Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMidway through Arianna Huffington's latest book, On Becoming Fearless ... In Love, Work and Life, she writes, "If you want to succeed big, there is no substitute for simply sticking your neck out.''
Huffington, the acid-tongued pundit who kicks rhetorical butt all over the cable dial, knows. Growing up as gangly 5-foot-10 Arianna Stassinopoulous in Athens, Greece, where most of the men didn't get that tall, she has always stood out from the crowd.
On Monday, she'll speak about fearless leadership to a big one at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, where The Power Within for Women takes place. (The Star is a sponsor and I will introduce her onstage.)
"The prevailing models of leadership today have been the leader as panderer or the leader as f
ear monger, whipping up a climate of fear," she says in her book. "We need a new model of leadership, one that doesn't involve leading through fear but rather leading through bringing out what Lincoln called `the better angels of our nature.'"
Huffington hopes that more women, including her teenage daughters Christina and Isabella, find the courage to step up to the podium — and the plate.
"I define fearlessness not as the absence of fear but as the mastery of fear," she tells me over the phone from her Los Angeles office. "It's basically standing up for what you believe, speaking out, despite our fears."
In her book, she draws on friends such as writer Nora Ephron, and actors Diane Keaton and Melina Kanakaredes (CSI: NY) who share what it takes to conquer their own worst enemies: themselves.
Women, Huffington explains, "all have what I call the obnoxious roommate living in our heads, that negative voice. The voice that puts us down. That criticizes us. That tells us we're never good enough, pretty enough, smart enough.
"I write about how to lower (its) volume."
Of course, with Huffington, 57, it is far from just talk.
She holds an MA in economics from Cambridge, where she became president of the Cambridge Union debating society.
After graduation, she moved to London to be with the journalist-broadcaster Bernard Levin, a much older man with whom she was deeply in love. But when he refused to marry her, she "put an ocean" between them and headed to the U.S.
Now she credits that stymied desire for domesticity for her current stature, which includes landing on Time's 100 Most Influential People list last year.
With 10 books to her name, a (failed) marriage to the wealthy — and bisexual — Republican congressman Michael Huffington, a political flip-flop in the 1990s when she saw that compassionate conservatism wasn't so compassionate, plus a run at the California governorship against Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003, it seems that Huffington has already lived a lifetime.
Especially when you throw in motherhood: `'I sometimes think that when they take the baby out, they put the guilt in.''
Today she has a third child, The Huffington Post, the progressive website that, since 2005, has zoomed to the top of the blogosphere.
"The Huffington Post, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, a lot of what's happening online is definitely providing an antidote to the mainstream media,'' she insists. "The public gets multiple voices while we hold the mainstream media's feet to the fire."
Case in point: Marshall and his readers ferreted out how the Bush administration was firing U.S. attorneys for what seem to be political motives. The scandal could cost attorney general Alberto Gonzales his job.
"Imagine in the lead-up to the war if we had a much more active blogosphere so that we wouldn't have had inaccurate stories about Saddam Hussein having aluminum tubes on the front page of The New York Times," Huffington says.
But, she admits, blogs can't do it all: they need the resources to cover the stories the corporate media are not covering. "That is the next step," she says.
But only if more of us set aside our fears, stick our necks out and take a stand.
azerbis@thestar.ca
© 2007 The Toronto Star
27 Comments so far
Show AllIt beats me. Why would anyone 'prefer' immoral or unethical people ? You are not making sense.
No, I am not saying this.
I do say that there are more moral/ethical and there are less moral/ethical people, or there are very immoral and unethical people.
I prefer the first group. You can have different preferences.
"You see, some people were traditionally raised, know right from wrong, and are capable of moral indignation"
So what you are saying is that you were born good and raised with the 'right' morals whatever those morals are and everyone else is condemned to hell. You sound exactly like george bush and his cronies !!
Ok i used to hate her guts in the gingrich years but i actually admire her now. All platitudes aside she has said and done more here in California than the entire bucnh of lazy ass democ-rats.
No only she "had the audacity to put herself out there in the public realm," not only she. Take Paris Hilton, for example.
Actually, the idea she is most famous is was discussed.
Unfortunately, it wasn't her original idea (the "trickle down" economy). You just missed it in a rush to serve us some platitudes.
When the opening critique that comes up in this discussion is "whore", the only question I can ask is why didn't you throw in "bitch" while you were at it? We are, after all, discussing a woman who has had the audacity to put herself out there in the public realm. Deal with the IDEAS, guys, not what kind of fuck she is.
