Defining deviancy down for the telcos who helped Bush on warrantless surveillance

Back in the day, back when we had a government instead of rulers, back when we at least imagined we had a Constitution, back before the wingers started pissing all over themselves, and us, executive lawbreaking was considered a Big Deal. Why, when Clinton lied about a a blowjob, the Village was convulsed, and we heard nothing but the sound of Republicans, movement Conservatives, assorted disinformation artists, "values voters," and media whores chanting "Rule of law! Rule of law!" in unison for years! Fuck, yeah!

But let a Republican commit over thirty felonies in the course of an unconstitutional warrantless surveillance program, whose scale and scope are still unknown, and what's the only question that's on the Village's so-called Mind?

Whether Bush should be impeached?_{MR SUBLIMINAL You're kidding, right?} Whether Bush and his enablers should be hauled before a special prosecutor? _[Guffaw] Whether they should be prosecuted? _{C'mon, this joke's gone on long enough!} Whether they should be forced to answer a Sternly Worded Letter? _{Let me know when you get serious!} No, none of those things.

This is the question: Whether the telcos that helped Bush commit the felonies should be granted immunity! That's the question exercising the great minds of Our Betters in the Village

Is that defining deviancy down, or what? Times:

Immunity Crucial in Talks on Eavesdropping Rules

Unbelievable?

All too believable!

And the beauty part, the part that pushes this story over from the merely excellent to the superb, is the nature of the deal that our [cough] Democratic Party is offering:

House Democrats promised on Tuesday to block any deal for immunity unless the White House agreed to turn over internal records showing the utilities’ role in the eavesdropping.

Suppose you were dealing with an eight-year-old kid, maybe your kid.

The kid comes to you, and says "I did something, uh, really bad. And if you promise not to punish me for it, I'll tell you what it was."

Would you take that deal? Would any parent? Of course not. Let's assume the eight-year-old isn't a liar or a sociopath or a deeply committed neo-Conservative* or a Christianist**, so you can assume he'll tell you something close to the truth after you make the deal.

You don't make the deal because you don't know what you're getting into, and you can get what you need from other sources. The kid shoved a firecracker up the ass of your neighbor's goat and lit the fuse? No way he should get away clean, and you'll hear about it from the neighbor soon enough. The kid stole a hundred bucks from the Film Club's treasury at school? You're gonna check the school anyhow, now that your suspicions are aroused. The kid stole some Oxy off Uncle Rush and totaled your car? Again, you're gonna check the garage, so why make the deal?

But the best reason not to make the deal, not to give the kid a get out of jail free card, is because if you do, the kid will just keep doing it. Again and again, and again.

Just like every other corporation will, about anything, after the Democrats gut the rule of law "just this one time."

Anyhow, who needs the deal? Why not just subpoena the telcos?

NOTE * By "deeply committed" I don't mean actually committed. Unfortunately.

NOTE ** Sorry for the multiple redundancies.