c.1997 N.Y. Times News Service<
WASHINGTON—Advocates for the abortion-rights movementWednesday dismissed the contention by a member of the movement thatthey had all knowingly misled the public about the circumstancesand frequency of a particular late-term abortion procedure.
Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the NationalCoalition of Abortion Providers, based in Alexandria, Va., andrepresenting more than 200 abortion clinics, has disputed threemain contentions of abortion-rights advocates. He says theprocedure is performed more frequently, earlier and on healthierwomen with healthier fetuses than the advocates acknowledge.
Both sides agree that no one, including the government, keepsreliable statistics on the procedure, called ``partial birthabortion'' by opponents and ``intact dilation and extraction'' bydefenders.
At a 90-minute briefing Wednesday, four leaders of theabortion-rights groups had to be pressed repeatedly to respond toFitzsimmons' statements, in the March 3 issue of American MedicalNews. He said he had lied before to protect the movement but nowcould not watch the debate be engulfed by ``spins'' and``half-truths.''
Fitzsimmons contends that the vast majority of these abortionsare performed on healthy women who have been pregnant at least 20weeks with healthy fetuses.
Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion andReproductive Rights Action League, said: ``If he thinks he lied,that's his problem. We have not.''
Defenders of the procedure maintain that such abortions aregenerally done late in the pregnancy and on women or fetuses withsevere health problems. On Wednesday, Ms. Michelman and othersacknowledged that these abortions were performed in the secondtrimester but not that they were done on healthy women with healthyfetuses.
Ms. Michelman suggested that if the public was confused, it wasbecause the press may have misreported the facts, a notion thatsurprised abortion opponents, who contend that most reporterssupport abortion rights and passively accept the statements made byits advocates.
The abortion-rights movement has been on the defensive sinceabortion foes raised the late-term abortion issue on Capitol Hilllast year in graphic terms that turned many people in Congress,including advocates of such rights, against it.
Fitzsimmons asserted that the advocates had mishandled theentire debate and jeopardized their credibility with everyone.
``Even the White House is now questioning the accuracy of someof the information given to it on this issue,'' Fitzsimmons said.
President Clinton 
last year repeated the views ofabortion-rights advocates, that the late-term procedure wasextremely rare, when he vetoed a bill to ban it.
Abortion-rights advocates have known they have apublic-relations problem, at a minimum, over the procedure. KathrynKolbert, a lawyer at the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy,advised advocates in a strategy session last year to try to keepthe debate focused on an individual woman's right to choose, notthe details of the procedure, American Medical News said.
Ms. Kolbert was one of three others who joined Ms. Michelman onWednesday in dismissing Fitzsimmons' assertions.
``The pro-choice movement is larger in America than any of us,''Ms. Kolbert said. ``What any one leader of one group says isobviously never representative of the movement as a whole.''
Vicki Saporta, executive director of the National AbortionFederation, said, ``The statements we have been making have beentruthful.''
Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation ofAmerica, said Fitzsimmons had been ``mixing up gestation withprocedure.''
Ms. Michelman said: ``I don't know what Ron Fitzsimmons has saidthat really should be raising so many questions. He hasn't saidanything new, as far as I'm concerned.''
She added: ``He's suggested somehow he lied, and we areimplicated in his charade. We don't agree with that.''
c. 1997 Kansas City Star
KANSAS CITY, Mo.—On the cover of the Army of God manual is apicture of a sad girl, innocently clutching a Raggedy Ann doll.
But inside the 125-page document, anti- abortion militantsdescribe dozens of illegal ways to shut down abortion clinics _including how to make and detonate bombs.
Now federal authorities are investigating whether the Army ofGod is behind the weekend bombing at a gay nightclub in Atlanta andtwo Jan. 16 explosions outside an Atlanta area clinic where abortions are performed.
The FBI received a letter claiming responsibility from the groupMonday. The letter says that abortion will not be tolerated andthreatens ``total war'' against the federal government.
On Tuesday it was revealed that the gay nightclub's owner had abrother, James T. McMahon, who was well known for pioneering amethod of performing late-term abortions. Federal agents arelooking into his connection to the lounge's owner.