"What I don't get is the contempt that gets expressed by annac21, namvet67."
Well, there is a problem with your 'Not getting." You see, some people were traditionally raised, know right from wrong, and are capable of moral indignation. The same people have a problem with insane American capitalism and with your pragmatism. Arianna is not acting and is not treated as person with her past should be. It's beyond chutzpah for Arianna to promote herself as "fearless." It's not courage which gave her power, money and success. It's old fashioned lack of scruples.
OK, time for me to vomit.
I fully expect people to disagree, on this post and others. What I don't get is the contempt that gets expressed by annac21, namvet67. Yes, Arianna Huffington is wealthy, but she's spending at least a chunk of that wealth on good causes. She's made mistakes--who hasn't--but she's made some positive changes in her life. A real elitist would keep her mouth firmly shut; she doesn't. She's willing to advocate to other people, many of whom neither you nor I would ever have access to. I'm not saying that I want her as my best friend; I AM saying that I am willing to have her as a fellow advocate. The current U.S. government is so dangerous that we really don't have the luxury of saying Oh, she's not virtuous enough to work with me for peace; I don't like her, so.....There's serious work to be done, friends; let's all make like giraffes and stick our necks out.
"Hate is not a liberal trait. She is now a good, bright and productive progressive, regardless of her right wing past and is doing lots more for our cause than her detractors probably are. Thank you Arianna."
Considering her past, maybe it's not enough, maybe it's too late.
How bright someone who repeats the "trickle down" idiocy can be? Or, how decent someone who repeats the "trickle down" idiocy can be? Is it possible that some of "detractors" (or not) were destroyed by Arianna? Directly, or by the "trickle down" consequences?
Thank you, Arianna. I am of course, sarcastic.
By the way, ezeflyer, why do HATE her victims?
My greatest problem is that Arianna and sycophants promote her as courageous and wonderful role model, etc. without even mentioning her past. Frankly, how dare they to preach to those who don't have her "whory" past and/or nature.
I have a Chinese student who told me the other day, "There's no difference between communism and capitalism." It makes more and more sense every day.
Here is another comment on the same subject that you might find more acceptable, Poet. I appreciate your scepticism, but do we really want to give Bush this much power? One of his first comments in office was that it would be a lot easier if he were a dictator... well?
Larry Chin - Global Research | May 21, 2007
The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html , signed on May 9, 2007 declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", George W. Bush can become what is best described as "a dictator":
"The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."
This directive, completely unnoticed by the media, and given no scrutiny by Congress, literally gives the White House unprecedented dictatorial power over the government and the country, bypassing the US Congress and obliterating the separation of powers. The directive also placed the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic "security".
Yo Cosmos--
Not to worry, 'cause that UFO with Elvis and JFK is on the way to wisk Shrub and Darth Cheney away and replace them with look-alike aliens. Read it in the Weekly World News a rock solid info source on a par with World Net Daily--so it's got to be true!! Sigh
It's just a tad scarier than ever to stick one's neck out against an administration that has killed and maimed over a million innocents without remorse, outed a CIA NOC agent, prosecuted nuns and grandmothers for nonviolent protests, spies on religious peace groups, and builds Halliburton detention centers for "special programs." Today, carrying a sign could literally begin the utter destruction of your life. For what? More blank checks?
There's fear, and then there's REALITY, like Gitmo, torture, rendition, assassination by drone, disappearances, the IRS, career-ending rumor. Hell, wearing T-shirts gets you arrested now. In America. A T-shirt. No, sometimes, fear is actually warranted and should be listened to. Standing up to your boss, and standing up to Tony Soprano will result in two different consequences, one of which involves death.
I apologize to those who read all the articles on commondreams, but I want to reach as many people as I can. This information has me completely freaked out.
A Presidential Directive was signed by President Bush on May 9th giving him unconstrained powers in case of a national emergency. In the case of a national emergency (terrorist attack), I don't want that psychopath in charge of anything. How can he get away with this? It's terrifying!!!
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55825
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
President Bush has signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.
The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
" was
signed May 9, notes Jerome R. Corsi in a WND column
.
It was issued with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive.
The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments,
as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.
"Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage,
or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
It says the president can assume the power to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.
The directive says the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, currently Frances Fragos Townsend
, would be designated as the national continuity coordinator.
Corsi says the directive makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created for the national continuity coordinator with the National Emergency Act
,
which requires that such proclamation "shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register."
A Congressional Research Service study notes the National Emergency Act sets up Congress as a balance empowered to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if Congress believes the president has acted
inappropriately.
