Faith passed as Science

From the perspective of science, it's challenging to explain the wonderful feats accomplished by Jesus of Nazareth, outside of the invocation that the son of God didn't have the same limitations as the rest of us. When pressed further, Christians readily admit that they have nothing outside of faith to believe these things happened, or it's passed as a metaphor. At least, I can't recall seeing or hearing otherwise. Speaking personally, the overall message of Christ is more important to me than the details.

Which leads me to discuss a new variant of an old religion. So desperate are it's advocates that they would be nothing short of delighted to see the rest of us punished for our refusal to worship or refusing to alter our lifestyles to fit their faith. So forceful is the congregation of this faith, that they have no missionaries - no one to convince us that their faith is worth examining. Instead, they have Crusaders all the ready to force us by point of sword to join their fold.

No, I'm not speaking of ISIS or their Islamic dogmas. Nor do I speak of these Far-Right Christians that I'm told are lurking everywhere, ready to baptize me in a hail of gunfire. It is a Pagan faith revitalized, and it's faithful believe in Global Warming, Global Cooling, Global Climate Change Changing Weather Patterns, caused by you and I.

They masquerade as scientists, cooking data to prove themselves justified in their faith. If anything disproves this movement as science, this is it. When confronted on their false science, vague paeans to an entity called "Mother Earth" or "Mother Nature" are sung, demanding justice for wrongdoing done unto her person. Who is she?

Wikipedia has a lot of definitions for Mother Earth, all religious, spiritual, or mythological. Her followers encompass peoples of the ancient and classical world, including the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Aztecs, and many more. Such a strong figure is Mother Earth, she even has a place in the newer occultist religions of Wicca and Thelema - both faiths designed by the man who allegedly coached Churchill on how to get the United States involved in World War II.

One has to ask, if the "Science is Clear", why do the Champions of said science have to fall back to pagan deities of the ancient world to justify their theory? If the Constitution, vainly cherry-picked for convenience at the best of times, is worth anything, we could ideally use the First Amendment to refute this nonsense once and for all.

Until they enforce their Global Religion agenda on us all.

Just between us Millennials, Part 2 of Infinity

Fellow millennials, just stop. If I ever develop polyps, I will name them Oberlin and Mizzou. I'm getting embarrassed for all of us.

I don't understand the core of this gripe. 

Not long ago, arms were flailing over poor representation of minorities at Mizzou. A cafeteria brings in some culinary variety and endures a consumer breakdown over it. News Flash - Cafeteria food is well known to be prepared on the cheap. The worst you can actually call this is false advertising. Now you're aware, take your money elsewhere. Or, did you get this for free? Or, was this lumped into your outrageous tuition cost?

What exactly is the gripe? You weren't satisfied with a product that you elected to use, move on. Better yet, discriminate.

I have a theory: You're being conditioned to shut down the entirety of Civilization. The end goal is that you are reduced to being an invalid: comatose at best or a rabid animal at worst. Your critical thinking begins and ends with what a professor dictates as truth. When you don't get your way? Shut down the world. When you're view is questioned? Call in the muscle. You know, to have a conversation on race relations. I'm perplexed beyond belief that you guys can't see that this is the greatest form of control over you.

I don't think you guys have the mental or emotional capacity to even say what it is you want. You've been terrified out of using nouns and adjectives to describe goals and desires, unless you're talking about straight white males.

I'm seriously wondering if you guys are the reason our age group suffers high unemployment. If I were an employer, I'd be terrified to hire this generation. Some of us who aren't conditioned have to share a generational title with you, please consider us the next time you throw a tantrum.

I need to go headbutt a thumb tack.

Liberty in a Year. Yes, it's possible.

But, only if one of us has the nerve to take that plunge. Maybe not this year, but maybe "Liberty in a Year", four years from now.

I don't lend my support to the apparatus that makes fodder of us all. However, if the past eight years have taught us anything, election season seems to be when people are listening most. Where would Libertarianism (or Libertarian positions, at least) be if not for Ron Paul taking the plunge? Speaking personally, I can't say with much certainty that I would have found my way to LRC without him. One can say, Ron Paul did in a year what the Libertarian Party tried doing for thirty years. If the current election cycle has taught us anything, it's very possible to be a front runner without the support of the Elites, the Media, or a massive donor base (barring "Behind the Curtain" shenanigans, which for all we know Trump is) .

