Tyra Banks Show on "Gay for Pay"

[Jayman01]

I agree with you to a point JW. However, I think that the point of her show is or was that these guys are straight guys doing Gay porn. I believe that she was more amazed that studios were not using Gay or Bisexual men for their porn shoots. I also think she was trying to question their manhood because of their willingness to do Gay porn... My take on what she was trying to say was how can they call themselves straight men and do Gay porn even if they are being paid. However, I believe what you are saying JW is where does she get off making an issue one way or another about why these guys are doing Gay porn. It is their business. My personal opinion is who cares as long as they are content.

The only answer I can give for that is that she believed the topic was so outrageous in her mind that she thought it would sell tickets to the show and create enough controversy to make for entertaining television for the masses.

Ironically, it also seemed like she was on the side of the porn stars too because she appeared to take offense to them being unemployed just because people recognized them as porn stars. Go figure, I f no one knew about it in their community I am sure they do now. Funny thing though. These guys contacted the show to bring media attention to their plight. So, I am not sure if I want to blame Tyra entirely or these guys for being on the show or these guys for their fervor to bring this issue to light.

 

[lpdude86]

it wouldn't work for me, the link that is.

 

[tampa24]

Sorry about that. Just go to post #37. Where I have put in the Youtube links.

 

[clock12]

Thanks for the links to that episode, Tampa! This is a topic that is very rare in mainstream discourse and I was surprised to see a fairly neutral treatment of it on a fluff daytime TV show.

One of the more interesting bits for me was the short discussion with Courtney, the lovely girlfriend of one of the guests (Dean). She says, "...I know he's heterosexual, but I think he's a little bit bisexual. I just don't think you can do what he does and not be somewhat bisexual." Dean has a different point of view, but the audience prefers Courtney's logic.

The crux of that disagreement, the very definition of sexual orientation, is also a rarity in mainstream discourse. To many people it is determined by behavior QED. To others, behavior is only incidental (and possibly irrelevant). Some challenge the idea of immutable sexual orientation. Others take the view that there are discrete categories, each with a culture of its own: one is either in the "gay" group or the "straight" group, with their attendant sub-cultures -- and possibly "bi" might be welcomed in as a full partner (as opposed to "confused" or "just come all the way out, why don't you?"), but no guarantees.

To many, first and foremost this is a matter of identity, bringing in the prospect of identity politics and the need to define clear boundaries and validate membership. This is what the editor of The Advocate was on the show to do. Though the way the topic was framed to begin with, this was also the underling function of the episode as a whole.

 

[tampa24]

You're welcome Clock!

You make a good point there about identity politics. But even outside the political realm we try to do that all the time. So many times we prefer to put very complex individuals inside these cookie cutter labels for our own convenience. That way we know what to think of them based on our own preconceived ideas. Once we put our neat and tidy labels on them then we know whether we should like them or not. Without ever having to go to trouble of getting to know them. In regards to sexual orientation we do do that to some extent in the gay community. But I don't think we do it nearly as much as the straight community does.

 

[toddo777]

I had a conversation with Kurt once on a video chat site. It was weird seeing the wife and kid going about their business in the background. He is the real deal though. He had had a few beers and got on that site to rant about the porn industry and barebacking in particular. I mean he was really going off on a tirade because he says he's been blacklisted by most of the gay porn industry for speaking out against barebacking and the str8 porn studios don't want to hire anyone who has done gay porn due to the fact that bb is so prevalent and the female porn stars are afraid to have sex with anyone who's done gay porn.

I think he meant well, but with all the alcohol he sounded kinda crazy, really emotional and just going on and on about all the porn studios and how they're killing the porn actors by forcing them to do bb. It's too bad because I think he had a good message, but most of the other people who came into the room were totally messing with him and didn't take it seriously. Then he got into talking about his family and what his kids would think when they got older, etc. I think he was living in an area that wasn't exactly gay-friendly, which only made it worse. He actually did seem like a really sweet guy when he calmed down and funny too, but he didn't seem very happy. At least not on that night. But then his mood just suddenly changed like a switch went off and he started getting all sexual. His entire mood was different. His cam disconnected not too long after that, (Damn!). It was quite a bizarre and fascinating experience. Maybe he was just drunk and is a different person when sober. It's never a good idea to get on a webcam when you're that wasted.

