Inside Today's 6 News; The News Director's Blog

Race and Sex and Politics and Democrats

Ever get worked up enough about something you read in a newspaper or a magazine to write a letter to the editor?  It happens very rarely with me, but a column by 'Newsweek' columnist Anna Quindlen did just that.  You can read her column here after you get past the 'Newsweek' ad.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/120049

Her column 'Still Stuck in Second' decries the rejection of Hillary Clinton as somehow reflective of an enduring sexist attitude in America that holds women back.  The column was published the same week Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro said publicly that Barack Obama would not be in the position he is in if he were not black, implying that he is the beneficiary of a sort political version of affirmative action.

Quindlen writings are very liberal and she is obviously a Clinton supporter, and as with a great deal of what she writes, I couldn't disagree more.  Yes, there are some African-Americans voting for Obama because he is black and some women voting for Clinton because she is a woman, but in both cases, the philosophies of the voter and the candidate also align.  Obama is attractive to some in the black community for the groundbreaking change his election would represent to them ... same with Clinton and some women ... but only if their words and policies also resonate.

But is there really a large silent block of Americans who would deny either public office mainly based on race or sex?  I don't believe so, and so I wrote Quindlen this letter to the editor. 

Dear Ms. Quindlen;

It takes me awhile sometimes, but I enjoy reading Newsweek cover-to-cover.  Your Last Word ‘Still Stuck in Second’ was on the back page, and I read it with great interest, especially in light of recent comments made by Geraldine Ferraro.  In a sense, both your arguments are soulmates written from the mindset of frustrated Clinton supporters who seem to twist logic to make a point.

I don’t disagree that women have faced barriers just as blacks have. I do disagree that somehow this accounts for Clinton’s inability to capture the Democratic nomination. My take is people are making choices at a critical time, and race and gender are well down their list. It’s people such as yourself and Ms. Ferraro who push them to the top because they are expedient. Quite damning to argue the Democratic party’s likely rejection of Clinton in favor of Obama has less to do with judgment and political passion as it is just keeping women down. 

But there’s one point after reading your article that I just cannot escape. What if we weren’t talking about Hillary Clinton, but rather it was Condoleezza Rice who was in the spotlight. Let’s say months ago, she entered the political process, a Republican black woman who inflamed party passions and was battling John McCain for the nomination, but she seemed to be falling just short.  Would you have written this article about her?  Would you have decried the lack of support for a woman who has championed a war you personally abhor?  Would you have felt such a kinship with someone whose political views are the polar opposite of your own?  Substitute ‘Rice’ for ‘Clinton’ in your article and ask yourself would have still written it?  Could you have still written it?

I don’t think so.  I am an independent and still very undecided, but one of the things I have admired about Obama is his insistence that if he is rejected by the American people, it will not be because of his race but because they feel he is not ready.  It speaks to the best of America, which I believe to be the substantial majority, not the worst of America to which your column plays.

I enjoy your columns Ms. Quindlen because I am one who learns from having my own ideas and beliefs challenged and also reading arguments from independent thinkers.  But to condemn those who reject Clinton as somehow sexist Neanderthals is disingenuous in my view.  I think your readers would value your words more if you could write them when you are not wearing the Clinton colored glasses.

Thanks for reading my viewpoint and for your excellent columns.

Sincerely,

Scott Picken

Our Dear Old Dad in the Idaho Legislature

Representative Mike Moyle is my father.  No, I don't mean biologically.  I mean philosophically.  He's your father too, and he knows best!

Full disclosure, our newsroom's relationship with Moyle is a bit like some children's relationships with their parents.  It is a bit dysfunctional.  Moyle is upset about a story we did with him last year examining the reasons why he and others in the Republican leadership refuse to give you and me the ability to vote to raise our own taxes through a local option sales tax for transportation.  I don't think dad trusts us to be able to make decisions for ourselves, unless of course we are re-electing him.