You don't have to like Donald Trump to admit that his campaign is a success. Even if he loses, he's made the conversation interesting, and his strategy is brilliant. He has the finances to self fund his entire campaign, and he's willing to. This means he can take any stance he wants, without upsetting a donor base. For better or worse, he can afford to be unfiltered and honest. Donald Trump has disrupted the entire system that made elections what they were.

Trump has taken every weapon in the arsenal of the elite and has used it against them, leaving them completely unarmed. Two Party system? Piece of cake, that made it all the easier. A reactionary mainstream media? Perfect! All one has to do is forcefully refute the status quo and political correctness. Then, they get what amounts to a free commercial. Oh, you don't want to fund me now? That's fine, your pockets are deep but mine are deeper. But given all this free air time you're giving me, I don't think the money is very important anyway.

This strategy has been so effective, that Trump thought nothing of giving the Alex Jones Show considerable face time, and he hasn't had to apologize or justify it. Remember when the MSM trotted that one out for Dr. Paul, and it was treated like some dark secret being exposed?

Imagine a candidate with the wisdom of Ron Paul and the charismatic, unapologetic defiance of Donald Trump.  This candidate could get on stage and mock the Federal Reserve with complete immunity, thank Ed Snowden for informing the western population about how un-free they are, and tear apart the foreign policy that's been the driving force behind dangers to the west for over a decade.

Better yet, this candidate could do this by planting his feet firm and giving the critics another round of facts when the "Trial by Media" demands an apology or a clarification. Imagine George Stephanopolous' face upon learning that his salary could be worthless in a couple of years thanks to the systems and norms he steadfastly defends. Or, the blank stare of Anderson Cooper when this champion states quite clearly that nobody is under any moral obligation to welcome something that they find objectionable, and he should have that same right too.

This could be a libertarian, and said libertarian wouldn't even have to win - just change the conversation. Who could it end up being? Whoever has the nerves of steel and charisma to do it.

Star Wars Episode 7 - Review and Spoilers

Before I dive into this, I'm compelled to give readers a second warning. Spoilers inbound. I've been making an honest attempt to decipher a way to write this review without dropping spoilers, but for the elements I want to critique this is impossible.

I got to the theater early, I wanted to make sure I got good seats. While my wife and I were waiting, we heard the movie end. Folks came out, and they were hard to read - almost expressionless. I wasn't sure if this was a hint of a really good movie, or a really bad movie. To be honest, I braced myself for the worst. After sitting through twenty-five minutes of awful previews for movies you couldn't pay me to see, the iconic text roll of Star Wars dropped. It was instant nostalgia.

 Final warning. I can't guarantee protecting readers from spoilers after this paragraph, though I'll do what I can to omit the most precious of details. However, I can't critique a movie without talking about what goes on in it. I'll be reviewing the contents of the film from a libertarian perspective, while critiquing decisions made by Lucasfilm, Disney, and J.J Abrams from the position of being a Star Wars fan, someone familiar with the works of the involved parties, and a sensible human being.

I'll spare the major details that illustrate this point, but if you've seen "Star Wars: A New Hope", you've seen this movie. It's so blatant it borders insulting, and potentially spoils the rest of the trilogy. Considering that J.J Abrams has an implied disdain for George Lucas, he really didn't mind taking Lucas' concepts and changing the proper nouns, whilst daring to call this his work.

The First Order has essentially picked up where the Galactic Empire left off, but they have more to prove. Their methods make the Galactic Empire look innocent by comparison. Justifiably so, as an authoritarian regime behaves much more desperately and barbaric when they feel compelled to show strength. We learn that the soldiers of the First Order are not lured into a recruiting office, they are selected and plucked from their families during their infancy. The First Order also thinks little of torching an entire village even to just inch closer to their goals. The Nazi overtones are blatant throughout the film, which wasn't a problem for the original trilogy - George Lucas at least allowed the Galactic Empire to stand on it's own merits, and not Hitler's. However, there have been enough police states in the real world since the fall of Nazi Germany that drawing influence from somewhere more modern would have been welcome. One doesn't need to think too hard to understand why this wasn't an option for a Western-based studio.

The movie is just another war movie, when all is said and done. Despite the "good guys" being called the Resistance, they don't have the charm and allure of the struggling Rebel Alliance in the original trilogy. They aren't so much a resistance as they are an opposition state, being wholly backed and funded by the New Republic. Like the Prequel trilogy, it feels like I'm watching the blue team fight the red team.

Okay, I'll say this one more time. Spoiler, though an obvious one.