 

[toddo777]

OMG, I finally got around to watching the Tyra videos. That advocate reporter is so wrong when he said that those guys don't face anti-gay discrimination. I mean hell, Kurt was fired from his job because of it! It's the perception of being gay or perceived connection to homosexuality which is the reason, not necessarily the actual sexual preference. Someone who is totally closeted run far less risk of attack from homophobes than Kurt or Aaron or even the str8 bartender.

And the Advocate guy saying that gay people can only have a safe space by being around other gay people is total bullshit too. What is safer: a bar with supportive straight allies and friends OR a bar with only gay guys who happen to also be violent criminals? It's about the character of the people, not their sexual orientation. He's discriminating against people because of their perceived sexual orientation every bit as much as the homophobes.

It seems like the only two people up there exhibiting maturity, reason, and tolerance were the porn stars!!!

 

[jwglass]

OMG, I finally got around to watching the Tyra videos. That advocate reporter is so wrong when he said that those guys don't face anti-gay discrimination. I mean hell, Kurt was fired from his job because of it! It's the perception of being gay or perceived connection to homosexuality which is the reason, not necessarily the actual sexual preference. Someone who is totally closeted run far less risk of attack from homophobes than Kurt or Aaron or even the str8 bartender.

And the Advocate guy saying that gay people can only have a safe space by being around other gay people is total bullshit too. What is safer: a bar with supportive straight allies and friends OR a bar with only gay guys who happen to also be violent criminals? It's about the character of the people, not their sexual orientation. He's discriminating against people because of their perceived sexual orientation every bit as much as the homophobes.

It seems like the only two people up there exhibiting maturity, reason, and tolerance were the porn stars!!!

yes, i am happy to have gay friends, but ultimately, its the straight people that hold us up most. that is where my whole arguemnt over straight women being on the forum comes from when people call them out for being straight women or say something that lessens their credibility based on their sex. what it all boils down to is whether or not you can appreciate your fruit flies, when they are the ones that support you more than your gay friends. talk about kinship with gays because they are the ones that face everything. who is right by your side when you are walking to class and have a glass bottle hit you in the face. who is it that reminds you, that making a pass at that obviously straight homophobe in the bar, might be a bad idea. while i was at pride in the streets during pittsburgh pride, me and deidra (my fruit fly) walked right past a bunch of protestors and religious wingnuts trying to persuade us that we are on the wrong path in life. DEIDRA is the girl that held me back when i was drunk and wanted to go outside and give them a piece of mind when i was hardly sober enough to get back to the hotel room in my own damn city(which she also took care of that night)! Diesal even said to us how much he loves being part of the community, and helping along our fight for rights. what straight guys do you think are more likely to say something when his buddies use "gay" or "faggot"? in one hand we have a straight guy that did gay porn for some quick cash, and in the other we have a sports star, that would always glance down in the shower at the other guys, but never act upon his compusions and hide his feelings forever. hmmmm, have i given enough examples of how straight people have helped my life?

 

[MissDeidra]

I am most happy to be your #1 fruit fly any day of the week! I can't wait to facilitate again in NOLA! Love you Boo!

 

[clock12]

You make a good point there about identity politics. But even outside the political realm we try to do that all the time. So many times we prefer to put very complex individuals inside these cookie cutter labels for our own convenience. That way we know what to think of them based on our own preconceived ideas.

I can totally see where you are coming from here. But I kind of always considered this to be the generic definition of "politics": the process of "polarizing" people into "us" and "them" categories. This can be useful for some purposes, but can also obfuscate matters by making it difficult to speak directly to the merits of specific issues rather than to the groups (and all their various attributes) we associate with those issues.

In regards to sexual orientation we do do that to some extent in the gay community. But I don't think we do it nearly as much as the straight community does.