McMahon, who died of a brain tumor in 1995, taught obstetricsand gynecology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. Hewas among a handful of doctors performing intact dilation andevacuation, a procedure that abortion opponents call``partial-birth'' abortion.
The Army of God recently was the subject of a federalinvestigation into a possible conspiracy of anti-abortionterrorists whose aim is to kill doctors and shut down clinics. Theinvestigation began after an anti-abortion activist shot and killedan abortion doctor and his bodyguard in Pensacola, Fla., in 1994.
``We are just stunned that this has resurfaced,'' said AnnGlazier, director of clinic defense for the Planned ParenthoodFederation of America.
The Army of God first surfaced in 1982, when an abortion doctorand his wife were kidnapped in Edwardsville, Ill., near St. Louis.Two days later, a man called the FBI claiming to be a member of theArmy of God and saying he was holding the couple for ransom.
The doctor and his wife were released after eight days and theFBI caught the kidnappers three months later. The leader, Don BennyAnderson, also was convicted of three abortion clinic bombings inFlorida and Virginia.
The Army of God resurfaced during a string of clinic bombings in1984, when a man saying he was with the group telephoned newsagencies and claimed responsibility for several of the blasts.
And in October 1984, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun,the author of the 1973 Roe vs. Wade opinion that legalizedabortion, said he received a threatening letter from a group bythat name.
The Army of God again came to light in 1993, when authoritiesdug up a copy of the group's manual in the back yard of RachelleShannon, the Oregon woman convicted of trying to kill Wichitaphysician George Tiller.
Shannon is serving a 10-year sentence in a Topeka prison forshooting Tiller in August 1993. In 1995, she also was convicted andsentenced to 20 additional years for six clinic arsons in thePacific Northwest.
At her sentencing hearing, federal authorities said that evenwhile in prison, Shannon had sent copies of the Army of God manualto several activists, including one in the Kansas City area.
Shannon was a friend of Paul Hill, now on death row for the twoPensacola abortion-clinic killings. In an interview in the FloridaState Prison last week, Hill told The Kansas City Star that he wasfamiliar with the Army of God manual.
``It encouraged and inspired me,'' Hill said.
The manual, a copy of which The Star has obtained, detailsactivities that range from acquiring a putrid-smelling liquid thathas been used to close clinics for days at a time to making anddetonating bombs.
``We, the remnant of God-fearing men and women of the UnitedStates of Amerika(sic), do officially declare war on the entirechild killing industry,'' the manual states.
The anonymous author describes it as ``a How-To Manual of meansto disrupt and ultimately destroy Satan's power to kill ourchildren, God's children.''
Under the heading ``99 Covert Ways to Stop Abortion,'' themanual describes ways that anti-abortion activists—called``termites''—can shut down clinics. One of the more destructivetactics described is the use of a demolition agent which candestroy a building.
The final sections show how to make and use explosives. Amongthose recommended is ammonium nitrate, the kind of fertilizer usedin the Oklahoma City bombing.
The manual concludes with an interview with ``an undergroundleader'' of the Army of God.
In the interview, the leader says that every abortion opponent``should commit to destroying at least one death camp, or disarmingat least one baby killer.'' The author also calls the use ofexplosives ``a most wondrous method, and my personal favorite.''
Michael Bray, an abortion opponent imprisoned for thefirebombings of 10 abortion-related facilities in the 1980s, saidTuesday that he didn't know whether today's Army of God has anyconnection to the Army of God of the past.
``Who would know? And who would tell you if he did?'' said Bray,a pastor with the Reformation Lutheran Church in Bowie, Md.
``I would say it's reasonable to suppose there's an associationof people out there.''
c.1997 The Arizona Republic
PHOENIX—A freshman Republican lawmaker on Thursday wasthreatened with censure and dismissal from a key House committeeafter she helped to defeat a bill outlawing a procedure widelyreferred to as partial-birth abortions.
Rep. Roberta Voss, R-Glendale, said the chairman of the HouseRules Committee told her she could face the punishment after sheand other moderate Republicans helped to defeat the partial-birth abortion bill and another abortion measure.
The committee chairman, Rep. Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix, laterbacktracked, saying Voss would not face repercussions for her vote.
But the incident set up a confrontation between moderate andhard-line conservative lawmakers over the abortion issue, withconservatives demanding that the vote be overturned.