Rey, portrayed by Daisey Ridley, is the next Jedi. It's obvious that the character is meant to be the new hero from the earliest stages of the film. I have a gripe with this, one that Political Correctness would attribute to sexism regardless of my justification. I really don't care that she's female. The actress did a wonderful job at portraying the character, but the writers behind the character did an awful job at developing her.

There's a concept in writing that is known as "Mary Sue", in which a character is portrayed as extraordinary without any shortcomings. It's speculated that the writer may be inserting an idealized version of himself/herself in the story. It isn't unfair to assume that we're dealing with this in The Force Awakens.

Rey excels at everything she does in the film, she has no detriments. Rey's a million things. She's street smart, she's a brilliant mechanic, a wonderful pilot, accurate with a blaster, she's fearless, she can evade an onslaught of First Order soldiers and Tie Fighters, and-- gasp! Blinks her eyes and becomes a master of wielding the force. Never mind that it took Anakin Skywalker, who as confessed by both Jedi and Sith alike as the most force sensitive Jedi that ever was or would be, fifteen or so years to master the force - or Luke's entire trilogy to master the force, both of whom had teachers, guides, and moral tests. Not Rey, she just blinks and is able to Jedi-Mind-Trick a Storm Trooper otherwise known as Daniel Craig into doing her bidding. But, as viewers, we're just supposed to accept this as okay and smile. I'm sure there are a few who did.

One can pass this off as ridiculous and childish character development, but we're dealing with a director who knows better - one who had a great deal of input on the script at that. If J.J Abrams is nothing else, he's a brilliant character developer. If you have Netflix, go watch Lost, arguably the work that gave him the credentials he has today. Even if you just watch the first few episodes, it's abundantly clear that we're dealing with a director that places high value on character development.

Because of this, it's very fair to point to propaganda being the driving force behind the character of Rey. Rey is a commercial for feminists and the Pentagon, in light of very recent developments to changes in the rank and file of their own Storm Troopers. The coinciding times of Pentagon announcements and the Star Wars release is blatant.

It's obvious I have a lot of criticisms, but I still enjoyed the movie. I got to confess, I likely wouldn't give the movie a second thought if it weren't Star Wars. While I can't say it's a libertarian movie, it has themes and tropes that libertarians will appreciate. The theme of "Sins of the Father" is strong in this film, in which the new generation must repent for the sins of the last. All of the actors did well, which was a welcome change from the last round of Star Wars films. I'll likely need a second viewing to be a better judge.

I'm glad I'm not the only person pointing out the flaw of Rey's character development, as a casual google search reveals. I'm hoping Darth Mickey takes the criticism to heart and corrects it in the next releases of the trilogy, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Once the movie ended, I understood the reactions from the viewers that came before me. I'd like to think we're all on the same page.

When you're next asked why you don't take the MSM seriously

Just show them this. Thanks for the laugh, Yahoo.

Ted Cruz, Star Wars, and Liberty

Wow, this took me by surprise. Cruz is a life long major Star Wars fan? That's awesome. But, if only he were a libertarian too. So everyone's clear before we continue, I don't have a dog in the fight for the next four years on the throne, I'm finding all of them to be dangerous to liberty. This is just a for-fun jab.

I've always been surprised that, despite it's status as a highly influential paragon of pop-culture, Star Wars fans typically aren't Libertarian in their approach. One may ask, "Why would they be?" As I've detailed elsewhere, one could argue that the Jedi of the original trilogy were the first cinematic depiction (on a mainstream scale that I can recall, at least) of the Libertarian NAP - one only has to look at the few scenes containing Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda in the original trilogy, the Mises and Rothbard of a galaxy far, far away. You could compare Luke Skywalker, or certainly Darth Vader, to Alan Greenspan or David Koch - Taught by some of the best minds in their time, certainly experienced enough to know better, but seduced by power and their own arrogance, inevitably looking to the dark side of the force for their strength.

(Okay, I know my Luke Skywalker theory is speculation at best, but the evidence of his fall is plain as day if you watch the trilogy.)

Sadly, the moral struggles contained in Star Wars may even be skewed by delusional real world Sith Lords, somehow, seeing benevolence in a militaristic empire that would think nothing of destroying an entire populated planet just to make a point to a righteously stubborn rebel princess.

All of this goes to say: Ted Cruz, I vainly implore you as a fellow Star Wars fan. Don't give in to Empire. Perhaps you watched with inspiration as the Rebel Alliance engaged in guerrilla warfare against Imperial Forces - but Star Wars has a stronger message, across both trilogies: It's important to do good, especially when evil is much easier.

