2-8-06  12:15 PM, "Ilene XXXXXXX" proctor@XXXXXXXX wrote:

Ilene PRoctor  PUBLIC RELATIONS

Press Contact: Ilene XXXXXXX or Angus XXXX

Direct Line: (310) XXX-XXXX

Cell: (310) XXX-XXXX

E-mail: proctor@XXXXXXXX

DowningStreetMemo Founder, David Swanson is available for interviews

Inequality and War

By David Swanson

Ending the extreme inequality of wealth and well-being in the United States
would end the war in Iraq. 

Ending the war in Iraq and others like it would go a long way toward reducing
the inequality.

Reverend Dr. Joseph Lowery honored Coretta Scott King at her funeral, speaking
in front of four presidents, when he challenged injustice, saying: "We know now
there were no weapons of mass destruction over there [standing ovation]... but
Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down
here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds.  For war billions more
but no more for the poor."

This wasn't just a challenge to the powerful.  This should be taken as a challenge
to peace activists to start fighting poverty and to the poor to become peace activists. 

Were there not a population of Americans so much less well off than another, or
did we simply have a fair and honest and universal military draft, we would not be
fighting a war in Iraq.  America's growing inequality is a growing danger to the world.

This war has already cost thousands of dollars per American family.  If it ends up
costing as much as Joseph Stiglitz and others predict, it will cost every single
American family more than a full year's salary at the federal minimum wage.

But it won't cost the wealthiest among us that much, and it will cost the rest of us

much more.  Just look at the current budget proposals.  Increases at the Pentagon,
which already swallows half of all discretionary spending.  Cuts everywhere else,

including education. 

On Monday, Congressman Dennis Kucinich said, "This budget is not just fiscally
bankrupt, it is morally bankrupt.  This budget chooses war over health care, tax
cuts over education, special interests over need of the nation and rich over poor.
This budget cuts vital domestic funding because of spending for the war in Iraq
and the tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, placing the burden squarely on the
backs of poor and working class Americans. The President's budget will increase
defense spending by almost 7%, to $439 billion, while vital finding for Medicare,
Medicaid, education, veterans health care, children's health care, Welfare, trans-
portation, NASA programs and the Department of Agriculture are slashed.  All this,
while requesting an additional $70 billion-or $120 billion for the year-to fund the
misguided and ill-advised war and occupation of Iraq."

It has become harder and harder for many families to send their kids to college,
but military recruiting stations are receiving more and more money.  We're cutting
federal student aid by $12 billion while doubling cash enlistment bonuses and
raising the enlistment age to 40.

Meanwhile, war spending is still, dishonestly, left out of the budget and handled
as a "supplemental." 

Not only do the wealthiest among us - that 1 percent of us who actually fund federal
election campaigns - tend to pay lower taxes.  Not only do they depend less on the
government for education, health care, recreation, or housing.  But many of them
are getting MORE stinking rich than they were before by profiting off this war. 
(Note: this is less the case among the 20 percent of Americans who THINK they
are in the richest 1 percent.)

While an Army private is paid $24,000, a private military contractor $100,000,
and a General with over 20 years experience $168,000, the average military
contractor CEO is bringing in $11.5 million.

http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/cow1-06.pdf

Military contractors are leading the way in inequality and unaccountability.  Their
average CEO to worker pay ratio is over 400 to 1, and their top earners have
made their bucks by selling the US military defective equipment.

http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2005/EE2005_pr.html

Military contractors are also leading funders of Congress Members and Senators. 
The spying industry is not, which may be part of the explanation for the higher level
of noise in Congress about spying, as compared to the near silence over an illegal
war based on lies. 

There is total silence in Congress on the subject of inequality, and that is why a poor
person in this country working three jobs and struggling with immediate crises needs
to care about bogus reports on WMDs and lies told to the United Nations. 

Peace activists need to care about inequality because the refusal of the Senate to
oppose this war is closely tied to the fact that half of the people in the Senate are
millionaires.

We peace activists need to care about the damage done to our society and our
democracy, and therefore to the world, by inequality of the extreme sort described
in this book: http://www.inequality.org/

(A book which, however, says not one word about opposing war.)

If we are going to ask poor people to oppose war, the least we can do is find the
time to oppose poverty.

Twenty percent of Americans own 84 percent of the wealth in this country.  Our
country is far more unequal than any other developed nation.  And it has become
far less frequent for anyone born poor in America to die rich.  This is not a democracy. 
Look at the length of the lines at polling places in poor neighborhoods where people
do not have time to vote anyway.  This is not a democracy.

And without a democracy, you have war.  Every time.

You also have domestic violence.  Violence increases with inequality.  Reducing
inequality reduces crime, and for far less expense than that of housing prisoners. 
This is widely known and virtually undisputed, but not acted upon.

And it is by housing prisoners that we train guards to torture Iraqis.

Inequality and war are twin plagues, and we need to rid ourselves of both, or we
will continue to be afflicted with both.

There are organizations, like Progressive Democrats of America and United for
Peace and Justice, that work for both peace and equality.  The march in March
from Mobile to New Orleans will unite anti-war activists with victims of
Bush-and-Katrina.

But, on the whole, anti-poverty activists and anti-war activists live in two separate
worlds.  That needs to end.

From: charles@libertywatchradio.com Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:18 PM
To: proctor@XXXXXXXX Subject: Re: Inequality and War: Ending the extreme inequality of wealth
and well-being in the United States would end the war in Iraq. by David Swanson 

Ilene -

      Does this guest you offer understand decorum, unlike Rev Lowery?