Weiers said moderates had ``politicized'' the Rules Committee byvoting against the abortion bills rather than looking solely atwhether the bills were constitutional, as the panel is designed todo.
``I told her (Voss), there are a lot of people who are angryabout this becoming a political committee,'' Weiers said. ``Andthere are a lot of Republicans who feel this is an importantissue.''
About 19 conservative Republicans marched en masse into HouseSpeaker Don Aldridge's office after the Rules Committee vote anddemanded that action be taken against GOP committee members whosubmarined the abortion bills.
Aldridge said conservatives ``felt they would have no trouble''winning Rules Committee approval of the bills.
``They were truly shocked,'' Aldridge said.
According to Voss, Weiers threatened to remove the dissidentmembers from the committee.
But Aldridge, while expressing deep anger at the vote, said hewill not censure or remove lawmakers from the committee. Thespeaker is the only person with the authority to remove alegislator from a committee.
``A majority of our caucus was extremely upset about thisvote,'' Aldridge said, singling out House Majority Whip DavidEberhart for his vote against the abortion bills.
Opposition to partial-birth abortion has been a bulwark of theGOP agenda, and caucus members ``are very disappointed that Mr.Eberhart has taken that position.''
The partial-birth abortion bill was rejected 7-4, while anothermeasure requiring that women wait 24 hours before having anabortion and requiring them to receive certain information beforeundergoing the procedure, was rejected by an 8-3 vote.
The two votes stunned conservative lawmakers who believed thatthe bills would make it safely to a vote of the entire House.
Voss, who is a lawyer and considered an up-and-coming member ofthe GOP caucus, said she voted against the bills because shebelieves they are unconstitutional.
An abortion-rights supporter, Voss downplayed the threatenedretribution, noting the heightened political tension surroundingthe bills.
``When people become emotional, they become irrational,'' Vosssaid.
Moderate Republicans came to Voss' defense, blasting Weiers fortrying to intimidate a freshman.
``Since when can legislators not vote for what they feel isright?'' said one Republican who asked not to be identified. ``This(Rules) has become a power-grab committee—whoever gets control ofRules now controls all legislation.''
Most of the lawmakers who voted to defeat the bills said theyhad serious concerns about the constitutionality of the measures.
Gerard said the partial-birth abortion measure would haveviolated a woman's guarantee to privacy, while the informed-consentmeasure would have restricted freedom of speech.
``It's a First Amendment issue when you start trying to telldoctors and patients what they have to communicate,'' Gerard said.
House Minority Leader Art Hamilton, typically an abortionopponent, cast a vote for the partial-birth ban but against theinformed-consent measure.
Hamilton said he personally favors the informed-consent measure,but could not approve a bill because he believes it would violatepast court decisions preventing the state from curbing abortionrights in the first two trimesters.
``This is just an area (of legislation) that is prohibited bythe Constitution,'' Hamilton said. ``It's the worst of both worldsfor me.''
The vote was celebrated by abortion-rights advocates, who hadargued that both bills were unconstitutional.
``I'm thrilled,'' said Bruce Miller, executive director ofArizona Right to Choose. ``It means they understood the argumentswe made about constitutionality and privacy.''
The defeat was particularly harsh for abortion opponents, sincethey had gained the support of powerful Republicans such asAldridge. House Majority Leader Lori Daniels had also said she didnot want the bills killed in Rules Committee, preferring that theybe debated by the entire House.
In the end, however, the composition of the Rules Committee,whose members were appointed by Aldridge himself last fall,conspired against the abortion bills.
Of the 13 members of the committee, only three are consideredstaunch foes of abortion.
``It was clearly a political decision by the Rules Committee,''said Judith Connell, a lobbyist for Arizona Right to Life. <
c.1997 The Arizona Republic
(Undated)—Was it grammar school or journalism school (nocomments, please, about the difference with no distinction) wherethe dangers of the word ``assume'' first came to light?
It could have come from some ornery young wordsmiths in Mrs.Valenga's class who liked to find naughty things in words. Or itcould have been Dr. Turner, who with pipe clenched between teethwould lean over a reporter's shoulder and impart wisdom.
