for 80 percent of Vivendi Universal Entertainment includes cash and the company's own stock. MGM indicated in its bid letter to Vivendi that it would be willing to submit a separate bid for the music unit, the executives said.

The equity portion of MGM's bid, which is $2 billion, would be financed personally by Kirk Kerkorian, the company's largest shareholder, along with Providence Equity Partners, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America. The debt would be financed by Morgan Stanley and Bank of America.

MGM could potentially achieve considerable cost savings by merging Universal's film and television studios and its film library with its own operations. That could motivate MGM to remain longer in a bidding war, if one develops, than some of the other suitors. Only Viacom, among the others, would have a similar incentive, as owner of the Paramount movie and television studios.

But analysts have said that Viacom's chances of winning the bidding war are relatively slim, if its interest remains limited to Vivendi's cable channels and television studio, or unless the company teams up with another bidder for the other assets. Vivendi has tax reasons not to sell Vivendi Universal Entertainment piecemeal.

Whichever suitor wins, it is likely that the bidding will go higher than MGM's $11 billion valuation. Jessica Reif Cohen, who follows media for Merrill Lynch, values Vivendi's two cable networks and the television production operation at about $12 billion.

Viacom's interest is primarily in Vivendi's cable properties, because it already owns cable networks that include MTV, Nickelodeon, Showtime and others. Although Viacom apparently does not have a strong interest in Vivendi's Universal Television studio, Ms. Reif Cohen noted that the studio could serve Viacom by producing programs for its cable channels.

What is more, Universal Television produces the popular prime-time broadcast series "Law and Order" and its two spinoffs, "Law and Order S.V.U." and "Law and Order Criminal Intent," all of which run on NBC. But Universal's contracts with NBC for those series are all up within two years. Viacom, which owns CBS, might be able to move all three shows to its own network, if it acquires Universal Television.

Dennis Leibowitz, who runs Act II Partners, a hedge fund that invests in media companies, said that buying Universal Television could add needed heft to Viacom's television production business. But, he said, "It is not clear to me whether Viacom is now willing to bid for TV, too, because they think the odds of winning are better if they bid for more assets, or if they really want it."

[Javora]

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1054966500725&p=1012571727088


NBC seeks Vivendi support for venture
By Tim Burt, Media Editor
Published: June 27 2003 22:24 | Last Updated: June 27 2003 22:24


NBC, the broadcasting arm of General Electric, is seeking support from Vivendi Universal for a proposed joint venture between North America's leading television network and the French group's US entertainment assets.


Bob Wright, NBC chief executive, is to meet senior Vivendi executives to urge a partnership in which the GE subsidiary would take more than 60 per cent of an enlarged group comprising NBC, its Bravo and Telemundo channels, and Vivendi's Universal studios and cable TV networks.

The French media and telecoms group, which has invited bids for Vivendi Universal Entertainment (VUE), is due to discuss the NBC approach at a board meeting in Paris next Tuesday.

Vivendi is selling VUE, created by last year's acquisition of the USA Networks cable group, as part of a €16bn disposal programme.

It has also received expressions of interest from five other potential bidders, including two financial consortiums, and trade offers for all or part of VUE by Liberty Media, Viacom and MGM.

NBC, however, is seen as the best strategic fit for the Vivendi assets, including Universal Studios and television production. NBC is already a large customer of the production business and its existing channels complement Vivendi's USA and Sci-Fi cable networks.

Mr Wright, who is also vice-chairman of GE, has assured Vivendi that a merger with NBC would deliver significant cost-savings and a possible exit through a future IPO of the enlarged business.

The NBC approach is already regarded by people close to Vivendi as the most logical industrial fit. But the deal would involve less cash up-front than rival offers from Liberty or the two financial consortiums - led respectively by Marvin Davis, the oil billionaire, and Edgar Bronfman jr, the Vivendi board member.

NBC, nevertheless, is thought to have won broad support from VUE's management - having pledged to retain most of the top executives at the French-controlled business.

One director familiar with the approach said: "NBC are the strategic option and they would create a more valuable entity with a lot of strength, allowing Vivendi retaining an interest for a short or long period of time."

Industry analysts have valued VUE at $10bn-$12bn. But NBC would not retain its theme parks business if it secured Vivendi's backing for a deal.