Charles Heller

-- "Ilene XXXXXXX" proctor@XXXXXXX wrote:

I hope not Charles, but he stands for everything the Kings stood for their entire lives, Ilene

From: libecharles@libertywatchradio.com 
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:03 PM   To: proctor@XXXXXXXX
Subject: RE: Inequality and War: Ending the extreme inequality of wealth and well-being in the
United States would end the war in Iraq. by David Swanson

Well God bless his passion then!

When you have a client that can sustain decorum, send them my way. They sure
don't have to agree with me to get on Liberty Watch. To see who does,
consult www.libertywatchradio.com/bookings .

Charles

-- "Ilene XXXXXXX" proctor@XXXXXXX wrote:

If you mean upholding decorum like Martin Luther King and his wife Coretta did, than I am with
you all the way, Ilene

Ilene -

     You have just made 2 statements in conflict with each other. Let me explain.

     At events where he preached, and at events where his widow later spoke, they were
never out of character with the event which they addressed. They did not use a social
occasion for the promotion of a political point of view. They certainly (and I believe
appropriately and effectively) used venues of protest to call attention to their point of
view, but never, in my opinion, inappropriately so.  In fact their success was largely
based on their decorum.

    The way this relates to a radio show is important. I ask tough questions, even and
sometimes especially of people with whom I agree. The bar of qualification to get on
my show is to agree to an intellectually honest answer to the questions. A guest is
then free to ask anything in return, or even state his objection to the basis of the
question, AFTER he answers it. People who cannot sustain decorum often are not
capable of intellectual honesty. Much as undisciplined and petulant children, when
they do not have reason on their side, they "pound the table." If that describes the
guests you want to send me, they do not qualify to get on my show. If however, you
offer me guests who can sustain decorum, they are welcome, especially if they do
not agree with me.

     Now we come to your two conflicting statements, below. If you truly offer me guests
who have the type of civility that the Kings had, the answer is yes. But if you offer me
the quality of guests who make of themselves fools as did Reverend Lowery and former
President Carter at the King funeral, then no, they do not qualify for Liberty Watch, as
they ball beneath the bar of intellectual honesty. First I asked, "Does this guest you offer
understand decorum, unlike Rev Lowery?" And you responded, " I hope not Charles,
but he stands for everything the Kings stood for their entire lives, Ilene."

     I need a clear answer from you, Is it the decorum of Rev Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
and Coretta Scott King that you offer, or the bumbling oafs that Reverend Lowery and
former President Carter made of themselves? Which is it please?

In Liberty,
Charles Heller
www.libertywatchradio.com/bookings
520 870 XXXX
Be advised that nothing on the internet is considered private.
Everything sent to and from me is public domain.

Dear Charles:

My clients do not rant or rave, and certainly and neither do they pound tables.  My point
of disagreement with you is your use of the word decorum in referencing the King funeral
. The Bush administration is (despite the presence of Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell whom they
so blatantly misuse, as he testified on television )  in total disagreement with the King Family
 as Bush has  never before made himself available the NAACP or the Rev. Lowry and his
vast congregation. And as for Bush, Reverend Lowry's response was perfectly appropriate
given the  questions of surveillance that  was so pertinent to the lives of the Kings, and
Katrina which  made Bush's credibility delve to a single digit (2%) in the African American
community, and as for the fact that Bush choose to make a speech against affirmative
action on Martin Luther King's this year, and so on and so forth,In light of all the above,  
I think it perfectly proper and with no loss of decorum that these subjects were broached,
and as was obvious to any objective viewer, save four people, who last names  are Bush,
the audience totally  agreed. All in all, the King funeral was exactly that, FIT FOR A KING.
Peace, Ilene

                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Dear Ilene -

     It seems what you have here is a dispute with the dictionary, not with me. To wit:

de·co·rum   )(d -kôr m, -k r -)
n.

1. Appropriateness of behavior or conduct; propriety: "In the Ireland of the 1940's...
   the stolidity of a long, empty, grave face was thought to be the height of decorum
   and profundity" (John McGahern).
2. decorums The conventions or requirements of polite behavior: the formalities
   and decorums of a military funeral.

    
    Now, based on the dictionary definition above, that using a funeral to make a political
point is the classical definition of breaking decorum, not keeping it. Possibly you might
contact the folks at dictionary.com and get them to alter their slant on reality so that it
is more in alignment with your picture of it. If so, you have my permission to say it was
my idea.

     My question to you still remains unanswered, by the way displaying exactly the behavior
that prohibits guests from being qualified to be booked onto my show. One last time, can
you guarantee that your guests possess the intellectual honesty to answer the question
that is asked of them, as opposed to changing the subject, talking in circles, and making
stump speeches?

     Have you read the bookings page at www.libertywatchradio.com/bookings , specifically
designed for your industry? Yes or no please to both questions, simple as that?

In Liberty,
Charles Heller
charles@libertywatchradio.com
www.libertywatchradio.com
520 XXX XXXX
Be advised that nothing on the internet is considered private.
Everything sent to and from me is public domain.

Wed, Feb 08, 2006 09:35 PM, -- "Ilene XXXXXXX" proctor@XXXXXXX wrote:

Given the audience and the situation, I profoundly agree with everything the Rev, Did. Bush is in total
contradiction to everything this country stands for - and since he always screens his audience for
dissenters, it was so nice, so heartwarmingly gratifying for myself, and I know, for millions of others
to see his comeuppance on national TV. The good Reverend had on  a "long, grave face" when he
made those statements, and when the camera panned to the family, they were in obvious  total
agreement with his remarks. My clients will either agree with me, or not, and since this is country
has always had a tradition of free speech, let the world decide. The Kings were our King. Love, Ilene