The word ``assume'' contains a warning. When you assume, yourisk making an ``ass out of u and me.''
I've been feeling like an ass a lot.
When Phoenix voters approved an initiative in 1989 that requiresthe city to get their approval before spending more than $3 millionto construct or help construct facilities including amphitheaters,convention centers and sports facilities, I thought their messagewas clear.
So, when City Councilman Sal DiCiccio tried to raise a fewpoints about a proposed $43 million, 2700-space parking garagebuilt a long fly ball from Bank One Ballpark, I assumed hisconcerns would be addressed forthrightly.
Instead, the councilman is being ripped for even allowing thepublic to think this garage is driven by the baseball stadium. Theofficial word is that it's needed for the downtown culturalfacilities.
A reasonable person would think there could be a violation ofthe voters' will.
Reasonable people seem most vulnerable these days to beingtreated like asses.
When California was tearing itself up over affirmative action,the contentious Proposition 209 being the latest battle, I thoughtArizona might avoid that fight.
For one thing, our affirmative-action programs are not nearly asfar-reaching as those in California. There isn't that much to cut,and those that do exist might easily die natural deaths. And foranother thing, who can remember the last time a good idea came outof California?
I assumed things were copacetic. Ha!
There's an anti-affirmative-action bill that won't die at theLegislature. It looks a lot like Proposition 209. We don't need it.
The assumption that really has me braying like a jenny comescompliments of my friends, the abortion-rights folks.
I was able to overcome my revulsion to what happens in theactual process of the partial-birth abortion because I assumed theinformation coming out of people who do the deed was accurate. Theysaid the procedure was rarely done, and it was done for reasons Ican live with—when the life and health of the mother is injeopardy and when the fetus is severely deformed or dying.
Now the executive director of the National Coalition of AbortionProviders says he lied at the outset of the national debate aboutpartial-birth abortions. Ron Fitzsimmons says the late-termabortion is done far more often than his colleagues report and onhealthy women bearing healthy fetuses.
Those of us who support abortion rights, including late-termabortions in cases like those grieving women who tell us of losingtheir babies after it was decided the partial-birth abortion wasmedically correct, now must consider we've been snookered.
Just what is the truth? The medical community needs to tell usexactly what happens in cases when this is done. Abortionproviders, to remain credible, should police themselves againstabuses of a right.
Can't we assume there's a way to bring honesty to this debate?
I know. I know.
Hee haw.
Jennifer Dokes is an editorial writer for the Arizona Republic
GREENSPAN WARNS INVESTORS
WASHINGTON (NYT)—Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspanwarned investors bluntly Wednesday that stock prices might beunsustainably high. And he said that despite the economy's basichealth, the time was drawing nearer when the central bank mighthave to raise interest rates to head off inflation.
In his most extensive public statement to date about the risksfrom the rapid run-up in stock prices, Greenspan said it was notsurprising, given the nation's prosperity, that people have becomecomplacent about the economic and investment outlook. Against sucha backdrop, he said, many people now seem to believe thatbusinesses and financial markets have entered a new era of lowrisk.
``But, regrettably, history is strewn with visions of such `neweras' that, in the end, have proven to be a mirage,'' Greenspansaid.
SPACE STATION DELAYED
WASHINGTON (NYT)—The start of construction of theinternational space station will probably be delayed until nextyear because of trouble Russia is having in financing its share ofthe project, the head of the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration said Wednesday.
Daniel Goldin, the administrator of the space agency, told acongressional committee that he believed the schedule for launchingthe first components of the orbiting laboratory might be put offfrom November until mid-1998 because a vital Russian segment wasbehind schedule.
But Goldin stressed that no final decision on the launchingschedule would be made before April and that even with earlydeployment delays, the station still could be finished on schedule,now planned for late in 2002.
ASTRONOMER CHALLENGES PLANET REPORT
NYT)—Canadian astronomer has challenged evidence for theexistence of the first planet reported found around another Sunlikestar, saying that the phenomenon observed is actually caused by thestar's own pulsations, not the gravitational effects of an unseenplanetary companion.
``The presence of a planet is not required to explain thedata,'' the astronomer, Dr. David Gray of the University of WesternOntario in London, Ontario, concluded in a report being publishedThursday in the journal Nature.