Ted Cruz, I'm concerned for you. I want to be the Yoda to your Luke Skywalker, mainly because I don't think I'm charismatic enough to be Obi Wan. At the best of times, you walk a fine line between championing Liberty and championing Empire, typically leaning toward the latter. While you seem to stand for liberty on a variety of issues, I'm bothered that you view Empire as a solution just as often - particularly on issues relating to foreign policy and security. Your invocations of sanctions against Russia (There are loose Star Wars parallels to this, which ended up being the catalyst to creating the Galactic Empire), your desire to see more soldiers recruited to fight in an endless campaign in the Middle East (The Galactic Empire's MO throughout the Galaxy), and a militaristic solution to border security are but a few examples. Warfare, whether fought with weaponry or trade sanctions, is the greatest enabler of State Power, the eternal foe of liberty, and penultimate foe of peace. I'd ask you to ignore the Palpatine who's undoubtedly seen you as a successor to his power structure, as he's likely whispering darkness in your ears, or taunting you to do great evils.

If the recent polls are any indication, it's likely to come down to you and Trump. I'm concerned at the idea of a Trump or Cruz administration. We could get desperate enough to team up with Teddy Bears Ewoks to challenge the inconsistencies of their invocations of liberty.

I beg you Ted, complete your training before you dash off to the Emperor's throne room. Oh, again. Please don't make us team up with Ewoks. Those things are embarrassing.

Star Wars Episode 7: Good news for Libertarians, if true.

I gotta preface this, potential spoilers inbound. Close this page if you want to go see the movie with 100% ignorance on what this good news could be.


==========================================================================

The big bad guy, dubbed Supreme Commander Snoke, very well could be Darth Plagueis, at least, according to an obscure spanish magazine. Descriptions of Snoke's physique are in line with the description of Darth Plagueis. Who is Darth Plagueis? In terms of the new Disney Cannon, which has completely disavowed all expanded universe material, he is the Sith Lord who taught Emperor Palpatine/Darth Sidious, who taught Darth Vader.

Why is this good news for Libertarians? Darth Plagueis, though a Sith Lord of no small talent, is a Sith Lord second, and a central banker first.

Cardinal of all his weapons is his connection to finance. Darth Plagueis, or Heego Damask II, holds great sway over the financial sector in Star Wars mythos. He is of the banking clan, and also manages financial lobbying firms. In practice, he's indistinguishable from the Central Banks of the real world.

Being the true string puller, he can't make himself a public figure. His solution is to recruit a young, politically savvy Palpatine as his apprentice, and Palpatine will press forward by orchestrating the events that will bring the galaxy under the rule of a Galactic Empire, all the while increasing the influence of Darth Plagueis' banking practices. Even the decision to have a clone army, answerable only to the Supreme Chancellor, at the ready to usurp the Republic was the work of Darth Plagueis.

Sadly, it's just as likely that Snoke isn't Darth Plagueis. It's also likely that Disney will be standing firm on their pledge that the expanded universe is null and void - and if Darth Plagueis is in fact the villain, his past won't adhere to the expanded universe materials.

It's comforting to think that this is in the realm of possibility, though.

Discrimination is fantastic, and you think so too

Discrimination is the corner stone of all human activity, and it always will be. Here's a short list of ways all of us, even those who swear they don't discriminate, do so every day.

• What jobs are we willing to perform (Is the work beneath our abilities? Does it pay enough? Is the work something we are willing to do?)
• What products we will buy (Is it a good product? Am I willing to part with my money for this product? Do I like the retailer or manufacturer?)
• Where we buy said products (I don't like Wal-Mart, so I'm going to go to Kroger. CVS is closer, so I'm not going to Walgreens)
• Where we choose to live (This is a noisy street, I want to live somewhere quieter. The rent is too high here, so I'm going to find somewhere else. I don't like the people that are living nearby, I'm moving on.)
• Who we choose to associate with, personally or professionally (I like activity X, I want friends who will do this with me. I don't want to smoke meth or be around it, so I'm not going to have meth heads as friends. I need to hire a professional driver, so I shouldn't hire someone that's currently known to use mind altering drugs, legal or otherwise. I don't want to work for Employer X, because I disagree with their methods and/or products)
• Who we choose as a spouse (I want my spouse and I to worship together, so I should find someone that shares my religion. I'm a socialist, so I shouldn't marry a capitalist)
•  Where we will pursue higher education, if at all. (I don't like the faculty at school X, I'll go elsewhere. I want to coast through and get a passing grade without much effort, I'll find a school that provides that.)
• What Television broadcast we will watch, or what internet sites we will read. (This show isn't entertaining, I'm going to watch something else. lewrockwell.com makes me feel too challenged, let's check on CNN instead)
• Where we send our children to grow and learn ( I don't like this daycare, little Jimmy should go somewhere else. This place is doing a good job of filling Little Jimmy's individual needs, let's keep him here.)
• How you spend your time (I don't want to go for a walk, I want to take advantage of the extra time to get caught up on cleaning my house)

