Don’t Talk to the Police

In my book, Align: Discovering Customer Information that Matters, I discuss how confirmation bias must be combated in order to truly learn what customers are trying to do. One thing that stops us hearing customers is talking too much. This tendency, for some, arises from a fundamental discomfort with silence. In the book, I give tips for getting comfortable with silence, because letting the customer talk, unhindered, is critical for aligning. You’ve go to let them think and answer questions in their own time.

While discussing discomfort with silence, I refer to a video called Don’t Talk to the Police, a lecture recorded at Regency University in 2008. In it, an Officer Bruch explains that one of his interrogation techniques relies on the fact that people can’t handle silence for very long. He uses this knowledge to secure confessions in the interview room.

In customer meetings, such discomfort can lead us to ‘bail out’ the customer. That’s a problem, because, after asking a question, the customer often needs time and space to think about the answer. The problem with our discomfort is that, it can trigger one into talking before the customer has a chance to think. You interject and offer multiple choice options that, unwittingly, narrow the customers’ view. Often, these options you list are options you want to hear. This is the stuff of confirmation bias.

A beta reader of Align, suggested I give readers an optional exercise: watch the 50 minute Regency University video and identify instances of confirmation bias. I did the exercise myself, and have written up my thoughts below.

Results: I found fifteen instances of confirmation bias in Don’t Talk to the Police.

When I watched this video the first time, months ago, the officer’s presentation was off-putting. However, I couldn’t quite put my finger on why I felt that way. This time around, as I documented my observations, the reason was clear.  Confirmation bias seemed to be baked into all layers of our justice system.

Optional Exercise: How many instances of confirmation bias,did you find in the video, “Don’t Talk to the Police[1] with Professor James Duane and Officer Bruch?”

1. 5:30: James Duane discusses a point made by Paul Rosenzweig, “It’s difficult for anyone to know in advance just when a particular set of statements, made in advance, will be considered by a prosecutor to be relevant to some investigation.” In other words, out of all statements made to the police, they can cherry pick any combination of statements to make their case. Cherry picking favorable statements is a hallmark of confirmation bias.

2. Section 801d2a / rules of evidence state that everything a suspect says can be used against them, but not in their favor, as it’s considered hearsay. This might lead a detective to further disregard exculpating statements as they can’t be used anyway. Perhaps a stretch, but I found it to be somewhat surprising. Again, the prosecution gets to cherry pick whatever comments they wish, and omit all exculpating evidence. It could lead to a biased case against a person.

3. 12:15: This example is heart breaking. It’s an extreme example of confirmation bias – a behavior that I call a ‘fishing expedition’ in my book. A fishing expedition is an extreme, overt and fully conscious act, whereby an interrogator asks leading questions to steer a person toward giving up information that the questioner wants to hear – whether that information is true or false does not matter to the person holding the fishing pole. The example is about Eddie Joe Lloyd, a naive kid who got wrongly convicted of a heinous crime: From,[2] “Lloyd was convicted of a brutal 1984 murder of a sixteen-year-old girl in Detroit, Michigan. While in a hospital receiving treatment for his mental illness, Lloyd wrote to police with suggestions on how to solve various murders, including the murder for which he was convicted. Police officers visited and interrogated him several times in the hospital. During the course of these interrogations, police officers allowed Lloyd to believe that, by confessing and getting arrested, he would help them “smoke out” the real perpetrator. They fed him details that he could not have known, including the location of the body, the type of jeans the victim was wearing, a description of earrings the victim wore, and other details from the crime scene. Lloyd signed a written confession and gave a tape recorded statement as well.”

Mr. Lloyd was naive. He trusted the police, and they knowingly tricked him into a confession, despite having no evidence of his guilt. This seems to be on the same level as William J Casey (which I discuss in the book): outright disregard for evidence of the truth, blinded by single minded determination to secure a conviction.