If true, the findings would mean retracting the report of one ofthe most sensational astronomical discoveries in recent years: thedetection 16 months ago of an object half the mass of Jupiterorbiting unusually close to the star 51 Pegasi.
HOUSE VOTE RENEWS AIRLINE EXCISE TAXES
WASHINGTON (NYT)—Moving to avert a cash crunch in federalaviation capital programs, the House voted Wednesday to renew fiveexcise taxes that support the Airport Trust Fund, including the 10percent surcharge on domestic airline tickets.
Some Republicans have complained bitterly about reinstating thetaxes, but in the end most joined in the 347-to-73 vote to do so.The Senate is expected to follow the House in approving thelegislation, with a vote coming as early as this week.
The taxes would take effect seven days after President Clinton signs the bill, as he is expected to do.
LITTLE HOPE FOR BALANCED-BUDGET AMENDMENT
WASHINGTON (NYT)—Republican hopes for a balanced-budgetamendment to the Constitution were crushed Wednesday when Sen.Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, the last Senator to state aposition, announced that he would vote against the measure.
Torricelli's decision leaves the amendment with only 66supporters in the Senate, one shy of the two-thirds majority neededto change the Constitution.
ABORTION ADVOCATES DENY MISLEADING PUBLIC
WASHINGTON (NYT)—Advocates for the abortion-rights movement onWednesday dismissed the contention by a fellow abortion-rightsproponent that they have all knowingly misled the public about thecircumstances and frequency of a particularly gruesome method ofabortion.
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition ofAbortion Providers, based in Alexandria, Va., and representing morethan 200 abortion clinics, has disputed three main contentions ofabortion-rights advocates, saying the procedure is performed morefrequently, earlier and on healthier women with healthier fetusesthan the advocates acknowledge.
Both sides agree that there are no reliable statistics on thefrequency of the procedure, called ``partial birth'' by opponentsand intact dilation and extraction by supporters.
NAVY TAKES BLAME FOR CLOSE ENCOUNTER
WASHINGTON (NYT)—A Navy admiral Wednesday acknowledgedresponsibility for the close encounter earlier this month betweenan F-16 fighter jet and a civilian airliner off the coast of NewJersey, telling a House subcommittee that the military's airtraffic controller had not followed procedures.
Rear Admiral Dennis McGinn, in charge of the air traffic controlcenter in Virginia Beach, Va., that handles the military trainingarea off New Jersey, said of the controller: ``His procedures andthe phraseology he used over the radio in talking to the F-16aircraft were not strictly in accordance with acceptedprocedures.''
XEROX CEO PROMISES DOUBLE-DIGIT EARNINGS
(NYT)—At their first big meeting with Wall Street analysts onWednesday in more than two years, Xerox Corp.'s chairman, PaulAllaire, and other top executives promised double-digit earningsgrowth on single-digit sales growth this year as a result of lowercosts and a much quicker flow of products to the marketplace.
Many analysts said this was the strongest commitment to specificgrowth goals—and tactics to reach them—that they could recallXerox making.
IMMIGRATION DETECTION PROGRAM IN `DEEP TROUBLE'
WASHINGTON (NYT)—A $2.2 billion project to automate many ofthe Immigration and Naturalization Service's most important tasks,from airport inspections to tracking illegal immigrants, is in deeptrouble, the Justice Department inspector general said Wednesday.
The project has been so poorly managed that it has no internalmilestones that would allow project managers and independentauditors to judge whether the project is on schedule or withincost, or to otherwise quantify its progress, the official said.
STATE DEPT., POLICE TRADE CHARGES ON BOMB
(NYT)—The U.S. State Department and police officials inJacksonville, Fla., traded accusations Wednesday about who wasresponsible for not finding a crude pipe bomb that was planted in aJacksonville synagogue only hours before former Prime MinisterShimon Peres of Israel gave a speech there on Feb. 13.
Meanwhile, in Jacksonville, a Duval County circuit court judgeset bond at $1 million for Harry Shapiro, the 31-year-old OrthodoxJew who was charged on Tuesday with planting the bomb and makingthe 911 call warning of it.