But the new directive appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of national continuity coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position, Corsi says.
The directive also makes no reference to Congress and its language appears to negate any requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists.
It suggests instead that the powers of the directive can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.
Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke affirmed to Corsi the Homeland Security Department would implement the requirements of the order under
Townsend's direction.
The White House declined to comment on the directive.
ok, amnac. explain to me your point simply, as you think i am some sort of dupe. i am a news junkie, and 24/7 her website serves people like me and provides insight and information in the process.
commondreams gives me a left filtered clipping service now with comment streams on a shoestring. huffpo gives me the same but less sober and with the net cast further.
srelf, we DO need to stick our necks out and stop bush's escalation before it gets to vietnam proportions in soldiers (and civilians) killed. my rep went against my instructions yesterday, but that happens. the democrats would have had to stick together to defeat that bill yesterday, but being democrats, they couldn't quite handle that. can you propose any sort of effective action we as individuals can take?
Hate is not a liberal trait. She is now a good, bright and productive progressive, regardless of her right wing past and is doing lots more for our cause than her detractors probably are. Thank you Arianna.
Not to change the subject, but I take Mr. Zerbisias' point about sticking your neck out as an important one. Whether we think a public figure is hypocritical about it or not is one thing. Whether we can work together to save our own country, innocent Iraqis and poverty-drafted soldiers by ending this war is another. We need to stick OUR necks out now!
breehmichael,
A whore is a whore is a whore.
I am ignoring the rest, including Orwellian/corporate/intimidating "Do you have anything useful to contribute or just smear?" I think you are confused; this a forum and not your workplace, and I am not your underling. There is nothing of interest to me in Arianna's books. But thank you for proving my main point again.
namvet67
I agree.
Arianna is a spokeswoman for the elite class in America. Sometimes she goes left and sometimes she goes right. It don't matter to her, she just wants to be a player. And she knows how to play the game. She didn't stick her neck out, she stuck her tongue out.
Hoa binh
Annac - just so I'm clear, if you love a much older man and leave him because he won't marry you and then marry somebody else and that doesn't work out, that makes you a whore?? Give me a break!
She changed her mind and opinions (for the better, I think!). Has she tried to hide her past (she hasn't, in case you've never read her books)? Has she done eveything in her power to correct those mistakes? Yes. Is she perfect? No, just like the rest of the us.
Regardless of what you think of her, I'm offended by the use of the term whore to denigrate any woman with whom you may not agree. Do you have anything useful to contribute or just smear?
I am not talking about her advantages. I am talking about her promotion of the "wonderful" free-market, "trickle down" economy" and, if I understand it correctly, very dishonest personal behaviour, economic, political etc.
Thank you very much, Arianna.
And thank you, mary lou, for proving my point.
whatever advantages arianna may have, she uses them well and to all our benefit. if you don't believe me, go to huffingtonpost.com and read blogs by barbara ehrenreich or by arianna herself. she brings a variety of viewpoints to us and lets us comment about them. same with the news. some news that i first got there (acting atty general comey's experience being hustled at ashcroft's hospital bedside by gonzalez and was it rove? was reported there several months ago and is just now being dismissed by the national media (again).
whether or not you admire arianna, you have to admit she improves the political discourse in this country immensely.
Yes, I know. I just think most Americans are social-Darvinists
to a various degree. Look at American Christianity.
By the way, does anybody know who killed the Camel?
In American reality, courage is required in the workplace,
primarily, and here one probably can find unknown heroes.
"This what I meant when I described this country as the one
where even liberals are fascist. Only success, money and power matter."
This is a good point. But, in most countries, the word "liberal" in fact means a proponent of the interests of the wealthy and lazzez-faire capitalism. In Australia, the party that is closest to the US Republican party is called the "Liberal Party". So, we should really abandon the word. I call myself a leftist.
What nonsense!
When you a millionare who is no doubt an heir by divorce to the estate of a biillionare, isn't it knnda easy to stick your neck out?
In fact it is only because you are a rich glamorous white _ _ _ _ _ that the media listens to you at all. One can find all the same wisdom among any rider on the 86B bus to the Homewood slum, but if they were to stick their necks out they would lose what little they own.
You know I find this repulsive.
Could you please find other heroes, not a whore who destroyed a number of lives. I do remember her previous preaching, and I am familiar with some of her previous activities.
Truly repulsive.
This what I meant when I described this country as the one
where even liberals are fascist. Only success, money and power matter.