Even when we are aware of the pitfalls of assigning people to broad categories, it can still rear its head within our own thought processes unintentionally. As where you here establish a monolithic "us" and "them" scenario (the gay community vs the straight community). I do it all the time, myself, and it is difficult to put some ideas into words without them naturally taking this form. How does one acknowledge a real or perceived difference between oneself and another without reflexively using political language that ultimately serves to divide us into those neat labels of convenience you describe? It is so utterly pervasive in our speech and literature than we can scarcely avoid it, even as we are striving merely to identify it!

George Orwell springs to mind: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."

 

[clock12]

...
It seems like the only two people up there exhibiting maturity, reason, and tolerance were the porn stars!!!

I can see your point! I guess it isn't so strange when you consider what it must be like as a straight person doing gay porn, inhabiting two (ostensibly) incompatible worlds. Their perspective is unique. Aaron seemed to identify a lot with gay issues as he explained, "I think people have a problem with 'gay-for-pay' because they have a problem with homosexuals," and went on to lament the amount of time spent disagreeing with others over matters that "don't effect you." But because they are in the porn industry their points of view are naturally easy to dismiss by the mainstream (who may consume the product, but imagine themselves apart from it, even antagonistically so.)

The straight bartenders seemed more exploitative in their interface with the gay "community" than the porn stars. Though perhaps no more so than female bartenders in straight bars, as was mentioned by the host. I found it telling that the straight bartenders said it wasn't just about the extra money, but the idea of being treated as a "star." They seemed like exhibitionists, perhaps as much as the porn actors, loving the attention lavished upon them by gay patrons and using it to their manifold advantage.

I agree with your point about the Advocate editor, who was essentially a proponent of self-segregation if not outright bigotry (as he simply assumed that a straight person's presence, even if friendly, would obviate the emotional "safety" of what should be a gay-exclusive gathering.) I don't know which is worse, the idea that straights are monolithically and intrinsically antithetical to gays' well-being, or that gays are so emotionally fragile that they must construct exclusive spaces for themselves free of non-gay diversity. (To some, there is no such thing as non-gay diversity, just as to some there is no such thing as non-white racism.)

This phenomenon -- advancing the cause of tolerance and understanding for one's own group while having little tolerance or understanding to spare for others -- is seen played out in a variety of social interactions across society, in race, gender, religion, political affiliation, language, culture, you name it. It mostly takes the form of an adversarial position against anything perceived as socially dominate. While understandable during periods when minority interests struggle for majority acceptance, it has the potential to lead toward a blanket resistance to mainstream culture; even, ironically, to the point of eschewing mainstream acceptance in favor of the "fight" that has become an end in itself for some veteran warriors, perhaps too wounded to forgive past transgressions.

 

[tampa24]

Even when we are aware of the pitfalls of assigning people to broad categories, it can still rear its head within our own thought processes unintentionally. As where you here establish a monolithic "us" and "them" scenario (the gay community vs the straight community). I do it all the time, myself, and it is difficult to put some ideas into words without them naturally taking this form. How does one acknowledge a real or perceived difference between oneself and another without reflexively using political language that ultimately serves to divide us into those neat labels of convenience you describe? It is so utterly pervasive in our speech and literature than we can scarcely avoid it, even as we are striving merely to identify it!

George Orwell springs to mind: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."

You are so right on all of that. We do it all the time. Even as we admit that it will give us an overly simplistic and often inaccurate appraisal of someone else words or actions.

 

[tampa24]

This phenomenon -- advancing the cause of tolerance and understanding for one's own group while having little tolerance or understanding to spare for others -- is seen played out in a variety of social interactions across society, in race, gender, religion, political affiliation, language, culture, you name it. It mostly takes the form of an adversarial position against anything perceived as socially dominate. While understandable during periods when minority interests struggle for majority acceptance, it has the potential to lead toward a blanket resistance to mainstream culture; even, ironically, to the point of eschewing mainstream acceptance in favor of the "fight" that has become an end in itself for some veteran warriors, perhaps too wounded to forgive past transgressions.

We have seen that in many civil rights movements. Where the militancy of seeking change and social acceptance for one's group has for some, become a way of life unto itself. The more militant warriors claim to fight the fight in order to gain mainstream acceptance. Even as they simultaneously show their utter contempt for same. Go figure...