Need proof of this?  Listen to Moyle talk about his latest proposal to change Idaho's Constitution to now allow voters to consider a local option sales tax.  This is not really a change of heart because his proposal would allow it only for individual cities or counties (not grouped entities like Ada and Canyon Counties together, which frankly is critical for funding any regional transportation plan), and only with a two-thirds majority.  Why something as onerous as a Constitutional Amendment?  Because Moyle doesn't want to give future legislatures the option of lowering the 2/3rd's majority requirement to pass the tax, telling the 'Idaho Statesman', "Down the road, you could have a renegade legislature."

"Renegade legislature?"  You mean a legislature elected by the citizens of Idaho to represent them with the latitude necessary to deal with problems as they arise?  Wow, if us voters are ever so stupid as to do something like that, we can look back and say "Thank goodness Mike Moyle was there to protect us from ourselves!"  Father, after all, really does know best!

Now I know some of you who don't know Moyle might misconstrue his comment as a bit arrogant and somewhat patronizing, but those who do know him laugh it off as "That's Dad just being Dad!"  The odd thing about Dad though.  For an elected representative, he doesn't seem to have a great deal of faith in democracy.

Certainly, Moyle had to be stunned at what happened with the community college local option tax.  The legislature passed a law allowing local entities to pass a local option tax for community colleges, and faster then you can say 'Political Populism 101,' voters in Ada and Canyon counties overwhelmingly voted to tax themselves to create the College of Western Idaho.  Moyle must have muttered, "What are the children I represent thinking?!"  Just being rebellious I suppose.

It brings to mind a conversation I had with a Republican Mayor of a treasure valley city (which was a casual conversation that I'm recounting from memory, so they shall remain nameless).  The mayor was complaining to me about Moyle, saying the state representative lives isolated out on a ranch in western Ada County, seems out of touch when it comes to emerging local urban issues and appears to have no desire to help our area's expanding cities deal with the growth problems they are facing.  Surprisingly critical comments of Moyle from a political leader of his own party, but you know kids these days.

The Death of a Conservative's Conservatism

Since his death two weeks ago, I've been reading a lot about William Buckley, considered by many to be the founder of the modern conservative political movement in America.  Years ago when he did his weekly PBS show 'Firing Line', I found it virtually unwatchable.  Buckley loved to show off his expansive knowledge of the English language, but it is hard to follow someone's argument when you find yourself reaching for the dictionary every third word.  Buckley seemed to me to be a bit too erudite and elitist to be able to move masses, much less speak to them.

But as many now eulogize him, I'm beginning to realize just how large an influence he had.  Ronald Reagan was a charter member of Buckley's conservative magazine "National Review."  Reagan would become in time the pied piper of the conservative movement, using his ability as "the great communicator" to put many of Buckley's ideas into action.  Buckley was also a conservative intellectual at a time when most all intellectuals were liberal, putting the conservative movement on equal footing when it came to the power of ideas.

But as Buckley is eulogized, the conservative movement he championed is clearly waning.  'Newsweek' columnist Fareed Zakaria went so far as to write an article on the "end of the conservative movement in America."  Even here in Idaho, you see a packed Democratic caucus where people are turned away or a raucous Obama rally (where people were also turned away) and you ask yourself, "Am I really in Idaho?"  Just one more sign that Buckley's conservative movement is fractured and a bit demoralized.  We even have the bizarre scene of conservative commentators spitting their venom at the Republican nominee for President.  What happened?

Zakaria makes the point that conservatism is on the wane not because it failed ... but because it succeeded.  When Ronald Reagan took office, top marginal income tax rates were at 70%.  They are now about half that.  Conservative pushes on issues like crime and welfare reform brought real reform and real results, and of course, the Cold War was won.

There were failures.  Conservatives who loathe abortion rights have not made much headway.  Fiscal conservatives who want smaller government witnessed a huge increase in government spending by the Bush administration working with a Republican Congress for most of his time in office.

