Subtitled ‘why I need to leave SD.’
As copied from the Rapid City Journal’s Oct. 13, 2003 letters to the editor:
Investors beware
Potential stock investors need to know the business of their holdings; however, sometimes this process is daunting. For example, both the Rapid City Journal and the Argus Leader recently highlighted LodgeNet Entertainment Corp., a Sioux Falls-based company, as a top investment recommendation.
When I search the LodgeNet website, I found no clue that this company, the largest U.S. provider of hotel room movies, had confirmed to Forbes business magazine that 50 percent of its pay-per-view revenue comes from adult content.
The bottom line is this: A large company in South Dakota is one of the most profitable suppliers of pornography in the country. While it may be profitable financially, pornography is morally bankrupt and detrimental to our society.
Americans who care about the kind of society we leave to our children and grandchildren can and must used their moral and economic clout on corporations that are profiting from pornography. If LodgeNet would take the bold step of dropping the porn from their inventory, I would then be inclined to invest with an instate corporation that supports our state’s values.
State Rep. ELIZABETH KRAUS
Rapid City
Firstly, I am so glad that Ms. Kraus has taken the time to tell the good people of South Dakota what is right and wrong. I’m also glad that as a state rep. she is so carefully looking out for the economic welfare of the state. I think she is definitely right. Let’s hire some bounty hunters and take down these so-called ‘morally bankrupt’ corporations. Nevermind the well-paid employees that will lose their jobs, the college graduates that will leave the state in droves because one can’t do anything besides farm or teach in SD, or the companies that will never even consider entering our state. This will all do wonders for our average salary which is (correct me if I’m wrong) the lowest among all states.
Hmmm. What kind of society do I want to leave to my children and grandchildren? I want to leave one where close-mindedness is NOT the norm and quality jobs are available.
Additionally, I’m truly ecstatic that Ms. Kraus has presumed to speak for what are our ’state values’ (as determined by the values census taken once every decade. Riighht…).
Finally, let’s consider this very rationally. LodgeNet provides pay-per-view content for hotels. This probably includes Disney movies, Nintendo and PS2 games, Dramas, Oscar favorites, and, oh yeah, porn. They are not providing specifically porn. Secondly, if they did not provide porn in their content, most likely LodgeNet would not have any contracts to provide pay-per-view content. Simply put, adults staying at hotels obviously want to watch porn. This demand drives supply, not a Lodgenet task force force-feeding porn to the stunned masses.
Get a clue, Ms. Kraus. And don’t EVER, EVER again be so bold as to appoint yourself to speak for me or anyone else in South Dakota.
Note: ‘thank you ms. kraus’ is second in my ‘get a clue’ series. See the first.
6 responses so far ↓
1 Lindsey // Oct 16, 2003 at 9:44 am
You should send this reaction in to the paper. It’s very well put. It’s exactly what I was thinking too when I read her comment
2 Tim // Oct 16, 2003 at 3:01 pm
My reaction: She’s saying, “I’m an investor, and I’m not giving money to a company that supports a morally bankrupt activity. Other investors, beware!” She’s not proposing government intervention, or even a boycott. She’s saying, “If you don’t like what they’re doing, don’t support them.”
Now, she is doing it with an offensive attitude of “All right-thinking people, follow me!” And she presumptively uses the phrase “our state’s values”. But I don’t think she’s being as offensive as you’re making her out to be.
Oh, also, if you do reply in the paper, you might want to consider leaving out the reference to closed-mindedness. Frankly, it’s not necessarily closed-minded to think porn is detrimental to society. It’s just as offensive to say, “You only think that because you’ve got a closed mind,” as to say anything she did. I think your argument will be stronger if you reserve your attack to her actual proposition, not the moral views behind it. Or, if you meant something else by “closed-mindedness”, you might want to make it more clear–others will make the same mistake I did.
3 Nicole // Oct 16, 2003 at 4:49 pm
What I wrote is definitely not ready for the paper, and I don’t think I’ll ever actually send a reaction to the paper.
Secondly, I do think she was saying that any ‘right-thinking’ people would believe as she does. Also, my reference to open-mindedness was not to say that believing that porn is detrimental to society is close-minded, but it IS closeminded to believe that that is the ONLY way to think.
And she is advocating intervention. She wants people to use their ‘moral and economic clout’ to stop this corporation.
Basically, I will decide for myself what is morally bankrupt — I will not have it decided for me.
4 Tim // Oct 16, 2003 at 5:26 pm
I didn’t say she wasn’t advocating intervention–I said “government intervention”. I don’t know why I mentioned boycotting–that is what she’s advocating, basically.
I don’t see how she’s trying to decide something for you. Certainly, she wants them gone, but all she said is that investors who don’t like it shouldn’t invest in them. She said it offensively, but that’s all.
5 Nicole // Oct 16, 2003 at 10:24 pm
Yes, perhaps she was just trying to inform the good people of SD that LodgeNet provides adult content to hotels (which I agree most people probably do not know). As you noted, she did do it offensively — imposing her judgements of right and wrong.
If she had just written this letter as an informative piece, posing no moral judgements and excluding calls for intervention, I would have had absolutely no problem with the letter.
6 Lindsey // Oct 17, 2003 at 9:46 am
I think that anyone who has stayed in a hotel with LodgeNet knows they can get porn. The real question is who knows they are from SD?