4. 13:00 The case of Earl Washington. This one’s bad too. Mr. Washington had the IQ of a ten year old. He was heavily coached into a confession, and quickly convicted of the rape and murder of a 19 year old woman. If you can bear it, read the account at[3]. Here’s one startling bit: “Psychological analyses of Washington reported that, to compensate for his disability, Washington would politely defer to any authority figure with whom he came into contact. Thus, when police officers asked Washington leading questions in order to obtain a confession, he complied and offered affirmative responses in order to gain their approval.”

The man was naive and polite. And in their quest for a conviction, authorities took advantage of him. That’s bad enough. What’s worse, is that when blood tests showed that the real perpetrator’s blood contained a rare plasma protein, a protein that Washington lacked, authorities amended their forensic report to reflect that the test was inconclusive. They did this without re-testing any samples. That poor man sat on death row for 17 years. This goes way beyond casual, inadvertent confirmation bias. This is the stuff of terrifyingly zealous and intentional wrongful prosecution. The authorities actions were overt and fully conscious; they asked leading questions to steer a person toward giving up information that they wanted to hear. This was another fishing expedition. You wonder how people could do such a thing. Just wait until we hear from Officer Bruch, and I’ll offer a possible explanation.

5. 15:00 Cherry Picking One Sentence. In this example by Professor Duane, the police picked out one sentence out of an entire statement. “I never liked the guy.” Cherry-picking statements out of context is a hallmark of confirmation bias.

6. 18:30 Answer to the class quiz. Most students thought that three people had been shot. However, Professor Duane had never said anyone had been shot. People assumed that to be the case. This case of confirmation bias is manifested in erroneous memory recall. All of us, cops and civilians alike, tend to, as Prof. Duane notes, “hear things, or fill in the details.” When we do this, it’s usually in support of whatever storyline we believe. People heard “gangland style slaying,” and assumed that meant a shooting.

7. 30:20 Officer Bruch states his bias. He says, “People are stupid.”

8. 31:58 Officer Bruch says, “My job is to develop probable cause, develop a good case. A great case is a case with a confession. Get it to the Commonwealth’s attorney, so that they can prosecute the case with little if any effort. The Commonwealth’s attorneys love those cases, … because they come with a stack of files that high in court every day. So that’s my job.”

What I heard in this statement is that his goal is to get a confession in order to make the prosecutor’s job easy. I didn’t hear that his goal was to discover the truth. This seemingly mis-guided goal, in itself is not evidence of confirmation bias, but wait, it’ll tie in soon.

9. 33:00 Officer Bruch likens himself to an Olympic boxer in his interrogation prowess, whereas the suspect is like a person with no experience in the ring. I’m not sure this falls under confirmation bias, but it sure seems unfair, and he acknowledges this. It’s further evidence that in pursuit of his goal – to secure a conviction – any and all tricks are valid, even if the match up is uneven.

10. 33:50 Officer Bruch states another bias. “On the other side of it, I don’t want to put anyone who’s purely innocent in jail. But I try not to bring anyone into the interview room who is innocent.” In other words, if a suspect is in an interview room, Officer Bruch, by definition, believes that person is guilty. He has clearly stated his bias. That’s two now: “People are stupid,” and “anyone who is in an interview room is guilty.”

11. 34:25 The language of fascism. Admittedly, this is a bit of a stretch in terms of categorizing under confirmation bias, but bear with me. You’ll notice that Officer Bruch often refers to suspects as “these people.” It’s a subtle word choice, but comes with profound effect. By using this phrase, he’s delineating space between himself and the suspects. Remember, once they’re in the interview room, he believes they are not only stupid, but guilty too. When we refer to a group as “these people,” often we are casting them into a group of ‘others’, who are ‘less than’ us in some way. Use of this language is one step down the path of dehumanizing others. Down this path lies disregard for human rights, and a denial of equality. At the end of this road lies savagery. This is the kind of language that precedes fascism. Seems a stretch, I know. But tune back in. At 37:15, Officer Bruch takes it farther, referring to “one type of individual” as a “hood rat.” This isn’t some throwaway off the cuff incidence of name-calling. Indeed, he indicates this is an institutionalized and common term. He says, “I can’t try and act like, what we call, lovingly, a hood-rat.”