Mr Wright has also told Jean-René Fourtou, his Vivendi opposite number, that the US broadcaster has no interest in its Universal Music arm.

Mr Fourtou and Jean-Bernard Levy, Vivendi chief operating officer, are due to have meetings with several of the bidders next week after briefing the board on preferred options.

--------------

At this point anyone's guess is as good as mine. It wouldn't surprise me though if Viacom teams up with NBC. Lets just see where the drama takes us.

[vhsiv]

Idiots! - they can barely run their own network, much less two others.

Given GE/NBC's success with Bravo :zzz:, I wouldn't trust them to be able to run a niche channel. However, the preponderance of cop and cop-type shows (procedurals, as they're called) - 'Law & Order', 'Monk' and 'The Dead Zone' - on USA, I've long considered USA an upstream venue for NBC's tony dramas - that is, when they're not showing 'Python' and Adam Sandler movies.

Sure, the move would be good for NBC, as it would allow them to move the production of many of their dramatic series into their own house. But it would likely be bad for science-fiction, in general.

Mr. Jackson ought to be wetting his pants with anticipation, right about now...

[grinner]

Quick... other than The Pretender... name ONE speculative fiction show that NBC started that lasted longer than 3 seasons. I can't think of one. Maybe the Profiler... but...?
I think that would be the worst thing that could possibly occur for fans of Speculative Fiction.

[vhsiv]

Originally posted by grinner
Quick... other than The Pretender... name ONE speculative fiction show that NBC started that lasted longer than 3 seasons. I can't think of one. Maybe the Profiler... but...?
I think that would be the worst thing that could possibly occur for fans of Speculative Fiction. 'Friends' but most people wouldn't understand why.

I think we're in agreement on this one, grinner.

[vhsiv]

'The Pretender' ran on NBC for 4 years, but I just considered that an updating of Bill Bixby's 'Hulk', but without the temper tantrums.

'Quantum Leap' ran on NBC for 4 years (1989-93), but again, that was pretty much the same show as Bill Bixby's 'Hulk', but without the temper tantrums. (I know someone's gonna come after me for that one...)

Speaking of 'The Incredible Hulk', look at what I found:The Indredible Hulk (animated, 1996)
Lou Ferrigno - voice of Hulk
Neal McDonough - voice of Bruce Banner
Luke Perry - voice of Rick Jones
Cree Summer - voice of Jennifer Walters/She-Hulk (S. 2)For those that aren't familiar, Neal McDonough currently plays the errant DA on 'Boomtown' (NBC) and Cree Summer played the hippy-girl on 'A Different World'.

Ok, here's a reach: 'I Dream of Jeannie' (NBC 1965-70). Ka-ching!

Here's an outtake of an interesting article I found while I was searching for NBC's commitment to genre television: from Science-fiction Programs (on network tv) http://www.museum.tv (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/S/htmlS/scienceficti/scienceficti.htm)

By far the most pivotal series in rekindling science-fiction as a viable television genre was Star Trek: The Next Generation (Syndicated 1987-94), produced by Paramount and supervised by the creator of the original Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry. Already benefiting from the tremendous built-in audience of Star Trek fans eager for a spin-off of the old series, Paramount was able to bypass the networks and take the show directly into first-run syndication, where it quickly became the highest rated syndicated show ever. In many ways, Next Generation had more in common with other dramatic series of the 1980s and 1990s than it did with the original series. In this new incarnation, Star Trek became an ensemble drama structured much like Hill St. Blues or St. Elsewhere, featuring an expanded cast involved in both episodic and serial adventures. Broadcast in conjunction with a series of cinematic releases featuring the original Star Trek characters, Next Generation helped solidify Star Trek as a major economic and cultural institution in the eighties and nineties. After a seven year run, Paramount retired the series in 1994 to convert the Next Generation universe into a cinematic property, but not before the studio debuted a second spin-off, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (Syndicated 1992-), which proved to be a more claustrophobic and less popular reading of the Star Trek universe. A third spin-off, Star Trek: Voyager (Syndicated 1995-), served as the anchor in Paramount's bid to create their own television network in 1995.