At the bond hearing, Shapiro's lawyer, Henry M. Coxe, said thatthe bomb, at the time it was discovered, ``was incapable ofdetonating or exploding or harming anyone.'' He did not elaborate,and law enforcement officials have declined to discuss the bomb'smechanics or potency.
<
SACRAMENTO—State Sen. Pete Knight reintroduced a bill to keepCalifornia from recognizing same-sex marriages, a move somecriticized as an attempt to write his hostility toward homosexualsinto law.
Knight, a Republican lawmaker from Palmdale, located 62 milesnorth of downtown Los Angeles, said Wednesday that his proposal, SB911, would protect family values by allowing California to ignoregay marriages performed in other states.
``I don't think it's in the state's best interest to beredefining marriage,'' Knight said. ``I believe that it degrades,that it does not satisfy the state's interest to promote the familyunit, which is the basic unit of society.''
Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Sheila Kuehl, D-Encino, a Los Angelessuburb, was sharply critical of Knight's proposal, which is similarto one he authored last year that died in the Senate. Kuehl is oneof two openly gay members of the Legislature.
``I think it's really unfortunate for a state senator to buildhis entire legislative career on a hostility to a particularminority group, and trying to legislate that hostility, which Ithink is unconscionable,'' she said.
The bill comes as courts in Hawaii have increasingly signaled awillingness to allow gay marriages, though a test case on the issueis still awaiting a final hearing by that state's Supreme Court.
At the same time, federal legislation has gone in just theopposite direction. President Clinton signed a bill last year whichprohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
Proponents say allowing such unions would grant importantestate, child-custody and other legal rights now denied to peoplebecause of the gender of their partners.
``The wedding itself is not what this is about,'' said JonDavidson, an attorney for the Lambda Legal Defense and EducationFund, an organization which supports gay rights. ``It's about how,legally, these people are treated.''
Because states routinely recognize marriages performed legallyin other states, conservatives have pushed for bills like Knight'sin state legislatures across the country. Some 18 states havealready enacted similar laws, and at least 30 more have billspending this year, officials said.
Knight was criticized last year for waiting until after his billwas defeated to disclose that he has a gay son and a brother whodied from complications from acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
He sidestepped the issue Wednesday at a news conference.
``That's not an appropriate question,'' Knight said. ``We'vegone all over my family history.''
c.1997 N.Y. Times News Service<
It is a classic management problem. A company is rolling along,unaware that the bumps it is hitting signal the need to change theway it does business. It isn't really broke, the chief executivethinks, so there's no need to fix it. A little tinkering will dothe trick.
But as company after company—from Eastman Kodak to GeneralMotors to IBM—has shown, that way lies disaster.
The mystery is why so few smart, worldly wise chief executivessee the need to foment a corporate revolution before disaster hits.
Frank J. Sulloway has a theory: Too many first-born men rule thenation's corporations. First-born children, he thinks, based on 26years of research, are authoritarian conformists, assiduouslyinterested in preserving the status quo. Later-borns are moreadventurous and receptive to innovation.
``Whenever something really drastic is required, it's alwaysmore difficult for a first-born to do it,'' said Sulloway, ascience historian and research scholar at the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology who has amassed a huge data base that, hesays, proves his point statistically. ``That means they'll be doingit later than they should.''
``Strategy,'' he said, ``is something that later-borns ought tobe superior at compared with first-borns, who are in turn moreadept at managing than at strategic overhauls.''
Sulloway, who—no surprise—is the third of four children,ignited something of his own revolution last fall when he published``Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives''(Pantheon). In it, he argued that birth order is the most reliablepredictor of openness to innovation and social change.
That conclusion was based on Sulloway's analysis of a data basehe built of 6,566 people who participated in 121 political andscientific upheavals, including the French Revolution, theemergence of Darwin's theory of evolution and the ProtestantReformation.
To determine who is most likely, in any era, to challenge theestablished wisdom, he studied as many as 256 characteristics, likeage, religion, class, education and travel experience.
``Birth order was the best predictor,'' he discovered.
While he has not systematically studied business executives _indeed, he does not know, for certain, that executive suites areskewed toward first-borns—Sulloway said the message for companieswas clear.
People who select chief executives, he contends, would do wellto consider candidates' birth order, among other variables,especially if radical change is required. And he thinks corporateboards probably have too high a proportion of first-borns, too,adding to the chief executive's tendency to delay needed change.