 

[clock12]

We have seen that in many civil rights movements. Where the militancy of seeking change and social acceptance for one's group has for some, become a way of life unto itself. The more militant warriors claim to fight the fight in order to gain mainstream acceptance. Even as they simultaneously show their utter contempt for same. Go figure...

Indeed! I see it in some gay writers on the issue of marriage equality, who say that the goal of the gay marriage movement is nothing less than the destruction of the idea of "what it means to be gay" by sublimating it into an imitation of heteronormativity. They see "assimilation" into the larger culture as surrender to the enemy. Most gay-rights activists from decades past into the present were not trying to make a separate society from the "straight world," but rather get the majority to stop treating them as second-class citizens (or worse). Yet it is from these ranks that so many of the latest "nonassimilationists" come.

You are absolutely right about this being a fixture in many civil rights movements.

 

[toddo777]

@JWglass - I agree. My straight friends, both female and male, have always treated me with total respect and love. I sometimes find they can be far more ready to defend the gay community than most gay people. I once ran into those same protesters at ATL Pride. I was afraid my friends were going to get arrested they were so pissed. It was the gay ones who had to pull them away. I almost get to the point where I forget who is gay and who is straight. It's not even an issue for me anymore. That's why the idea of discriminating against them seems crazy to me. I'd rather divide the world along the lines of character, not who they are attracted to. But if we must group according to attraction, then isn't it logical that we should include the women who share our interest here? We all like the same thing after all.

It's like the time I went to this strip club that was split in two with male dancers on one side and female dancers on the other. A mixed group of us went and after going in the lesbians and straight guys went one way and the gay guys and straight girls the other. But we all ended up going out the same door.

 

[toddo777]

@clock12 - I agree and you make some interesting observations. The gay-for-pay porn stars are rejected by the hetero community and viewed as gay, while the gay community rejects them for being straight. Talk about discrimination, they have from every side. After watching those videos my opinion of the porn guys went up quite a bit.
Everyone else seemed either moralistic or exploitative.

It's interesting because people often confuse public identity with what we actually are attracted to. I have had straight male friends who everyone insisted were gay because they would hang out with gay guys, go to gay bars, etc. People make assumptions without considering the complexities. Some enjoy the attention and the game much like a gay guy may flirt with a woman simply for the enjoyment of the interaction, not to initiate sex. Others like not having to compete with other straight men or play the macho act to impress others. I had a friend who was absolutely straight but the country he came from had much more physical affection between men. He didn't want sex from other guys, he wanted to have the same physical closeness and couldn't get from other straight guys here so he preferred the company of gay men, but not sex.

You are so correct in people becoming so identified with their movement that it can become an end in itself. Ideology can be crucial to defining a movement in the beginning, but if it doesn't adjust with changing situations, then it loses all meaning. This can be seen all over the political spectrum and even more tragically in religion. It seems everyone is looking for some truth and when they identify with it deeply its defense becomes more important than objective reality.

The Soviet Union is a good example. Marx's writings became doctrine but the actual purpose was forgotten. Any attempt to improve upon or adjust for changing situations was seen an attack on the ideology. When the world changed and the ideology hadn't grown with it, they were acting upon a plan which made no sense to their current situation.

Same thing with Christianity. Belief in the Bible as the unchanging word of God, people attempt to apply ideas meant for primitive tribes 5,000 years ago to their lives now. A whole industry is devoted to explaining away the fact that much of it makes no sense anymore. The actual ideas Jesus promoted are barely represented at all in many cases. Sometimes "Christians" actually are in total opposition to the the guy their religion was named after. Yet, they are blind to the inconsistencies.

I could go on and on. Democrats vs. Republicans is more important than what government is actually doing. Obama says one thing, the Republicans will automatically take an opposing view. If he were to accept their position then they'd abandon it. Knee jerk reactions have become the norm with the only thing important is making the world fit into your own ideology. That Advocate editor is still stuck in a paradigm which might have made sense 30 years ago, but sounds ridiculous today. Yet, he is so steeped in his beliefs that he doesn't even see the hypocrisy he is advocating.

