In nutshell I think Roy is naive in understanding the absolute truth
“Might is right .Truth never wins whatever or whoever wins becomes the truth “

June 5, 2003

On the morning of June 5, 2003, I heard an amazingly well presented pack of lies, half truths and vitriol on a local (Chicago) radio station. The bizarre rant was a rebroadcast of a speech given at the Riverside Church in Harlem, New York on May 13, 2003. Surely this person is mad, insane, I thought. It was Arundhati Roy, and she was ranting about “the US and UK invasion” of Iraq. At some points of the speech, she viciously attacked democracy. She called it “the modern world’s holy cow,” a “hollow shell,” the free world’s “whore.” She then railed against an independent judiciary. “Democracy is apartheid with a clean conscience,” she said. (And what would she replace it with? I wondered.)
She shifted gears and attacked all of the US media and our notion of free speech. Of course, she said Bush was “not legally elected.” (Gotta work that one in, don’t you?) She bemoaned the “two million lost jobs under Bush.” The evils of Clear Channel Communications. “America’s poor are paying for the war.” “America’s poor are fighting the war.” America’s army depends “on a poverty draft”(wild applause), there is a “disproportionately high representation” of minorities in the US armed forces “and American prisons.” She was throwing clichés and lies around like grenades in a firefight.
Americans, she said, are paying for “spurious wars of liberation” with our own freedoms (as if this has nothing to do with being attacked and a very real external threat).
“Well,” she said, “ as Lenin would have asked, ‘What is to be done?’” (Nervous chuckling sound from the audience, followed by mild applause.)
“Expose the corporate media,” she said, “for the corporate bulletin board that it really is.” (Right. Next time I read another anti-Exxon or anti-Wal-Mart piece I’ll try to remember that the corporate media are really just their bulletin board.)
Roy then openly called for “a revolution,” “a battle” that “must begin here in America.” She continued, “You can refuse to fight, refuse to move those missiles to the dock, refuse to wave the [U.S.] flag.” (In other words, she was encouraging Americans to commit treason and sabotage. Ms. Roy is flatly guilty of subversion.)

To see a video of the entire speech go to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/24/1443226 (Caution: You may experience dizziness and nausea.)

A full written transcript is at http://cesr.org/arundhatiroytranscript

Declaring her a terrorist for sharing her opinions about the use of violence and about the threat that may remain or escalate if such usage goes uncheck, unexamined or unthwarted; or even, for supposedly supporting another who practices such violence (as one respondent suggests), only serves as a target for our outrage of that propensity for violence and terrorism within ourselves. My guess is that those who post that we should fear her, actually envy her ability to speak with intelligence, candor and integrity about what she believes in. We are jealous that her words seem to make enough sense that millions of people listen to her. We feel slighted that we have not the courage nor clarity with which to express our own opinionated rage about what is personally meaningful. Rather we turn to someone who stands as an example of how we could speak up, whether in agreement with her or not, and decide to tear her down.

I find this phenomenon curious. We are all human beings and equal so. Each of us possesses the ability to foster compassion and violence. Those who lash out against Arundhati Roy to perpetuate fear and distain, in my opinion, exemplify the very condition they despise.

Humans we are…not rocks, trees, or insects…not sand, ashes or smoke. We are complex beings capable of creating and exhibiting great paradox. We are hypocrites…every one of us! How can you not appreciate our condition and the plights we have created for each other when they churn out magnificent examples of the best and worst in all of us?

You can email it to me be all means. But whether or not it will go up is entirely up to me (although I do try and stick to my own rules)

June 9th, 2005

Arundhati Roy is understandably terrified at India’s recent successes with capitalism: Roy said t [...]

It would also be worth noting that terrorism is defined as the use of force or intimidation to achieve a political end. If anyone can name a state (past or present) that is not using terrorism in one form or another, I would be very impressed.

Also, about democracy. Democracy simply guarantees that the majority viewpoint rules. It does not by itself guarantee minority rights. The Russian razing of Grozny is not any more justified because it was done by a democracy.