LaRouche In

Lyndon LaRouche has entered the Democratic presidential fray, and his website will be added to the list on the left shortly. I was told of his candidacy last Thursday in a twenty minute discussion with one of his more enthusiastic campaign workers. One of the comments that caught my attention was that Mr. LaRouche was apparently leading the fight to have Dick Cheney impeached, which resulted in the following paraphrased conversational thread.

Dr. Zaius: "What specifically is he doing to bring this (impeachment) about?"

Campaign Worker: " He has Congressmen lined up that are going to push this through."

DrZ: "Really? I haven't heard anything."

CW: "With this media? Of course not. Lyndon has been the only one bringing to light the lies and crimes of Dick Cheney."

DrZ: "Oh come on. I regularly read the more progressive press like The Nation, In These Times, Dissent, and they have been putting a lot of information out about Cheney and Bush."

CW: "Since 2000?"

DrZ: "Yes, and I haven't heard anything about any impeachment movement, particularly one lead by Lyndon LaRouche."

At that point a long explanation moved the subject to something else, which inevitably lead to a request for a contribution. I said that I haven't endorsed a candidate yet (I really haven't), and that after I've heard from ALL of them, I'll make my decision and throw some cash their way. I also added that I would check out this impeachment claim - which I have been doing.

Aside from various websites drumming up petition signatures and listing reasons for impeachment (do a google on Impeach Cheney), I haven't seen any congressional movement for impeachment. As to Mr. LaRouche's involvement in an impeachment movement, I found this piece from Defective Yeti's blog (September 17, 2003 - Research Day: VPs and Teenage Girls - Can You impeach the Vice-President?). Defective Yeti also did a surf for impeachment stories coming to the same conclusion for the purpose of seeing if vice presidential impeachment was legal. Yeti cites a portion of an answer letter from Mr. LaRouche's website, in which Mr LaRouche states:

What we have to do, obviously, is break the control of the fascists such as Cheney over the Bush administration. That's the minimal immediate practical requirements, and that's what we're working on, among other things. Many of us from different standpoints agree that must be done. We must stop this process. We also know that you cannot stop this process unless you get rid of the Cheney factor. So, therefore, various people are conducting investigations aimed at impeaching Cheney on grounds of his financial dealings with Halliburton and so forth, and George Shultz with Bechtel out on the West Coast. So therefore, there's a movement to impeach the Vice-President of the United States, a movement that may not succeed in getting an impeachment, which is intended to break the White House free of control of the influence of Cheney.

Those are the only mentions I can find. If anyone knows others, drop me a line.

No Call List on Hold (for now)

According to Andy Sullivan's article from Reuters, Oklahoma City U.S. District Court Judge Lee West ruled that the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority when it enabled consumers to place their home and mobile phone numbers off-limits to telemarketers. This ruling was in a lawsuit brought by several telemarketing firms and the Direct Marketing Association in January, saying it would violate free-speech laws and decimate the industry. The FTC is appealing the ruling, and Congress promises immediate action.

We at the Monkey have commented on this before. In this jobless economy, we hate to see more poor neighbors thrown into unemployment, but this first ammendment argument just doesn't hold water. They have a right to sing the praises of their product to the heavens, but they don't have the right to invade our home to do it. Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

Decision on Houston Chronicle's Enron Challenge Expected This Week

Editor & Publisher Online has posted this story with the latest on the Houston Chronicle's motion for a U. S. appeals court panel to order the judge overseeing the criminal cases against three Enron executives to stop holding closed hearings and to unseal the transcripts of three sessions he has already held in chambers. The panel could rule as early as this week.

U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth Hoyt has said that the closed sessions were routine scheduling conferences, but was vague on specifics. At the motion hearing, Judge Hoyt said, "There are matters that do not need to be discussed in public in ways that embarrasses or humiliates the government or the defense and particularly the court." Chronicle attorney Bill Ogden quoted the Chronicle's editor, who wrote in the paper that "'there's no embarrassment exception to the First Amendment."