Stephen Fry, a British scholar, author, and comedian, has given numerous lectures on the language of genocide. He notes that when people start referring to other groups as vermin, they pave the way for “extraordinary brutality.” Now, I’m not arguing that Officer Bruch believes that all suspects should be exterminated like rats. However, his language suggests that he considers his suspects to be lesser humans. This is a clear bias. Remember, he’s stated that he’s an “Olympic boxer” in interrogation technique, and that the goal of his job, as he describes it, is to get a confession. In furtherance to that goal, he seems to be saying he has no reason to hold back any tricks of the trade. As a police officer, he’s entitled to mislead or outright lie. He says he’s done as much. So, I don’t think its a stretch to say that his interviews are probably in line with many of the fishing expeditions I’ve described in this book. He seems like a nice guy. But so seemed the Nazi who wrote the letter that Stephen Fry relayed in this snippet of one of his talks[4]. No, I’m not saying that Officer Bruch is a Nazi. But neither were the detectives and prosecutors who seemed to have no qualms about locking away Eddie Joe Lloyd and Earl Washington. I would imagine that they too, had the goal of getting confessions. They might have believed that anyone in the interview room was probably guilty, and they were willing to use any deceptions to secure confessions. In the end, they wrongfully locked away two men who were as naive as children, and helpful to their detriment.

It’s my contention that misguided goals, combined with strong and clear biases, can lead such people to fish for what they want to hear, and drive toward resolutions that, when stepping back for perspective, might run counter to their own moral code. These are alarming cases of confirmation bias. The language of fascism is grease in the machine of this mental failing, and it falls easily from the mouth of Officer Bruch. I hope he’s right when he says he doesn’t put away innocent people. I’m not so confident.

12. 40:00. Officer Bruch says he tricks suspects into talking to him “off the record,” even though there is no such thing. He goes on to say that, after having his secretary transcribe the audio (that lucky bastard has a secretary to type up his notes – I’m jealous), he often destroys the audio. Why? Because it’s his word against the witness. What he’s implying is that the audio tape could be used to dispute his recollection. By destroying it, he needn’t worry. If he was truly a truth seeker, and as open to disconfirming data as he was toward confirming data, he’d have no motive to destroy these tapes.

13. 44:15. “The jury looks at a defendant sitting next to a … defense attorney, that’s strike one. The jury is already looking at that as being someone who did something that put them into that chair. Strike two: they get a uniformed police officer up there, they get someone in wearing a suit that’s a detective up there who is a professional witness, … and if they confessed, … that’s strike three… I know you’re innocent until proven guilty … the perception is if you’re (sitting there, the jury) perceive that person is a hoodlum, is a criminal.”

What Officer Bruch is saying is that the jury is biased against the suspect before the trial even begins, This is used as a scare tactic. It’s manipulative.

14. 45:00 Officer Bruchs tricks people into writing ‘apology letters,’ that are then used, 100% of the time, in court as evidence of confessions. I’m not sure this is confirmation bias, it’s outright manipulation.

15. 48:25 In an effort to make us feel better, Offcer Bruch assures, “as an offer of support, I don’t try to send innocent people to jail.”

I found small comfort in that closing statement. Perhaps that’s what he believes, but he also believes that suspects in his interrogation rooms are stupid, guilty rats. He believes that asking leading questions, and making misleading statements, are valid techniques in securing confessions. He may think he doesn’t send innocent people to jail. However, between his biases and his methods, I’m guessing, he probably does.


Everyone Loves Learning about the Solar System

NOTE: These, and more recent happenings can be found on the charity website: You can donate $ to fund teacher salaries there as well. Even $25 helps a bunch.


Today, the Rohingya refugee kids paid attention like never before. They couldn’t get enough about the sizes and distances between planets. Rukiyyah took pride in calculating the diameters of each planet, given their radii.


They marveled at the fact that Jupiter is over ten times bigger,in diameter, than Earth, and the sun is ten times bigger than Jupiter.

They oohed and ahhed as I walked all the way to the back white board to show how far out Uranus, Pluto and Neptune were.