I obviously could have kept going, and had to stop myself before this post became a bunch of bullet points. As you can see, it's impossible to engage in social activity without discriminating. Imagine having the right to discriminate being yanked away from you in any of these scenarios. You could be forced to purchase from supplier X, regardless of your individual needs. You could be forced to associate personally or professionally with someone that won't get along with you, or vice-versa. Maybe you end up having to use the services of a child care provider or educator that isn't conductive to a good learning environment. Maybe you're forced to watch Dancing with the Stars, instead of The Walking Dead, or maybe you lose the choice to watch nothing at all. Maybe for dinner tonight you'd like a side of potatoes, but a culinary diversity quota forces you to buy lintels.

Worse yet, imagine if you can't describe the criteria for what you are willing to accept, or what is disqualified from being a recipient of your resources - after all, to do so is a form of discrimination too. Whether it's qualities, aesthetics, reputation, experiences - we all have an expectation of what is worth our resources. Should you not be able to describe these things, you could easily find yourself in a repetitive cycle of having unfulfilled needs, even if you have the resources to get exactly what it is you want!

Even with all of this, there's a perfectly legitimate tool to counter discrimination, if one chose to use it: Persuasion.

Consumers don't want to buy your product? You can advertise, highlighting the great qualities of your product. The Prom Queen doesn't think you're worth going on a date with? Convince her otherwise, who knows how (any kids out there taking this particular line to heart, please make sure you know when to quit). Releasing your film on the same weekend that a popular franchise is going to be releasing it's film? Plead a case for yours. Disqualified from a job opening? Highlight the qualities that make you qualified.

If all of these fail, move on. Resources that weren't yours to begin with aren't resources lost anyway. Then, take solace in the fact that you're within your rights to do the same with every decision you make, every day.

At least, for now.

Don't give in to fear, he says.

Thug-in-chief plans to urge American's to not give in to fear. 

Sound advice, though I'd implore him to follow it - and to stop stoking the fire.

Don't create a climate of fear around private firearm ownership. 105,999,998 private firearm owners didn't engage in wanton mayhem on December 3rd. How many San Bernardino County gun owners were legislated out of carrying, concealed or open, on December 3rd? How do you justify making the event about privately held firearms? The individuals in question knew how to make and use bombs (allegedly), would gun control have made this situation any better, or worse?

Put an end to military adventures in the Middle East. This was a driving force behind your election, as millions believed you would put an end to it. Stop giving incentive for radicalization. The surviving children we bomb today will be the radicals of tomorrow. Stop using fear to justify international murder.

Stop expecting us to surrender liberty to be safe, the very definition of giving in to fear. Your vast intelligence networks have failed. The militarization of police has failed. The TSA fails as a matter of routine. It's fair for Americans to not trust the government to keep them safe given the track record, and to come to the conclusion that they need to arm themselves instead.

I can't imagine he's sincere in his plea, as his entire agenda relies on a terrified populace.

We're on our own

If anything has become glaringly apparent as a result of the tragedy in San Bernardino, it's the repeated revelation that all of the spy networks and para-military organizations that Leviathan swears by cannot and will not keep you safe.

After a few days of shrugging, the MSM and it's puppet masters have "discovered" that the villains in question were in fact radicalized, plainly apparent from an old Facebook post. Wasn't this precisely the sort of intelligence that the NSA was supposed to specialize in using to thwart terrorism?