I have a friend who is much like you said about rejecting anything mainstream. They won't watch any movie or read any book that is remotely popular. I can understand the idea that much of what is popular plays to the most common denominator and ends up being fluff. But not everything that becomes widely read is worthless. I couldn't even get them to watch an amazing documentary simply because they had the perception it was "mainstream" which wasn't even correct. It seems as if they don't even remember they do this. It's just become an automatic rejection.

And this can all be applied to the gay community as well. When we stop using critical thinking and simply react like we always have then we eventually forget why we're even doing it in the first place. Following the ideology becomes more important than what we're actually achieving. You would think humans could see this and prevent it, but it happens time and time again in every ideology. Everyone can see it in other movements, but they don't realize it when it happens to their own.

 

[tampa24]

Wow! I have been very busy lately and quite sleep deprived. Still am. I'm usually quite the stickler about spelling and proper grammar and so on. So when you see me making sloppy mistakes, it usually means that I'm either very distracted or very tired. Or both. haha

Anyway... I'm so impressed and relieved that both Clock and Toddo immediately got where I was coming from in my last post. And in the posts leading up to my last one. I hesitated to post it because I worried that people would assume that I was talking only about race or the gay rights movement in the U.S. Of course I meant it to include all social and political movements. And even some independence movements all over the world. The Shiite/Sunni schism. The Catholic/Protestant schism. The Democrat/Republican divide. The Kurds and Arabs. The Kurds and Persians. The Basques of southern France and northern Spain. A whole range of movements.

I know the kind of people you refer to Toddo when you say that they are so anti-mainstream in staying away from anything in popular culture that is considered "popular". haha They will usually use the dreaded word "commercial" to describe anything that the shallow and unrefined masses find appealing. If alot of people like it then it must be awful. LOL So it should be avoided at all costs.

Having said that, it is true that just because a pop star, College Dudes, movie, book, weight loss fad, fashion style, TV show, etc, etc...is popular with many people...does NOT mean that it is all good quality stuff. LOL But you can't write off all of it. Just because it had the misfortune of being well received by alot of people.

You are so right about communistic ideology not keeping up with the times. I remember almost verbatim the closing lines of Gorbachov's farewell address to the disintegrating Soviet Union when he resigned. He said that the Soviet Union was brought down by (among many other things), "...an agricultural sector crippled by ideology. And the onerous burden of the Arms Race."

The communists were so so rigid in their application of what they twisted the ideology into. They wanted all farming collectivized. Even as it became less and less efficient. They did finally allow some private farming. But it wasn't nearly enough to fill the gap. Agricultural production plummeted even though the Ukraine and other parts of Russia proper have some of the most fertile soil on the planet. They had plenty of land to cultivate. They had suitable soil. Yet year after year they had to use valuable hard currency to import ever increasing amounts of food from abroad.

The Democrats and Republicans are a mess right now. If the "other" side floats an idea on something then it HAS to be awful. With no merit at all. This knee jerk reaction of antipathy towards anything the other side (who are also fellow citizens) proposes, does not serve the country well. Yet these educated adults can't find their way out of this vicious cycle.

 

[toddo777]

I know exactly what you''re saying, Tampa24. It's like everyone wants some absolute truth and choose to ignore the relativism factor. I fear that here in the U.S. we are experiencing something similar to the Soviet Union. I'm constantly hearing people talking as if market capitalism (or whatever you want to call it) is some type of scientific fact that can't be disputed, when in reality it is just one of many economic theories which all have pros and cons. Anything outside that is rejected as "socialism". Market Capitalism works quite well in some circumstances, but it's hardly without flaws. Hoover made this mistake and it was a disaster. On the other end of the spectrum, I've seen people in my city government so tied up in the cycle of creating publicly funded projects that it has become simply an end in itself to keep people employed, without any thought as to actually making them function.

Even science itself can fall victim to that thinking. There's an assumption by some that everything not proven by science is pseudoscience and therefore untrue. Science is the best tool we have for an objective reality, but simply because it hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean that one day it will. It upsets people when they hear one day that alcohol is unhealthy and a week later it has some health benefits. Orthodoxy is easier to swallow than adaptation and growth. Things are constantly changing and yesterday's "magic" is tomorrow's science.