But overall, there were many, many successes.  The problem as Zakaria sees it is the conservative message has not evolved as its movement changed a nation.  Pushing more tax cuts doesn't have much resonance when people aren't paying excessive taxes anymore.  New emerging issues like global warming, our addiction to oil and concerns over the loss of good jobs to globalization don't play well to conservatives' views on free markets and less business regulation.  Many fear a philosophy of more tax cuts, less government regulation and more free markets would worsen ... not improve ... these modern day problems confronting America.

There are even studies that show the middle class in America has experienced a net loss of wealth during the Bush Administration while the fortunes of the rich have multiplied.  That means when a Democratic candidate for President stands up and says "Are you better off that you were eight years ago?" ...there are many Americans who can truthfully answer 'no.'  They will likely blame free market conservative policies that have hastened the movement of jobs and wealth overseas.

I think Zakaria may have a point, but I also suspect it is only half the story, because while liberalism has had its successes as well:  We no longer debate civil rights, women's rights or the social safety net that were all liberal ideals ... the liberal ideal that government can solve the majority of problems in America is no more discredited than the conservative ideal that government solutions should always be the solution of absolute last resort.  This election is so muddled and confusing because I think many Americans are searching for a 'third way.'

This would partly explain the success of McCain and Obama.  Both are seen as having the ability to 'reach across the aisle.'  It is likely each would have members of the other party in their cabinent if elected.  Their attractiveness is their perceived ability to consider the full spectrum of ideas before them and then pick the one they felt worked best whether they be liberal, conservative or more likely somewhere in between.  I'm not sure it is conservatism that is dead no more than liberlism is dead.  I think it might be dogmatic ideology that is really on the decline.

How Garden City Officials are Failing the Greenbelt Test

In the controversy over an area of 'greenbelt' in Garden City that is off limits to bikes, I think Garden City officials are failing an important test.  For those of you not aware of the story, back in 1980, Riverside Village developers agreed with the State to build a greenbelt by the Boise River.  It never happened.  Instead, there are dirt paths by the river and more recently signs declaring the area a 'bike dismount zone.'  With the greenbelt growing, bicyclists want the ability to ride through the area as originally intended.

So how are Garden City officials dealing with this controversy failing the greenbelt test?  To find out, why don't you take it for yourself?  Sort of a 'Greenbelt SAT.'

Q:  Which of the following is the most accurate reason Garden City officials object to paving parts of the greenbelt?

1. They feel the path is too narrow for bikes and pedestrians.
2. The area is a nature trail not conducive to a paved path.
3. That pavement is desperately needed for more strip malls!

Q:  Complete this sentence.  "The Garden City Council dislikes bicyclists on the greenbelt because ..."

1. Bicycles do not have carbon emissions critical to maintaining Garden City's air quality.
2. Garden City Officials distrust any form of transportation that also qualifies as 'exercise.'
3. Garden City Officials don't see the economic benefit to promoting any form of transportation that cannot also be used to haul a trailer.

Q:  What is the most substantial reason Garden City officials believe it is appropriate to go back on a written pledge to create a greenbelt?

1. The pledge was nullified by a 'quick claim deed.'
2. Those involved never realized the state of Idaho meant a paved section of bike path.
3. It was signed with 'fingers crossed.'

Q:  When it comes to public officials and greenbelt development, which of the following statements most accurately represents the term 'oxymoron.'

1. Boise visionaries
2. Eagle visionaries
3. Garden City visionaries

Q:  Two tourists on bicycles decide to meet up at Garden City's greenbelt dismount zone.  Tourist A will ride from Ann Morrison Park and travel at an average speed of 5 miles per hour.  Tourist B will ride from Warm Springs Golf Course at a speed of 10 miles per hour.  Which of the following is most true?

1. Tourist A will arrive ahead of tourist B.
2. Tourist B will arrive ahead of tourist A.
3. Both tourists will arrive together.
4. What tourist in their right mind visits Garden City?

Q:  Which of the following place names best fits the definition of a 'misnomer?'