Lest we forget, California boasts some very strict gun control, second only to the state of New York. The rifles used in this incident were quite illegal in their configuration. One can speculate endlessly on how these rifles were obtained. Old inventory from Eric Holder's Fast and Furious campaign? The Mexican Drug cartels, who transformed San Bernardino county into the (former) meth capital of the United States? A short trip across the border? Keep in mind, all the MSM has dared to say on the weaponry in question is that they were purchased legally. They haven't said by whom, or when. "Legally transferred from a friend" is the extent of the detail. If true, this wasn't in California. All private party transfers must be handled by an FFL licensee in the state, unless transferred between immediate family members. This either didn't happen in California, or whoever drafted this narrative is counting on public ignorance of California gun laws. If this did not happen in California, most states require a Record of Sale, even for private party transfers.

It may be worth noting that Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina may have helped to accidentally let slip a bit of truth, in an interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe:


“If you listen to your reporter earlier, what he said is the ATF believes that someone purchased this gun on behalf of the police department and somehow that gun ended up in the hands of this guy, so it actually does not sound at all like this man purchased a firearm."


What of the third shooter, called out by multiple witnesses - yet written off by the powers that be? One such witness described a white suspect (How this was determined I couldn't guess, weren't they clothed in Military fatigues head to toe?) in an interview on CNN. Politically correct narrative, or is there in fact a third person that got away?

The great parroted question now is "How do you prevent this?". The usual suspects have been lined up for broadcast. Old National security advisors, talking heads, and apologists for the state. At best they talk in circles - perhaps concerned that if they talk too much a little boy from the crowd will stand and point out that the emperor has no clothes. At their worst they demand more of the same. Surveillance, spying, and war. They conveniently gloss over the fact that all three incentivize the activity they push ever so boldly against. I can't say that I feel safer today than I did on September 11th, 2001. I'd feel better if we stopped turning the Middle East into a hellscape, so today's five year old's don't turn into tomorrow's 20 somethings with a taste for revenge.

It's a recipe for disaster.

1. A non-functioning surveillance apparatus, that spends more time spying on you and I than the enemy it was designed to cripple.
2. A call for more gun laws, which did nothing to prevent this and will only disarm those with no inclination to create tragedy. Further fueled by the potential that the firearm was intended for government hands (scary enough on it's own, I know), but ended up elsewhere. It's also foolish to avoid the topic of French gun control laws, which certainly didn't keep Paris safe.
3. Perpetual warfare for the foreseeable future, and perpetual incentive for radicalization. Future "justification" for the Nuclear option.

 Thus is the modus operandi of the decision makers, to the delight of the State, the military industrial complex, and those who would not let a good crisis go to waste. The deceased in San Bernardino are little more than another sacrifice to Leviathan and it's wicked pantheon of lesser gods, all of whom don't mind seeing us disarmed, vulnerable, and domesticated as cows to be slaughtered or milked.

Should it continue to have it's way, the rest of us are next. We're on our own.

We don't know

Wow, Juggernaut was right.

Be afraid at all times at all places, starting now

But had they been honest, they'd have completed the sentence.

Be afraid at all times at all places, because we don't know anything.

I've been watching/listening/reading the coverage of San Bernardino off and on (mostly on) for most of the day. The only consistency has been the fact that talking heads can recite "We don't know".

The FBI doesn't know. The DHS doesn't know. ICE doesn't know. The SBC Sherriff doesn't know. The MSM doesn't know. All of whom have been participating in this all day.

If I said "We don't know" for a whole day in a professional setting, I'd get canned pretty quick. Or at least laughed out of the office.

Two suspect corpses later, never mind that dead men tell no tales, they still don't know. Remember the good old days of media coverage of tragedies? They'd know the culprits life story before the corpses were cold. Here they are, staring at two suspect corpses, and still don't know anything.

Hoooo doggy, caught us a live one! Maybe now we'll know something. Nope. We don't know. His name is Sayed Farook, he's a county employee, he's a suspect, but we don't know.

Aha! You need a badge to get in. Maybe we can check the log-- nope, we don't know.

The suspect took a headshot! (I unfortunately saw the remains briefly on television, thanks CNN.) Was that him? We don't know.

A suspect fled the scene under heavy police gunfire. Was that one of them? We don't know.

But... we know there was a Christmas party. Maybe? Of the dead suspects, one male and one female. Remember when descriptions didn't describe 100% of the global population?

It'd be the stuff of a late night spoof if it weren't so tragic.

There's a lot of things all of this can mean, I'm leaning towards:

1.  Juggernaut really doesn't know, and isn't anywhere near as effective, helpful, or necessary as it's defenders say it is.  
2. Nobody's sure how to spin it, because the facts are inconvenient to a desired narrative.

 Meanwhile, powers that be have made the conversation safe. Just blame guns and NRA. Then maybe global warming.