And then there's people who reject the conformity and intolerance of society and choose a subculture with its own unique style of dress, only to become themselves intolerant of anyone who doesn't conform to that subculture's standard. The contradiction escapes them.

It seems that most people have trouble seeing the nuances. The world is far from black and white. With time I've learned that sexual orientation is way more complex than gay vs. straight. Even bisexuality has numerous meanings. I met a guy once who said he was bisexual, yet he was only attracted to women and shemales. Another one I met had an attraction to males, but not to the point of wanting to have sex. It goes on and on, but we seem to want to create categories to make it easier to identify people and define them so judgments can be applied as if everyone in that group were identical.

This discussion has really helped me understand a lot of things that have bothered me for some time.

 

[clock12]

It seems everyone is looking for some truth and when they identify with it deeply its defense becomes more important than objective reality.

QFT!

I love how you just zeroed in on the essence and laid it bare with a single sentence.

One of my nagging concerns (hobgoblins?) is that I may be doing exactly this even as I structure my thoughts to avoid it. I can only come to the tentative conclusion that it is a part of human nature (for what that's worth), since, as you say, it is ubiquitous throughout history and across every strata of civilization. Why can't we learn this for ourselves since we are so adept at pointing it out in others?

And speaking of Christianity, Matthew 7:3-5 is just the most obvious passage that comes to mind on this subject. A great deal of Jesus' teachings took the form of addressing cognitive dissonance. The subsequent religion certainly didn't help with that, especially as it became organized and hierarchical, filled as it was with flawed human beings who invariably err on the side of their own self interest. Now we have a situation in which cognitive dissonance is enshrined in the cannons of faith, impervious to correction on pain of charges of heresy and sacrilege. As you said, "Sometimes 'Christians' actually are in total opposition to the guy their religion was named after." Absolutely. What would the "Religious Right" have to do with a long-haired pinko pacifist anarchist who told rich people to give all their money to the poor? George W. Bush said the "political philosopher" he was most inspired by was Jesus. Perhaps he meant a different fellow? The tax-cutting Jesus with a compassionate heart for the rich and powerful?

"The least of these" -- those among us inhabiting the lowest rung on any given social ladder -- is who Jesus identified with, which must have been maddening to the status quo of that time. A marvelous formulation, as it can be applied to any time, culture, circumstance, or people, and so can remain maddening and ultimately subversive to whatever status quo maintains such social rankings. They preach this passage in churches all the time, and people nod and say "Amen," then get up and go about their lives as they always have, ignoring or vilifying those on the lowest rung of the ladder everyone keeps in their mental scorecards. Some may send a check to a children's fund or a hospital to ease their consciences. Poor, hungry, sick children are certainly among the "least of these." But, thanks to the church, so are many other groups and classes of people, put down there out of some misguided idea of following the will of God.

We fought a civil war to ensure that all men were given equal access to and protection of the law. Confused "biblical" reasoning was used to justify slavery and the separation of the races, as well as the subjugation of women. It was quite some time after the 14th Amendment that America decided to include women in the democratic process. Civil liberties continued to expand to more and more people who had been left out before. "Biblical" reasons were advanced at every turn keep the status quo and resist this expansion of liberties. It took until 1964 for the law to forbid racial segregation. Anti-miscegenation laws were backed up by "biblical" reasoning and remained law in many states until 1967 (when an "activist" court called bullshit on that in a 9-0 decision).

But what did those long-haired early Christians say about all this? "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) No social ladder there. No justification for discrimination there. And where do gays stand in the rankings? For quite a long time, at the very lowest point. What does this mean to a bible-believing Christian who is told that what he does to the "least" of persons he is doing to his lord, and what he withholds from the "least" he is withholding from his lord?

Jesus' strongest rebuke of all was to the Pharisees, not because they were ignorant of the truth, but precisely because they knew better. Being more learned in Scripture than others, they pridefully lorded their superior knowledge of the Torah and the Prophets over the unwashed masses, their goal to be revered and adored by the multitude they held in contempt. Today the Pharisee is with us everywhere, pounding on literal and figurative lecterns around the world, and they do not even see themselves for who they are. Those sitting in the pews have somehow insulated themselves from this looming epiphany.