The success of the Star Trek series in first-run syndication reflected the changing marketplace of television in the 1980s and 1990s. As the three major networks continued to lose their audience base to the competition of independents, cable, and new networks such as FOX, Warner Brothers, and UPN, the entire industry sought out new niche markets to target in order to maintain their audiences. The Star Trek franchise's ability to deliver quality demographics and dedicated viewership inspired a number of producers to move into science fiction during this period. These series ranged from the literate serial drama, Babylon 5 (Syndicated 1994), to the bizarre police burlesque of Space Precinct (Syndicated 1994-). Also successful in syndication were "fantasy" series such as Highlander (Syndicated 1992-) and Hercules: The Legendary Journeys (Syndicated 1994).

For the most part, the three major networks stayed away from science fiction in the 1990s, the exceptions being NBC's Earth 2 (1994-95) and Seaquest DSV (1993-), the latter produced by Steven Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment. By far the most active broadcaster in developing science fiction in the 1990s was the FOX network, which used the genre to target even more precisely its characteristically younger demographics. FOX productions included Alien Nation (1989-91), M.A.N.T.I.S. (1994-95), Sliders (1995), VR.5 (1995), and Space: Above and Beyond (1995). FOX's most successful foray into science fiction, however, was The X-Files (1993-). A surprise hit for the network, The X-Files combined horror, suspense, and intrigue in stories about two FBI agents assigned to unsolved cases involving seemingly paranormal phenomena. Although the series originally centered on a single "spook" of the week for each episode, it eventually developed a compelling serial narrative line concerning a massive government conspiracy to cover up evidence of extraterrestrial contact. Like so many other science-fiction programs, the series quickly developed a large and organized fan community.

By the early 1990s, television science-fiction had amassed a sizable enough program history and a large enough viewing audience to support a new cable network. The Sci-Fi Channel debuted in 1992, scheduling mainly old movies and television re-runs, but planning to support new program production in the genre sometime in the future.

[grinner]

Originally posted by vhsiv
'Friends' but most people wouldn't understand why.


I think we're in agreement on this one, grinner. I wouldn't consider Friends to be speculative fiction... even though there is only one non-white character in the show... where in New York do you see such a 'White' area. Heck... even the characters in the coffee shop are mostly white. maybe it is a alternate reality... or not.

[grinner]

I Dream of Genie is a reach... but it did last longer than 3 years.

I remember that article when it came out. That was when FOX was throwing out show after show and hoping one of them would stick like the X-Files did. So many good ideas just killed because they never went above a 3 in the ratings. Strange Luck, Space: Above and Beyond... etc. And then when Skiffy started... I was overjoyed. Finally a channel that would show the programs that I enjoyed... but alas... it was all a farce... an illusion. fine whatever.

[vhsiv]

1) An ethnically homogenous 'New York City'.

2) Six slackers living in apartments that would run about $6K/month.

At that rate, you'd think that one of them would grow a brain, and they'd put their money together to buy a house in Brooklyn. But then, it technically wouldn't be 'New York' (aka Manhattan) anymore, and they'd have to populate the background with all sorts of ethnics.

[grinner]

Originally posted by vhsiv
1) An ethnically homogenous 'New York City'.

2) Six slackers living in apartments that would run about $6K/month.

At that rate, you'd think that one of them would grow a brain, and they'd put their money together to buy a house in Brooklyn. But then, it technically wouldn't be 'New York' (aka Manhattan) anymore, and they'd have to populate the background with all sorts of ethnics. Oh...no... I do agree with you on Friends... Mad about You was the same thing... it was mostly white. Hell, Seinfeld was the same. By watching those shows... you would think that New York is this huge white city. fine... whatever.

[vhsiv]

Was NBC's longest-running speculative fiction show, and as long ago as that was, it represents their qualification to run a genre network. But hey, you never know -- once Bonnie's people get to work on the PR, 'M*A*S*H' and 'Gilligan's Island' will be science-fiction.

Just remember - most people don't even know that they're watching science-fiction, when they're watching it.

[vhsiv]

Originally posted by grinner
Oh...no... I do agree with you on Friends... Mad about You was the same thing... it was mostly white. Hell, Seinfeld was the same. By watching those shows... you would think that New York is this huge white city. fine... whatever. Switzerland, even.