1. Greenland
2. The Garden State
3. Garden City, Idaho

I can understand how some Garden City residents would take offense to my 'tongue-in-cheek' test.  They shouldn't, because they are victims too of a long history of Garden City leadership that had forsaken longer-term planning and development in favor of short term deals.  What has resulted is a hodgepodge mess that leaves many shaking their heads.  If I had substituted 'Boise' or 'Eagle' for 'Garden City' above, the jokes would have fallen flat.

And evidence suggests this greenbelt debate is just one more example of what has made Garden City a punch line.  I wasn't here in 1980 when Riverside Village was developed, but here's what I suspect happened.  The developer needed a sign off from the State of Idaho to complete the project.  He gets it but only if he agrees to build a greenbelt.  But wait!  Building a greenbelt would take up lots of valuable land and might not make riverside lots as attractive to some, so he puts in dirt paths instead and calls it good.

Whatever the circumstances, it is pretty clear the promise was broken.  Now is the time to make it right.  That's because Garden City leaders can only move their city in a better direction if they are willing to abandon the short-sighted practices of the past, embrace better urban planning, make decisions that serve the greater good and leave those they deal with confident they will keep their word.

But there is an even bigger issue here.  Every time I have to recruit an employee to the Boise area, I tout its progressive greenbelt.  It is truly a remarkable gem that sets the Boise area apart and even though I live in Nampa and don't own a bike, I applaud efforts to extend it from Boise to Eagle and beyond.  An extended bike pathway down the Boise River would be a tremendous asset for every city it touched, potentially accessible by hundreds of thousands of people.  That's especially true of Garden City, which is blessed with miles of potentially valuable riverfront property. 

Look at what Boise's greenbelt vision has done for the city so far.  Its riverfront is blessed with several beautiful parks, riverside restaurants and other attractions, a college campus and attractive residential and commercial development.  Garden City's riverfront is ... well ... in Garden City.  No wonder Boise's greenbelt is touted over and over again as a model for other cities nationwide.  Wonder what they would say about Garden City?

A bike path through the area isn't just the right thing to do to make good on a promise.  It would also show the kind of political courage and vision that could slowly but surely transform Garden City into the kind of place people want to stop and visit ... rather than just commute through.

I'm posting this on a Friday before a rally tomorrow at the 'anti-bike' path, a sure sign I suspect that this is one issue that's not going to just ride away.

Micron's Curious Week

I saw Micron CEO Steve Appleton at a poker game the other night.  Texas hold'em to be specific.  He had a big pile of both cash and chips in front of him ... hundreds of millions of dollars worth ... and standing right beside him was the State of Idaho.  Idaho looked nervous with visible tics that seemed to me to be a bit more than aftershocks from recent seismic activity in neighboring Nevada.  I couldn't quite figure out why so I watched for a while.

Now I have to tell you, Steve Appleton is not a very good poker player.  He plays and bets erratically, putting up huge sums on longshot hands that seem to have little chance of paying off.  It became clear to me in time why Idaho was so nervous.  The state had some of its money in Appleton's pot and the game was not going well.  Hand after hand, Appleton was losing millions and millions of dollars.

And then something odd happened.  Appleton took a wad of his dwindling cash reserves and handed it to a player across the table from him who looked suspiciously like California's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger!

And that's when I woke up.

Two questions immediately popped into my mind.  The first was "What in the world had I been drinking that made me dream of Steve Appleton!!!???"  The second was, "What could my dream possibly mean?"*

And then I thought about Micron's curious week.  It began with a news conference by Micron President Mark Durcan where he announced the company was forming a strategic partnership with a Taiwanese chipmaker.  Somewhat significant since this is something Micron has resisted in the past.  And then Durcan threw in a peculiar comment.  He said that Micron would build a new fab in Boise 'someday', when economic conditions were right.  This is an odd assurance from a company whose most recent financial statement showed losses of nearly 3 million dollars every day.