But the thing that blew their minds was learning about galaxies and the universe. I asked them guess how many stars (suns) were in the Milky Way galaxy. Incredibly, Arfat guessed 400 billion. The right answer is that we don’t know, but scientists estimate there are between 100 billion and 400 billion stars in the Milky Way. Arfat was pretty pleased with himself.

At the end of the discussion, Nur was so excited, he asked me to take a bunch of pictures.

I think today was the most fun I’ve had since I began teaching English here last May.


This story and more at

US Foreign Policy

A common belief among Americans is that our safety lies in building military strength, and projecting our will in the world. The thing is, we’ve been doing that for over 60 years, and, in my opinion, it’s made our world more dangerous, not safer.

There’s a word for the predominant theme of American foreign policy since World War II. It’s jingoism.

Jingoism is patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy. Jingoism also refers to a country’s advocacy for the use of threats or actual force, as opposed to peaceful relations, in efforts to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests. Colloquially, it refers to excessive bias in judging one’s own country as superior to others—an extreme type of nationalism. –

Since I retired from my full time job in 2014 (I’m an ardent capitalist, living off of savings), I’ve had time to study post WW2 US foreign policy. What I’ve learned makes me sad. We’ve behaved very badly. We’ve imagined enemies who didn’t exist, and meddled where we had no right. We turned away from dialogue, and embraced covert action. Many of our misguided and vigorous activities destabilized regions that still suffer today. And it was all due to jingoist attitudes, and a hasty disregard for examining the facts. I’ll share some examples later. For now, let’s recall the definition of jingoism, while we read what each lead candidate has to say about their foreign policies:

Ted Cruz (from :

The United States of America is the exceptional nation, the nation other countries aspire to be like. … (W)e need to judge each challenge through the simple test of what is best for America. Because what is best for America is best for the world.

Hillary Clinton (

I believe the future holds far more opportunities than threats if we exercise creative and confident leadership that enables us to shape global events rather than be shaped by them. –

We came, we saw, he died. 

Mrs. Clinton repeatedly speaks of wanting to be “caught trying.” In other words, she would rather be criticized for what she has done than for having done nothing at all. –NY Times Article, “The Libya Gamble”

Marco Rubio ( :

(Obama) has demonstrated a disregard for our moral purpose that at times flirts with disdain. From his reset with Russia, to his open hand to Iran, to his unreciprocated opening to Cuba, he has embraced regimes that systematically oppose every principle our nation has long championed. This deterioration of our physical and ideological strength has led to a world far more dangerous than when President Obama entered office.

Rubio Doctrine:

• Undo the damage caused by sequestration by returning to Secretary Gates’ fiscal year 2012 budget baseline.
• Modernize our forces to remain on the cutting edge of the land, sea, air, cyberspace, and outer space domains.
• Empower our intelligence community by permanently extending Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

Bernie Sanders (

America must defend freedom at home and abroad, but we must seek diplomatic solutions before resorting to military action. While force must always be an option, war must be a last resort, not the first option.

Donald Drumpf. I can’t find a stated foreign policy doctrine on his website… so I’m using quotes from

If we’re going to make America number one again, we’ve got to have a president who knows how to get tough with China, how to out-negotiate the Chinese, and how to keep them from screwing us at every turn.

Few respect weakness. Ultimately we have to deal with hostile nations in the only language they know: unshrinking conviction and the military power to back it up if need be. There and in that order are America’s two greatest assets in foreign affairs.

Do you notice a theme here? Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Donald Drumpf think America is an exceptional nation, better than all others. That leads to an unwillingness to be open to learning what works in other nations. It leads to a projection of power and will. It can quickly lead to approving hasty covert action.

Hillary, while perhaps not using as much jingoistic language, leans toward military action when the path is unclear. That scares me.

Bernie Sanders seems the most reasonable here. In my opinion, he’s been on the right side of most foreign policy issues since opposing our intervention in Nicaragua.

Does that make me sound like a commie sympathiser?  Well, if you’ve gotten your news from major media sources for the past five decades, I can see why you might think that.

Since the fifties, our government has often planted fabricated stories in order to shape public perceptions and manufacture consent.