To later-borns who are tired of seeing their older siblings ruleso many roosts, meanwhile, Sulloway's work offers an encouragingnote—if, as some management experts think, the authoritarianmanagement model has had its day.
``If command-and-control management is out, it's great news forlater-borns,'' Sulloway predicted. ``They'll move up in thecorporation.'' And that would be good, he said, because later-bornsin general are more agreeable than their eldest siblings, lessdefensive about errors, less territorial and more sympathetic tounderdogs and underlings.
His notion that birth order—and the ensuing dynamics amongparents and children—shapes personalities, who then shapehistory, is a variation on previous birth-order research, whichsome social scientists consider dubious.
Sulloway offers his own cautions. His research showed that twocharacteristics other than birth order were nearly as important aspredictors of the propensity to rebel: ``Age and the socialattitude of the family, and hence your own social attitude.''Younger people tend to be more open to the new because they haveless stake in the established, Sulloway said, and children tend todraw social attitudes from their parents.
Even so, one key factor can disrupt the pattern, he said—a badrelationship between a child and his parents. Nor is his analyticalframework fail-safe: the behavior of 15 percent of the populationdefies explanation.
c.1997 N.Y. Times News Service<
It is a classic management problem. A company is rolling along,unaware that the bumps it is hitting signal the need to change theway it does business. It isn't really broke, the chief executivethinks, so there's no need to fix it. A little tinkering will dothe trick.
But as company after company—from Eastman Kodak to GeneralMotors to IBM—has shown, that way lies disaster.
The mystery is why so few smart, worldly wise chief executivessee the need to foment a corporate revolution before disaster hits.
Frank J. Sulloway has a theory: Too many first-born men rule thenation's corporations. First-born children, he thinks, based on 26years of research, are authoritarian conformists, assiduouslyinterested in preserving the status quo. Later-borns are moreadventurous and receptive to innovation.
``Whenever something really drastic is required, it's alwaysmore difficult for a first-born to do it,'' said Sulloway, ascience historian and research scholar at the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology who has amassed a huge data base that, hesays, proves his point statistically. ``That means they'll be doingit later than they should.''
``Strategy,'' he said, ``is something that later-borns ought tobe superior at compared with first-borns, who are in turn moreadept at managing than at strategic overhauls.''
Sulloway, who—no surprise—is the third of four children,ignited something of his own revolution last fall when he published``Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives''(Pantheon). In it, he argued that birth order is the most reliablepredictor of openness to innovation and social change.
That conclusion was based on Sulloway's analysis of a data basehe built of 6,566 people who participated in 121 political andscientific upheavals, including the French Revolution, theemergence of Darwin's theory of evolution and the ProtestantReformation.
To determine who is most likely, in any era, to challenge theestablished wisdom, he studied as many as 256 characteristics, likeage, religion, class, education and travel experience.
``Birth order was the best predictor,'' he discovered.
While he has not systematically studied business executives _indeed, he does not know, for certain, that executive suites areskewed toward first-borns—Sulloway said the message for companieswas clear.
People who select chief executives, he contends, would do wellto consider candidates' birth order, among other variables,especially if radical change is required. And he thinks corporateboards probably have too high a proportion of first-borns, too,adding to the chief executive's tendency to delay needed change.
To later-borns who are tired of seeing their older siblings ruleso many roosts, meanwhile, Sulloway's work offers an encouragingnote—if, as some management experts think, the authoritarianmanagement model has had its day.
``If command-and-control management is out, it's great news forlater-borns,'' Sulloway predicted. ``They'll move up in thecorporation.'' And that would be good, he said, because later-bornsin general are more agreeable than their eldest siblings, lessdefensive about errors, less territorial and more sympathetic tounderdogs and underlings.
His notion that birth order—and the ensuing dynamics amongparents and children—shapes personalities, who then shapehistory, is a variation on previous birth-order research, whichsome social scientists consider dubious.
Sulloway offers his own cautions. His research showed that twocharacteristics other than birth order were nearly as important aspredictors of the propensity to rebel: ``Age and the socialattitude of the family, and hence your own social attitude.''Younger people tend to be more open to the new because they haveless stake in the established, Sulloway said, and children tend todraw social attitudes from their parents.