[grinner]

Originally posted by vhsiv
Was NBC's longest-running speculative fiction show, and as long ago as that was, it represents their qualification to run a genre network. But hey, you never know -- once Bonnie's people get to work on the PR, 'M*A*S*H' and 'Gilligan's Island' will be science-fiction.

Just remember - most people don't even know that they're watching science-fiction, when they're watching it. That is a sad statment. The fact that people don't know what they are watching. I had a discussion a long time ago with a friend and he stated that the X-Files was not a science fiction show because it wasn't set in outer space. I just shook my head. There is more to science fiction than spaceships. Hell some of the more popular movies are based in Science Fiction.

[vhsiv]

I found another article about the upcoming re-make or extention of 'V' (NBC, 1983) and everybody seems to remember the woman eating a small mammal.

Most of the columnists I've read seem to remember the critter in question as a mouse or a rat, but I seem to remember an animal that had the proportions of a guinea pig. How do you remember it?

[grinner]

I thought it was a white lab mouse.

[vhsiv]

Just remember - most people don't even know that they're watching science-fiction, when they're watching it. Originally posted by grinner
That is a sad statment. The fact that people don't know what they are watching. I had a discussion a long time ago with a friend and he stated that the X-Files was not a science fiction show because it wasn't set in outer space. I just shook my head. There is more to science fiction than spaceships. Hell some of the more popular movies are based in Science Fiction. And that, as Elvis Costello once said "is how the trouble began". Like 60% of the NY State HS kids failing their State-administered math exam. When the educational system is broken, you just cancel the test.

It almost makes you wonder if people are capable of understanding entertainment, literature or the idea of genre at all. I was circulating one of JMS' anecdotes here, about a week ago - about a television executive not understanding a 'Moby Dick' reference that Straczynski had written into an episode of 'Jake and the Fatman'. The network guy arrogantly claimed that he had an MBA, and had never heard of this 'Ahab' guy. I guess he'd never heard of Achilles, Apollo, Zeus, David, Moses or Goliath either.

I surely don't expect everybody in the world to be a comparative literature major (I'm not), but it seems - on some level - that we're turning into a nation of myopic, xenophobic pragmatists, taking cues, no doubt from our pResident. Sure, 'imagination' seems to make trillions of dollars for the movie studios and research laboratories every year, but nobody seems to value it anymore. In her most recent press release, Bonnie said that "[for most people] technology is just another day at the office", but that's a completely passive attitude. Given that position, you'd think that the entertainment industry would be under greater pressure to produce something thoughtful, thought-provoking, and challenging. What do we get instead? Remakes of old television shows, old movies and video-game and comic book adaptations. And 'prestige efforts' and speculative fiction remain poles apart.

It's especially ironic since it seems that this country is on the verge of collapsing into an Orwellian dystopia.

[grinner]

I have to disagree with you on the Orwellian Dystopic view of the current state of the USA... yes there are some elements that could be considered dystopic... but... there are such elements in every society. I don't think that we are in a dying society... it is a society that is undergoing a dramatic shift in its thinking... and I don't agree with some of the shifts... but I think that we as a society will survive it. I think some of the problems with regards to the 'myopic, xenophobic pragmatists, taking cues...' comes from the horible state of our education system. It is failing to produce thinkers... it has been dumbed down to the level of... mediocracy. I went to a private school where I was given the option to read anything I wanted... to expand my mind. The class books were used as a basis... but there were many classes that I didn't even open the book once. Outside reading was encouraged... the more you read... the better your grades. I was on a book reader competition team... and we competed against other schools. Every week we were given a list of books... and we were assigned a few to then read and discuss. I would read every book on the list... so that I could answer every question if needed. Needless to say... we were the champions for the 4 years that I was on the team.
I feel that if more children would be pushed to read and make their own decisions... that everything would be better. What is lacking in our society now is a large group of critical thinkers. It seems to me that a vast majority are just sheep... willing to let the government take care of all their desires. Pursuit of happiness... sure. But pursue it on your own... do not expect the government to take care of all your needs. I could go on... but this isn't a forum for political dialog... or is it?