The next day, no news conference, but an announcement that Micron was going spinoff its image sensoring division.  As Ken Dey with the Idaho Statesman pointed out in an interview segment on 'Today's 6 News,' that's probably good news for Micron's fab in Nampa.  But there was another interesting tidbit.  The new division would not be headquartered in Idaho, but rather in California.  (The spin-off has been rumored for a while, with speculation that Appleton would eventually resign his current post and take over the new company.  Makes me wonder if he isn't methodically plotting his own escape from Idaho to the Golden State ... but I digress).

After my dream, it occurred to me, "Could it be possible that the timing of these announcements are related?  Could the mentioning of a mythical new fab in Boise have been some sort of cover for the headquartering of the new image sensor spinoff in another state?"

I honestly don't know the answer.  The truth is I'm not smart enough to avoid tough questions the way Micron does (as explained in one of my blogs over the summer, Micron does not grant interviews with KIVI-TV because of their displeasure with our questions) and I'm not rich enough to be able to afford to lose $3 million a day.  But I am savvy enough to know that Micron really can't afford any more big PR hits in Idaho.  Dey has recently written about the lack of enthusiasm in the legislature for Micron, which has received some very generous tax breaks in the past.  In his blog he wrote, "...Micron appears to have lost its luster with the Legislature.  No one in the Legislature from the Governor on down is giving any indication that they want to help Micron through its recent troubles. I’ve actually heard that Micron has asked for help, but legislators have balked." 

Dey's blog had Micron execs so concerned, one of their PR people wrote an e-mail to Boise business leaders saying what Dey expressed couldn't be further from the truth, and that legislators are calling Micron all the time offering to do more to help the company.  Either way, any sign that the company is now shipping even more jobs out of state could make legislators downright hostile to the high-tech giant.

There was another news item about Micron at the end of the week (you can find it on the news section of our website).  A juror in a price-fixing trial against a Hynix executive referred to Micron Executive Michael Sadler a "lying sack of shit" after he testified.  Jurors apparently felt Sadler, who has immunity for his role in the computer chip price-fixing scandal, gave less than honest testimony and could not be trusted. 

I think that's indicative of the bigger problem reputationally for Micron these days.  Admittedly engaging in illegal price-fixing as a business practice, promising expansions in Idaho that never come to fruition while investing billions in plants in other states and countries, clumsily laying off hundreds of Idaho employees, making multi-million dollar payouts for executives while the company posts record losses, telling a business publication "I don't have to hire another person in the United States" and otherwise isolating yourself from most local media outlets because you don't like the questions they ask ... it all adds up to an environment of distrust for Micron. 

In the Idaho Legislature, trust is the most precious commodity of all.  It is a handshake deal, your word is your bond, I believe you will do what you say kind of place.  It's no wonder Micron isn't having much success there right now.  That's a tough reality for a company struggling to survive, but Micron's done it to themselves.

*-Full disclosure, this is a literary device.  I did not actually dream of Steve Appleton, and trust me, no one is more relieved about that fact than me.

You Make the News Judgment Call

One reason I write this blog is to sometimes take you 'inside' the many issues our news organization must face.  Here's one.  After most every controversial story we air, I inevitably get a call or e-mail from someone connected to it in some way complaining about us doing the story at all.  They typically ask, "What about the impact on the family?"  Two recent e-mails were from a family member of 17-year-old Ethan Windom and also a friend of the family after we did an in-depth report on how Windom's actions in murdering his mother Judy closely mimicked those of the fiction serial killer in the movie "American Psycho."  We also explored the subject of the impact of extremely violent movies on teens and young adults.  You can see the story here by going to this page http://kivitv.com/Global/category.asp?C=87004&nav=menu536_2 and looking for "American Psycho Effect."

The family friend writes, "I thought the piece that you did about Ethan Windom ... was sensationalized and unnecessary. I know the Windom family, which includes two small children, and I also know Judy Windom's parents. This is a wonderful family that has been forever altered by this tragedy."

