Government, MSM still using fear to fool the sheeple

I used to have a particularly sensitive friend. The first time I disagreed with him about something, he told me politely that he understood that I had a right to disagree with him, but the way that I had chosen "was not the right way". Fair enough, said I, we're friends and I'll try a different way next time. So, next time I tried a different tact, and got the same message, perhaps a little less friendly this time: "that's not the right way". Over time, I tried several other methods, and got increasingly strident declarations that that was not the way to disagree with him. Growing frustrated, I started to ask "well, what *is* the right way?" He always avoided the answer and instead just pointed out the ways in which my previous methods were poor. Eventually, I started to realize the truth: there *was* no right way. All attempts had been tried and all rejected; no alternatives were left. He would never *say* this, though, there was always the implication that somewhere there *existed* a "right way", but I was just too dense to find it. I eventually came to the conclusion that this was just a way to keep me from ever disagreeing with him, that he was taking advantage of the courtesy and friendship that I was extending him to create an asymmetric relationship, and our friendship drifted apart from reduced trust and poor communication.

The point? I'm ok with being told that "X is not the right way", as long as, you know, there actually *is* a right way. You have to meet me halfway. If you take away *all* of the choices, then my failure to find a "right way" is not *my* fault, it's yours.

And this is exactly the way that the government and main stream media (MSM) are treating us, the sheeple. On many important subjects, they keep telling us "*this* is not the right way, this is something to *fear*", but then when you conclude "well, then the opposite way must be the *good* way, right", they take away *that* option too: "No, that is also the wrong way!"

Take for example global average temperature: the government and MSM are creating a huge state of fear about the possibility of global warming. They are spending tax money on "solutions", they are threatening "carbon taxes", they are punishing car makers for not making efficient enough cars, they are punishing citizens for driving by taxing gasoline for no other given reason than social engineering, and all in the name of "stopping global warming". Well, ok then: surely this means that global *cooling* must be good, if global warming is bad? Oh hell no. Global *cooling* would lead us to ice-ages, and be a move towards the thermodynamic death of the planet, etc. So wait: warming is the wrong way. Cooling is the wrong way. So what's left? Is staying exactly the same temperature really the *only* thing that doesn't justify sufficient panic and fear for the government to sieze more power? Is that even *possible*, given that temperatures regularly move around?

You haven't left any *right* answers, and that means it's *your* fault.

Now take the economy. Over in Reason, Jacob Sullum has a nice list of all of the things that used to be good but are now bad in connection with the economy. I don't really have much to add to his post, so I'll just copy some of it:

Loose credit is bad, and so is tight credit.

We were told that loose credit created the current mess; we're now told that tight credit is the thing to fear. Which is it? You can't take *both* of them and tell us they are *both* the "wrong thing". You have to leave an alternative, or else it's *your* fault.

Rising home prices are bad, and so are falling home prices.

In both home and retail prices, we were told that it's bad that prices are going up, usually with some tear-jerker about how some joe average can't buy a house or a glass of milk. Now that home prices are going down as are retail prices, we are told this is bad, usually with some tear-jerker about how mary-average had to lose her house or because falling prices mean that we'll have a recession. Which one is good??? If you tell me they are *both* bad, then you're just manipulating me because all you want is for me to fear.

Consumer spending is bad, except when it's good.

The current crisis was blamed on too much consumer spending. Now we are being told that the solution to the current problem is more consumer spending. Which choice are you leaving me??? Clearly, all you want is to make me fear what is going on *no matter what is going on*, because otherwise you'd leave me *an option*. You left me no options; that's not my fault, that's your fault.

Is this just pointless anger on my part? Is there an actual *result* of this?

Only if you count 700 billion dollars as a concrete result. Remember when the government and MSM told us that if congress did not immediately grant 700M dollars for the purposes of buying up bad debt that the economy would crumble immediately? Remember when the sheeple baaaed their acquiesence, frightened into accepting whatever we were told?

It would follow, then, that if those bad debts were *not* bought up, either the economy should collapse, or the government was full of shit, right?

But: the government has not bought a *single* bad debt. It's been 45 days, and yet, the economy hasn't collapsed: no lines at the grocery store, no tent cities in my back yard, no anarchy. Hmm, what happened? We *did* let the government print 700 *billion* new dollars, right? That's over 2000 dollars for every man, woman, and child in this country, right? They convinced us that they needed that money for a very specific purpose to prevent a very important and specific disaster from occurring, right?

What happened? After they got the money, they changed their mind:

In front of Congress, Paulson argued for the 700Bn to purchase *bad debt* *across the spectrum of financial institutions*, saying that purchasing actual institutions was the wrong way:

I'm saying that the model you are looking at is the model where we go to people that absolutely need to sell and say, "If you want to sell, give us something."

The model we're looking at is -- and -- and what we believe it takes to be successful here -- is to go to a broad group of institutions, and a very, very wide range of institutions that own these assets, and have them participate.

Shortly thereafter - after the fear caused by the government and MSM, not fear caused by anything except their own failure to *give us another alternative other than fear* - after receiving his 700Bn dollars, Paulson exhaled and changed his mind:

“Our assessment at this time is that this (the purchase of toxic assets) is not the most effective way to use funds,” Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told a news conference.

Paulson said the administration will continue to use $250 billion of the program to purchase stock in banks as a way to bolster their balance sheets and encourage them to resume more normal lending.

Fucking slimeball.

And all I hear is "baaaaaaa". The sheeple get manipulated into giving 700 *billion* dollars and then sit back and baaaa while the baldfaced lie that generated the 700 billion is admitted by the person that asked for it.

To be clear, this is like my going to a family member and asking them for money because I have cancer... and then turning around a few days later and saying "nah, I didn't really have cancer, I'm going to Tahiti."

Baaaaa.