But what manner of reprobate would question the church elders, priests, imams, rabbis, saints, beloved memories of heroes past? Well, apparently all new movements are based on such a question, and typically must withstand a terrible assault as it audaciously makes its case. And then, assuming it can overcome such extensive resistance, the final insult unfailingly manifests: the descendants and later adherents (if not the original followers) will consecrate their harrowing journey as the destination itself, deftly escaping the whole point.

 

[clock12]

... I remember almost verbatim the closing lines of Gorbachev's farewell address to the disintegrating Soviet Union when he resigned. He said that the Soviet Union was brought down by (among many other things), "...an agricultural sector crippled by ideology. And the onerous burden of the Arms Race."

The communists were so so rigid in their application of what they twisted the ideology into. They wanted all farming collectivized. Even as it became less and less efficient. They did finally allow some private farming. But it wasn't nearly enough to fill the gap. Agricultural production plummeted even though the Ukraine and other parts of Russia proper have some of the most fertile soil on the planet. They had plenty of land to cultivate. They had suitable soil. Yet year after year they had to use valuable hard currency to import ever increasing amounts of food from abroad.

Excellent points, Tampa, especially the quote from Gorbachev. You have a good memory! I had to look it up.

'Crippled by ideology.' That's what it comes down to. Rigid, doctrinaire, "ivory tower" thinking that remains inflexible to adaptation and correction is doomed to fail. Possibly bringing us all down with it, depending on how much we have invested in the systems that are controlled by such ideology (or how many nukes are controlled by such systems...) In America, we are heavily invested in the ideology of Capitalism. Not even so much the reality of market forces (which is more a law of nature than anything), but the "ideology" that all market players will make decisions in accordance with their own informed self-interest, and that this process will grant the most boon to the greatest number of people over time.

I love reading Adam Smith, and have had my fun reading Ayn Rand, but at some point the question is begged: What makes one so certain that people will behave in their own informed self-interest? Part of the modern business landscape is high-tech advertising, a field that has become more and more surgically effective as it employs vast data-mining to construct the most detailed and accurate demography ever conceived, along with advanced psychological techniques. These are carefully honed for the specific task of persuading a person to make a choice against their own better judgment. What a quaint rebuttal caveat emptor makes against the wizards of Madison Avenue! And the feeble effort to enforce truth-in-advertising principles? Are you kidding? When was the last time you saw a television commercial that wasn't lying to you? And we are inundated with it from birth. What effect might this have on a person? How much of "consumerism" is actually a choice made by consumers? How far has the science accelerated beyond the ethics? This is a different matter.

CEOs are hired to make decisions not for their own personal benefit, but for the benefit of their shareholders, to whom they have a fiduciary responsibility. Thus the system is supposed to be self-correcting, as CEOs will make choices that will keep their companies strong. But also part of the modern business landscape is showing an ever increasing ROI with every quarterly earnings statement. How does this square with the notion of "in the long-term, all ships are raised by the incoming tide"?

No, all the serious incentive seems to be in the short-term. The very reason Wall Street busily traded ever more arcane derivatives (ever more removed from the reality of an actual business, or product, or demand, or mortgage, or home, or community), and made bets on bets on bets with underground insurance on those trades until they flew up their own ass and dissipated in a puff of logic, blotting out over two trillion dollars in the process. Evaporating the equity of millions of homes across the country. Shutting down credit, strangling smaller businesses and annihilating millions of jobs. Reeling markets across the globe. Was it the people's long-term informed self-interest that saw Congress hand Wall Street $750B to make up for their short-term orgy of greed? When they were told, "If you don't pass the stimulus, this will be the 2nd Great Depression," I am sure most in Congress and the White House believed it. After all, who are you going to trust, a panel of economists, bankers and brokers, or yourself in such a crisis? Maybe it was true. Or maybe Wall Street was just as bad at predicting the effect of the stimulus as it had been in predicting the effects of their own behavior.

Either way, they got paid. Smart business by any measure.