The Crowhill Journal

You’ve probably heard that Sidney Powell is making some very serious accusations about voter fraud. So far she hasn’t presented much evidence, but that’s apparently the way lawyers play it. They save the evidence for the court room. So at this point all we have to go on is that a high-powered and well-respected attorney is making this case. What can we learn just from that?

Dave Rubin made an argument on his show yesterday about Powell’s statement, and Rubin’s position echoes the “Lord, Liar, Lunatic” argument about Jesus. That argument (I’m sure you know) claims that someone who makes the outrageous claim of being God can be wrong for one of two reasons: he can be a wicked liar or he can be a complete lunatic. On the other hand, he can be right. There are, of course, lots of ways to criticize that argument (e.g., are there really only three possibilities?), but that’s not the point here. I simply found the parallel interesting and worth mentioning.

Rubin makes a similar claim about Powell in this respect. She has a whole lot to lose by making outrageous accusations that turn out to be false, and you can frame the argument along similar lines. Following the LLL structure, consider the possibilities.

1. She’s wrong and she knows she’s wrong. She’s making emotional, heart-felt, wrap-me-in-the-flag appeals to virtue and patriotic duty when she knows she’s got nothing.

I agree with Rubin: that does not seem likely. She has a whole lot to lose from taking that sort of position. It would compromise her ability to get big cases in the future, because people would just say, “Sure, and you’re the one who gave us that teary-eyed pile of nonsense about voter fraud.”

2. She’s wrong and she’s deceived. Someone has been feeding her false information, and she’s been duped.

That doesn’t seem likely either. A competent, experienced lawyer like Powell has been around the block a time or two, and she should know better than to fall for crazy theories and bad evidence. You don’t get to be someone like Sidney Powell by falling for stupid, unsupported claims.

3. She’s right. There really was widespread corruption.

This seems unlikely, but for a very different reason. Conspiracies of this level require a level of coordination and excellence in execution that few people can pull off. At least it seems that way to me. And the penalties for being caught pulling off such a crime are pretty severe.

Of course people do stupid things that put themselves in jeopardy every day, and the alleged players in this case may have acted on the reasonable expectation that the media and their political friends would cover for them. So this one can cut both ways.

Overall, I’m not nearly ready to say that I believe Powell. I’m content to wait and see. But Rubin is right to point out that there is an argument to be made in her favor simply on the basis of this sort of analysis. She would be very stupid to be making these claims if she couldn’t prove them. And she’s not stupid.

At the very least we should admit that there might be something here, and that it should be investigated. And if Powell has led the country on a snipe hunt, it should end her career.

A few years ago I read a very strange book by a very strange man that nevertheless had some interesting points about how modern man ought to get along in society. To summarize, he claimed that man is essentially tribal. He’s been bred to live in small groups. Modern society is at odds with that. It forces man to be universal rather than tribal. The author’s recommendation for dealing with this is for men to join a small group and to find their encouragement, their sense of belonging and their purpose within that group. Men shouldn’t care too much what the world as a whole thinks. They should focus on their little band.

Whether that’s a good idea or not, you would think that people who support “diversity and inclusion” would support such a model. Imagine hundreds of diverse tribes, all with their own sets of values, making their own rules. We wouldn’t be “imposing our morality” on them. We’d affirm them in their own tribal context.

What a joke, eh? We all know that’s nothing like what the “diversity and inclusion” people are about. They have achieved a stupendous bait and switch. In the name of diversity, they demand universal compliance with their own rules. These little tribes — creating their own rules, without finger-wagging social justice warriors telling them how to behave — are the last thing they want. Their “diversity” is, quite literally, only skin deep.

Unfortunately, many companies have latched on to this phony diversity and inclusion bandwagon. With vigor. Predictable horror stories have followed. I.e., people are being forced to attend sessions where they’re lectured about and required to believe idiotic (but mandatory) social theories.

The singular, monolithic ethic that defines the “diversity” crowd is becoming a requirement. For years we’ve known that you can’t work for Google unless you fit into their quirky culture, and pretty soon you won’t be able to work anywhere unless you sign on with the narrow-minded “diversity” program.

(Hence the reference to the mark of the beast in the title of this post. You won’t be able to participate in commerce without adopting their agenda.)

We are, in my opinion, dangerously close to an environment in which only the woke will be able to earn a living. There are already voices on the left that want to make sure Trump supporters are stigmatized and can’t get a job.

Note: The fact that I am against this thing that has erroneously come to be called diversity and inclusion does not mean I am against actual diversity and inclusion. To the contrary. I want more genuine diversity, and I want all those diverse groups to be included in a free and prosperous society.

I’ve never been much of a fan, but she’s interesting and insightful in this interview.

P&C drink and review Guinness’ new Bourbon Barrel imperial stout, then call on their friend Longinus to have a chat about charter schools.

How does a charter school start? Where do they have class? Is it public or private? Who pays for it? Who hires the teachers? Why does the public school system cooperate?

Charter school success has been a topic of debate, but it seems clear they have helped inner city minorities. Why then do groups purporting to help inner city minorities oppose charter schools?

The biggest surprise from the post-election count and re-count business is how many stories show a lack of effective auditing. You can’t just collect and count votes. You have to have ways to verify that you’re getting the right numbers. Just as we have checks and balances in our government, we need checks and balances in our vote counting.

This story is about a small number of votes, but it illustrates the principle.

Before we do this again, I want an army of accountants to review our voting and vote-counting procedures to be sure we have the means in place to verify the counts are correct and add up. This seems like a perfect job for the council of governors.

As the quote widely attributed to Stalin goes, “It doesn’t matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes.”