Even so, one key factor can disrupt the pattern, he said—a badrelationship between a child and his parents. Nor is his analyticalframework fail-safe: the behavior of 15 percent of the populationdefies explanation.
c.1997 N.Y. Times News Service<
NEW YORK—To paraphrase Pat Moynihan, the state of theDemocratic Party in New York might best be described as definingcompetency down.
Someday we might get a scintillating race for Congress betweenGeorge Stephanopoulos, swaddled in Ralph Lauren, and Andrew Cuomo,swaddled in Kennedy legends.
But for now, the Democrats have no heart, no party structure, nomessage and no candidates that make your blood run fast.
The once-proud party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Al Smith,Bobby Kennedy, Gore Vidal, Jimmy Breslin, Norman Mailer, MarioCuomo and Ed Koch is a mess, full of pipsqueaks, opportunists,complainers and namby-pambys who are barely able to project animage.
It is unfathomable to think of any of the Democratic candidatesfor mayor of New York City actually being mayor. The gang of four _Sal and Al and Ruth and Freddy—had their first high-profile forumat the Sheraton on Wednesday, competing for the privilege ofgetting shellacked in the fall by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
It was a bad sign for the Democrats that the most appealing andcommanding figure was Al Sharpton. You know you're in trouble whenSharpton is the class of the field.
He has had his moments as racial divider, mountebank and LouisFarrakhan ally. But at least the minister, who's now in theRepairer of the Breach business, is not smaller-than-life orhumorless.
He said the Giuliani administration ``is like the RockyMountains. The higher up you get, the whiter it gets.'' For goodmeasure, he chastised The New York Post for coming up with a panelfrom the newspaper that was all white.
Ruth Messinger, the Manhattan borough president, faded into thewoodwork despite all the complaints by her old liberal friends herethat she has turned into a brazen self-promoter. Murray Kempton hassaid he won't vote for her because ``she personifies the evil oflesser evilism.''
To see New York Democrats so clueless about the game theyinvented is enough to turn Moynihan wistful about the Tammany days.
``At least Tammany generated public works,'' said Moynihan, whowas visiting the city on Wednesday. ``If you don't think so, lookat the George Washington Bridge. The new generation of reformDemocrats generates government employment through social servicesinstead of government opportunity. They just don't have theefficiency. At least the Tammany people knew how to do things.''
Republicans have taken over the cities as laboratories for theirpolicies, because Democrats kept blowing up the laboratories.
``We were never able to accept or confront the social decline ofour cities as something which was real,'' Moynihan says. ``It wassomething that was not easily turned around, but it was absolutelycritical to try. We were in denial and learning disabled about itall.''
Sure, Rudolph Giuliani has a talent to annoy. Even his wife,Donna, is attempting an escape into Hollywood, preferring to spendtime on a movie about the more annoying Larry Flynt.
But the mayor has been efficient. He has drastically lowered thecrime rate and reduced the welfare rolls and soothed some of thequotidian annoyances that define life in the city.
``If crime goes down, you're a good mayor,'' Moynihan says. ``IfWall Street booms, you're a good mayor.''
The most revealing moment at Wednesday's forum was whenquestioners from the conservative, Giuliani-loving New York Postmischievously pressed the liberals about whether each would, ifelected mayor, marry a gay couple at City Hall.
All four endorsed gay marriage, although some were a bitreluctant to say they would perform such a marriage at City Hall.
Sharpton breezily replied: ``I'm the only candidate who canperform a gay marriage whether I win or lose this election.''
Ms. Messinger talked about ``my daughter who is a lesbian, whohas given me a great granddaughter.''
Sal Albanese, the Brooklyn city councilman, replied: ``I don'tknow if I would perform a gay marriage at City Hall. I support theidea of gay marriages.''
Fernando Ferrer, the Bronx borough president, hedged with``That's the city clerk's job,'' before relenting: ``I wouldperform the marriage of any friend who asked me to, gay orstraight.''
This is what passes for a litmus test in New York.
I'm headed for the shuttle.
Go back to SOCIOLOGY 260 -- Sociology of Marriage and the Family Page If you have any questions or comments please email: