Assertions Without Evidence

There's something wrong with a polity where the common coin of public discourse often, and without being challenged, consists of simple assertions unburdened by refutable facts. How far this is from assertions backed by proof—we're in the realm of assertions without any evidence, of any kind. What else to make of the "liquid bomb" terror scare? At first I was still inclined to allow the benefit of the doubt, but as time passed it's become clear that what happened was political fear mongering, not a legitimate threat, now or perhaps ever. I can remember when terrorist take-downs would involve trophies: weapons, explosives, propaganda, assorted paraphernalia. Something laid out on a table, or a blanket, for an eager press. Here, nothing adds up. There's no material evidence of explosives, no evidence of training, no evidence of planning. Nothing. And the story about turning an airplane's bathroom into a chemistry lab is coming under some heavy critique as well. Clearly, people are now much less susceptible to being taken in. And the Tyrant's polls are re-testing their lows (they're going to go lower). But all this worries me, because if those thugs with their hands on the levers of power can't get what they want through fear-mongering alone, they may well seek to arrange another real event.