That was followed by an e-mail from a family member which stated, "I would like you to think for a moment about how you would feel if you were in my shoes ... having to deal with the loss of a loved one in a violent crime such as this."

Neither writer disputed the facts presented or public interest in the story.  Their complaints were centered on the impact to Windom's family.

While I can certainly sympathize on a personal level with all this family has endured, I cannot really put myself in the family's shoes nor can I allow our news organization to tilt our coverage based on family considerations.  Family impact is never a factor when we decide to cover a news story of public interest.  To explain why, let's play out some real-life scenarios and have you make the news judgment call.

#1.  A U.S. Senator is arrested in a gay sex sting in an airport bathroom.  While the Senator himself is a public figure, you know that news of the arrest itself will also have serious consequences for the Senator's family as there had been rumors for years (rumors that you do not know to be true) that the Senator entered into the marriage to deflect rumors he is gay.  Further, he is a popular Senator of the majority political party of your state and your realize that aggressive news coverage of his arrest will displease his supporters, possibly costing your news organization viewership.  It may also lead those around him to deny you access to the Senator in favor of other news organizations who may be seen as offering 'friendlier' coverage.  Do you cover the story, and if so, do you do so in aggressive manner so as to hold a public official accountable?  You make the news judgment call.

#2.  A violent fight involving several individuals ends with a serious injury stabbing outside a popular nightclub in an entertainment area of town.  The owner of the nightclub contacts you directly asking you not to identify that his club was involved, arguing while the men were patrons, he had no control over their actions and that reporting where the stabbing happened will hurt his business and his family's livelihood.  Further complicating the situation is the fact this man's nightclub is also an advertiser with your television station, so reporting the story fully would likely mean the loss of revenue to your television station.  Do you fully cover the story including saying where it happened?  You make the news judgment call.

#3.  One of the top executives in a company that becomes the biggest bankruptcy scandal in U.S. history is indicted on criminal fraud charges.  Covering this story will mean great embarrassment to his family members, one of whom just happens to be a prominent weather anchor on your very own television station.  Do you cover the story and name this executive, and do you also reveal his relationship to your anchor?  You make the news judgment call.

Each case actually happened, and in each case, the story was covered fully and completely by the TV station despite the 'collateral' impact on families.

The first obviously refers to our coverage of Senator Larry Craig's arrest.  The second happened to me while I worked at another television station in another city.  As it turned out, we discovered the club had a history of problems with violent incidents and our coverage helped compel the club to put in video cameras and beef up security.  The third happened to a television station in Chicago during the Enron bankruptcy scandal.

Had the impact on families been paramount, none of these stories would have been covered, at least not fully.  In fact, every day you watch the news, you see reports of events where the innocent family members of those in the news will be impacted in some way.  But if we consider that impact, we open ourselves up to accusations of unfairness, unobjectivity, preferential treatment and news bias.  For instance, had the nightclub story mentioned above not been done for 'impact on family' reasons, the station would have opened itself up to criticism that the real reason for not airing it was because the nightclub was an advertiser.

Unprejudiced detachment is critical to fairness in news coverage or in any situation where objectivity is demanded.  Think about it.  Should a judge hand down stiffer sentences to an orphan than someone with a large family because the impact to a larger group of innocent family members would be greater?  Should a referee call a bigger strike zone for a pitcher who happens to be bit wild but has a nice family whose livelihood depends on that pitcher's ability to get batters out?  Should game shows allow cheating in favor of contestants whose families could really use the money?  Should news organizations consider the embarrassment to certain families and not others when deciding what stories to cover?  The answer to all four questions is the same.

The Ethan Windom case is truly shocking, and it is also a cautionary tale for all parents about the dangers of allowing teens easy access to explicitly violent material.  "American Psycho" may not have motivated Windom to kill, but it certainly did impact his psyche in a negative manner, an element of this story we felt was important to tell.

As I told one caller complaining about the family impact of a different story we did a few weeks back, news is for people who want to know things and who also believe the benefit of having information in a free society far outweighs the potential embarrassment to those whose family member has been caught in the media's glare.