[vhsiv]

Originally posted by grinner
'myopic, xenophobic pragmatists, taking cues...' comes from the horible state of our education system. It is failing to produce thinkers... it has been dumbed down to the level of... mediocracy. Taking cues from the Chief Executive.

Actually, the 'xenophobia' and the state of education were separate thoughts on my behalf, though they are related.

Like you, I went to a private school, run by two generations of liberal thinkers - a set of '50's era liberals and a younger set of '60's era liberals, and like you we were encouraged to read all sorts of stuff and talk it all into the ground.

I don't think that the government should be required to take care of everybody's needs, BUT it should be responsible for furnishing everyone with a decent education, if they're not able to pay for it. Textbook shortages are UNACCEPTIBLE, as are unfortunately teacher shortages. But I guess I'm a hypocrite since I'm not lining up anywhere to be a public school teacher.

But the whole 'government welfare' issue has been beaten to death - on both the private citizen and corporate fronts. It's a sop for more productive arguments and discussions... but I'm going to have to stop here, 'cause I'm supposed to go meet a friend somewhere in half an hour.

My parting shot: Corporations and the current Administration seem to encourage that all of us citizens and consumers be passive actors, and just 'take' what we're offered, no questions asked, and consider ourselves 'blessed' when the 'rain' falling on our heads is nothing more than urine.

I'm sorry to be short on this, but I'll pick up here later when I get home - I gotta run...

[grinner]

I can't believe that you are laying this decline upon the feet of this President. If there is to be blame... The blame would have to go back to the first President that wiped his behind with the Constitution. FDR. The majority of the problems that we are occuring now can only be laid at the feet of the man who gave us the 'Great Society'. FDR and his socialist programs are what led to this Welfare State that we have become. Corporate and societal. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government has to give us Drugs for the Elderly. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government should give away money to those that don't want to work. What the Constitution does say that anything that is not expressly granted to the Federal Government in the document is a STATES ISSUE. Mommy government and those that what her to grow bigger and consume more of the GNP are the ones that are at fault. And they are on BOTH sides of the aisle. Republican and Democrat. And if there is a President in recent time that has done more harm than good... it is Bill Clinton. He along with FDR used the Constitution as toilet paper. NOT George W. Bush. Bush is trying to clean up the mess that Clinton left. It isn't going to work. Because the Supreme Court has decided to Legislate from the Court. The majority of its ruling in the last few days should not have happened. The Courts should NOT legislate... They should decide by using only the Constitution.

[vhsiv]

I wasn't trying to lay this all at George W.'s feet. If I've offended you in any way, I apologize. And if I need to, I'll also apologize for believing that the public school system - an institution administrated by the states - owe anybody anything.

My bad. Time to change the subject.

[grinner]

Originally posted by vhsiv
I wasn't trying to lay this all at George W.'s feet. If I've offended you in any way, I apologize. And if I need to, I'll also apologize for believing that the public school system - an institution administrated by the states - owe anybody anything.
That is where you are wrong... the Federal Government controls the public school system. The States have to follow what the Federal Government... and the Department of Education... tell it. There are a few parts of Government that have to go... and one of them is the Department of Education. It has never educated one person... and if forces schools to follow its dumbing down society policy. Want better schools... get rid of the Department of Education... and put the emphasis back to local and States government. Make the schools responsible for the education of the students. Get back to the 4 R's... get rid of New Math... and Whole Language. And all of the sociological experiments that the Ivory Tower types have forced on the schools. Bring back Discipline to the schools. Make people responsible for their actions. Don't let people take the easy way... Teach them to be MORE... Schools should not be places of Social Experimentation... it should be places of Learning. Don't drug the children that are bored... give them something to do... don't sedate them. If need be... CHALLENGE THEM.
But it won't happen... those in power want to stay in power... they are afraid of a educated society. A society that follows blindly is a PASSIVE society. And a passive society is easier to control.

And you didn't offend me by that comment... I just didn't agree with it. There are many people that are blaming the President for the things that are occuring today... but they are unwilling to lay the blame where it actually belongs... the 60+ years of Governmental growth and Beuracracy.

[buggabboo]

v said "time to change the subject." and he's right.

keep the thread on topic guys. any off topic discussion, arguments or insults can take place in PM, IM or e-mail.

thanks