The Porn Business Is Sagging

Like many businesses, porn has fallen on hard times. Sales of sexy DVDs have dropped drastically, and the porn producers aren't making it up on the internet. Big porn actresses – most of whom seem to be named Savanna or Savannah – are being paid less to have more sex. Before you jokingly suggest that the government bail out smut, "Hustler's" Larry Flynt was way ahead of you. He and "Girls Gone Wild's" Joe Francis said they were going to ask Congress for $5 billion back in January. Of course, Flynt's motives were purely altruistic. He said, "With all this economic misery and people losing all that money,... it's time for Congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America. The only way they can do this is by supporting the adult industry and doing it quickly."

So far, Congress has not responded to the suggestion. In one way, that's surprising. Over and over again, in scandal after scandal, we've seen how important sex is to our Senators and Representatives. Maybe they'd vote for a porn bailout if they could use a phony name, like when they check into a motel with someone they're not supposed to be with. If they voted on it by secret ballot, it would probably pass faster than you can say, "I'm the new delivery boy. Are you home alone, Mrs. Jones?"

Considering that we get so many spam emails about porn, how could the porn industry be losing its shirt... and pants? Almost every day, I'm invited, courtesy of the internet, to watch videos of men and women doing things that I never even thought were possible. It turns out that porn is not a recession proof business. It makes sense that some fans of the genre have decided that their money should go elsewhere these days, even if the videos are shot in High Definition.

And ironically, the internet, that porn-filled swamp, is killing the professional porn industry. People can see all kinds of porn on the internet for free. Much of the sex on the net is allegedly pirated from "legitimate" porn companies. Other offerings are videos that people take of themselves or their friends and then put them on the web. I'm not sure who these people are or why they don't worry about what their grandparents – or grandchildren – will think, but there is no shortage of folks who are willing to have video sex. Even if these home videos are not of professional quality, the porn companies can't compete with those who are giving it away for free.

There's also a theory that in recent years, the American attention span has shrunk. We are used to short snippets, rather than long stories. Steven Hirsh, co-chairman of Vivid Entertainment says, "On the internet, the average attention span is three to five minutes," not an hour and a half. Even though porn was never known for its compelling storylines, people don't seem to want to have any story with their porn anymore. They just want the sex scenes. In a recent article in the "New York Times," sex actress Savanna Samson commented on this development, "I used to have dialogue," the frustrated thespian bemoaned. (Or maybe she moaned).

She's not the only porn star who is hurting these days (and not from leather whips). In a recent story in the "Los Angeles Times," Savannah Stern (see? Another Savannah) said she has had to replace her Mercedes with a used Chevy Trailblazer. She got the Trailblazer from her parents. It's nice to see them being supportive of their daughter's career choice, isn't it?

So is this the end of porn? Don't bet on it. Porn has been in the vanguard of technology before. Now the sex industry is talking about putting its product on mobile devices. Great -- as if people aren't staring at their IPhones and Blackberrys enough. The theory is that mobile devices are more personal, more intimate than regular computers. People would be able to take them anywhere they want to view porn. But is there actually an audience who will pay to watch adult movies on those itsy-bitsy screens? I guess we'll finally find out if size really doesn't matter.

Will "Clunkers" Save The Economy?

Even those who thought it up were surprised by how successful the "Cash for Clunkers" program was. Not me. I knew it would be huge. This wasn't because I thought it would be so easy for people to take advantage of it. In fact, it wasn't. There are rules. For example, the "clunker" has to have at least 80,000 miles on it. Some people probably drove their cars around the block over and over again to try to get the mileage up (I'm still 39,206 miles short). But I'm sure they were in the minority. The reason I was so certain that it would be a success is because it's just so American.

Americans like new things. We're not like people in other countries who boast that they live in a building that's hundreds of years old. Americans brag that they live in the newest house on the block. We look down upon older things. Notice that the program was not named, "Cash for Classics Cars." In music, an "oldie" might have been recorded in the 90's. Ballplayers are traded when they become "old" – like when they're thirty. So I knew that Americans would jump at the chance if a program helped them get something new.

Because of the positive response of the program, it wasn't surprising that the House of Representatives quickly passed a bill to extend it. And politics being politics, it wasn't surprising that the Senate balked at the extension despite the country's enthusiasm for it.

Of course, not everyone in the House was for it. Texas' Jeb Hensarling mocked it, saying, "Maybe we should have a ‘Cash for Cluckers’ program and pay people to eat chicken." Since I like chicken, I wouldn't necessarily be against that idea. On the other hand, I'd oppose "Cash for Brussels sprouts."

I understand what the witty Congressman was saying. In this program, we taxpayers are basically giving money to people to buy cars. For some reason, that doesn't bother me. I'm a lot happier with this deal than with our giving money to the people who helped our economy collapse. Congressman Hensarling opposed those earlier bailouts, too, but I guess he didn't make the national news since he didn't come up with a "clever" slogan as he did this time. I guess he just couldn't think of "Bucks for Brokers."

I like "Cash for Clunkers." It has put new, fuel-efficient cars on the streets, and infused the economy with much-needed money. It hasn't only helped the car industry and related businesses. People who work at car dealerships shop just like everybody else. So that woman who bought a new Chevy last week might be responsible for the guy across the country selling more fancy dog food. When future students study this phenomenon in college, it might be known as the Camaro-Kibble Effect.

Equally importantly, "Cash for Clunkers" has been a positive symbol. It says to America, "Hey, some programs actually work. Maybe we really can get out of this recession." And there's got to be the feeling that if the ailing auto industry can be helped, there's bound to be hope for Joe's Hardware store.

It's a big opportunity for the American auto industry. More than half of the cars purchased under this plan have been American makes. If these shiny new fuel-efficient cars turn out to be great, more people will buy them even without the "Cash for Clunkers" program. Of course, if they turn out to be junk in a year or so, the industry will be hurt even more, and those who bought these cars will feel that all they got was a newer clunker.

But if the economic experts do all their analyses of "Cash for Clunkers" and come up with positive results, watch for copycat programs. The big one will be "Cash for Firetraps." If people want to get rid of their old, falling-apart houses and buy new ones, the government would help them out. The housing industry won't say "no" to that idea.

Yes, "Cash for Clunkers" tapped into the very American love of getting rid of the old and acquiring the new. I just hope that its success won't make people go overboard. If so, I'm really in danger of my wife trading in her clunker of a husband for a new model. And believe me, I've got more than 80,000 miles on my odometer.