How Local Pro-Life Advocates Turned a PR Victory into a Dumb Defeat

Abortion is one of those issues you should never write about in a blog.  You are just asking for cannonade fire from both ends of the abortion debate.  But I'm just shaking my head on how the pro-life movement in Boise turned a PR victory into a dumb defeat.

First the victory.  In the news section of our website, you will find the story of a young woman named Kelly Antonczak who testified before a legislative committee that she was coerced by her family to have an abortion as a teen.  When the idea that the state was considering a law outlawing coercing someone to have an abortion, I was somewhat ambivalent.  "When does that EVER happen?" I thought.  After seeing Antonczak's story of abortion coercion however, I had two reactions.  The first was I wanted to get her family's phone number and tell them what a bunch of jerks they were for not supporting their daughter.  The second was that it seemed reasonable to me that a teen who finds herself in this situation should feel she has the law on her side.

Pro-choice advocates objected (as they seem to reflexively do to any pro-life proposal), saying there are better ways to deal with this issue.  I don't necessarily disagree, but it seems to me neither side of this debate is served by a situation where a young woman feels somehow coerced into an abortion.  You can't legally force a family to be supportive of their children, but society can at least pass laws that encourage it as best it can on decisions of such importance.

It was a strong PR moment for the local pro-life movement.  And then they blew it.

It happened when a pro-life advocate called the local Planned Parenthood office pretending to be a racist who wanted to donate money for black women to get abortions (you will find a story on that on our website as well).  The Planned Parenthood woman on the other end of the line, clearly having never confronted something like this before, was clueless on how to react, and so she did what many do who are uncomfortable with conflict when confronted with blatant racism.  They simply go along and hope it is a very short phone call.

I don't agree with her response, but I'm much more disturbed by the clearly deceptive, racist phone call that prompted it, and I suspect a lot of other people who aren't advocates on either side of the abortion debate see right through it.  It speaks to the Achilles' heel of the pro-life movement that hurts it reputationally.  The pro-life movement is seen by many as extreme where activists feel their ends justify their means no matter how reprehensible.

Blatant lying!  No problem, because we're pro-life!  The misleading of pregnant women by the setting up of fake 'abortion clinics' that won't perform abortions?  Justifiable because we're pro-life!  It's gotten so deceptive, there's been federal legislation proposed (as well as bills in some states) to outlaw that practice.  I have even had conversations years ago with pro-life activists who would defend the murder of doctors who perform abortions because ... "We're pro-life!"  The irony did not escape me.

In the defense of the pro-life movement, many do condemn the actions of those who are on the movement's extreme, like the pro-life advocates who picket soldier's funerals because they believe the deaths are God's punishment for abortion.  But overall, I wonder what more mainstream pro-life parents teach their kids.  "Johnny, it is not right to lie or deceive people ... unless of course it is for the pro-life movement!"  How do you claim the moral high ground while defending overt lying and deception?  Where's the moral high ground in that?

The pro-life movement has made a positive impact on the abortion issue.  Abortions are way down nationwide, something all can agree is a good thing.  The film 'Juno' reflects an attitude amongst many teens who choose to give birth rather than having an abortion.  That's in part because the pro-life movement has helped remove some of the social stigma of teens who make that choice when they find themselves pregnant and has built support systems for them.  This in my opinion is where the pro-life movement can and has had its greatest impact ... winning over hearts and minds!  That's especially important for their cause as we come to the day when surgical abortions will be completely replaced by something as easy as taking a pill a pregnant woman could secretly order over the internet.

But you don't win hearts and minds by lying.  You don't win hearts and minds by deceiving.  You don't win hearts and minds by entrapping.  No one in their right mind believes Planned Parenthood is a racist organization, and insisting as much based on a deceptive phone call just makes you look deceptive ... kind of dirty ... and almost as dumb as someone who writes a blog on the topic of abortion.