  • Operation Mockingbird (“Operation Mockingbird had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. The usual methodology was placing reports developed from intelligence provided by the CIA to witting or unwitting reporters. Those reports would then be repeated or cited by the preceding reporters which in turn would then be cited throughout the media wire services.”)
  • The CIA bought the rights to George Orwell’s Animal Farm, and produced a movie that changed the ending to cast the pigs as communists and the other animals as righteous Americans. This was not the intention of Orwell.
  • Vietnam Propaganda (“In 1954, Col. Edward Lansdale, chief of covert action in the U.S. Saigon Military Mission, was assigned to oversee the early U.S. propaganda effort in Vietnam. Initially, he began the “Passage to Freedom” … his “psy war” team used gimmicks to swell the ranks of the refugees. South Vietnamese soldiers dressed in civilian clothes were sent North to spread unfavorable rumors such as two Chinese divisions allowed by Viet Minh had circulated throughout North Vietnam and Washington intended to launch an offensive to liberate the North after the last anti-communist Vietnamese had moved southThousands of fliers advertising that “The Virgin Mary Has Gone to the South” were distributed by Lansdale’s men throughout North Vietnam. In addition, large numbers of posters were pasted in Hanoi and Haiphong depicting communists closing a cathedral and forcing people to pray under a picture of Ho Chi Minh  – See more at:”)
  • The Terror Network (“According to Melvin Goodman, the Head of Office of Soviet Affairs at the CIA from 1976-1987, the claims of a terror network were in fact black propaganda created by the CIA”)

Since the days when Edward Bernays started working with Washington, CIA leadership seems to have had no qualms about lying to the American public.  So, whatever fast and hard cold war beliefs you have – I ask that you investigate to what degree they’re due to CIA sponsored propaganda.

The smoking gun lies not in our propaganda, but in our verified and documented history of hastily meddling with sovereign nations when we had no right, and very little justification. We had all that power, and we abused it. We were prone to seeing enemies where there were none, and we acted badly. I’ve mostly been reading about Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan, but it seems every president has at times blithely used the CIA’s secret powers. Before Truman, the predecessor to the CIA was limited to gathering intelligence. Under Truman, the National Security Act expanded their powers to include processing and evaluating that intelligence. It included a clause that could be interpreted to mean that the CIA could undertake covert actions. Truman resisted that power, but Eisenhower, weary of overt war, embraced it.

Here are some examples of us abusing that power. Imagine the higher ups at the CIA, and State department as misinformed, opinionated, gossipy beehived busy-bodies. Because, apart from the hair-do, that’s what they were:

  • 1953, CIA operatives overthrow the prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh. MI6 essentially duped the CIA into ousting him by claiming that he was an agent of Moscow. It was not true. Mossadegh had led a protest against the development plan negotiated by Allan Dulles on behalf of Overseas Consultants. Mossadegh was also western educated, and largely a fan of US democracy. But his opposition to the OCI deal made him Allan Dulles’s enemy, and as CIA director he used his power to oust Mossadegh … even though his Iranian agents all opposed that action. That brought in the Shah, who Iranians hated, and led to revolution in 1979. I fully understand why Iranians shouted Death to America. it wasn’t because they abstractly ‘hated our freedom’, it was because we killed their president in 1953, and installed a murderous dictator in his place.
  • 1954, Operation Fortune ousted democratically elected Guatemalan president Arbenz, mainly because he was nationalizing unused land, taking it back from the Dulles brother’s clients, United Fruit company. The CIA used all manner of propaganda, hiring Edward Bernays to orchestrate a breathtaking operation of misinformation in the American media. Arbenz was overthrown, and in his place, Castillo Armas, the CIA’s chosen ‘liberator’ was installed. He immediately suspended the constitution, banned illiterates from voting, and dissolved Congress.
  • In 1954, the Dulles brothers considered overthrowing democratically elected Costa Rican President Figueres, but decided against it because Figueres had abolished the army, and so the CIA had “no instrument through which to carry out a coup.” (The Brothers: JFD and AD, page 158). I find it ironic that the thing that saved Costa Rica from the CIA’s meddling, was *not* having an army.
  • The mid fifties opposition to Ho Chi Minh was all snubs and undermining. The CIA assumed that Ho Chi Minh was an agent of Moscow, and so sought to overthrow him. Their unwillingness to investigate reality, engage in dialogue with embassador Zhoe Enliai, ultimately led to the Vietnam war. It was a pointless war that took upwards of a million Vietnamese lives. 58,000 Americans lost their lives too, including my Uncle Bob Arvin, who I never got to meet.
  • 1955, the Eisenhower administration regarded any countries that embraced neutralism as being enemies. They assumed ‘neutralist’ countries were in fact agents of Moscow. That led them, tragically, to not attending the Asian African summit in Bandung Indonesia, led by president Sukarno of Indonesia. By not talking to these countries, we assumed the worst, and kept up a policy of meddling. If we had attended, we would have possibly understood that most of these countries did not wish to be swept up into the cold war, and wished to simply be left alone. Nope. A reporter for the Economist wrote, “China’s Zhou behaved very humbly and put the six hundred million people of China on the same level, say, as Ceylon or Laos. … Bandung has been compared to the Magna Carta, and the Gettysburg address.” And we didn’t attend because we regarded the conference as a “communist road show.” (as Time magazine called it).
  • 1955, the CIA worked with Belgium to remove Congo’s president Lumumba from power. Mr. Lumumba, an idealist, and somewhat naive of the force of the cold war, wound up dead, dissolved in acid. The Belgians killed him, but the Americans conspired with them. Like Mossedegh of Iran, Lumumba was western educated and a fan of US democracy. But the CIA decided he was too sympathetic with Russia, and that was enough to assassinate him.
  • 1955. President Sukarno of Indonesia, after visiting the US, had the audacity to visit China and USSR, and then later, accepted a development loan from the USSR. He allowed a small representation of communists in his congress. That made him a marked man. Despite the US ambassador’s protestations, the CIA mounted a campaign against Sukarno called “Archipelago”. But the operation failed, as the CIA found it hard to convince Indonesians to kill other Indonesians. In desperation, the CIA financed a pornographic film, called Happy Days, but Sukarno didn’t care. In the end, the CIA failed to oust Sukarno. But never fear, he was eventually ousted in a coup in 1970, CIA sponsored.
  • 1957, the CIA rigged the Lebanon election so that Camille Chamoun would win.
  • 1960 – Fidel Castro takes Cuba. What I find most interesting is that his top advisor, Che Guevara, largely developed his hateful attitudes toward the US by observing CIA activities such as the ouster of Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954. He saw that the CIA capitalized on the free press – they used it to project anti-Arbenz propaganda. So he advise Castro to kill all open freedoms, because, to him, those were the very things that the CIA could use against them. The CIA’s willingness to lie to the free press, indirectly influenced Castro’s heavy handed governing philosophy. Incredible.
  • 1968, Henry Kissinger scuttles the Paris peace process in Vietnam for political reasons – to get Nixon nominated for repub candidate. It worked.
  • 1973, CIA pays Army leaders to oust Chile’s democratically elected Allende, and the brutal Pinochet comes to power.
  • 1975, Henry Kissinger sponsors the invasion of East Timor.
  • 2003 – invasion of Iraq – I don’t think I need to explain this one.
  • There’s so much more – But that’s enough for now.

Here’s the thing, the recurring theme is hasty adoption of ‘us vs them’ thinking coupled with a willingness to act with an utter lack of integrity. That’s exactly the kind of behavior we don’t need. We need open honest engagement, not covert assassinations and propaganda campaigns. If we truly believe, as I do, that a capitalistic democracy is the best form of government, then let the results speak for themselves. Don’t stoop to propaganda. Don’t stoop to meddling in the affairs of foreign nations.

I wonder what the world would look like today, if we’d sent 50 delegates to Bandung in 1955, or never attempted ousting Arbenz, Mossadegh, Lumumba, Sukarno, Allende. I think it’d look a whole lot different.

What if another nation did that to us? What if they planted propaganda, paid a handful of military generals to stage a coup, assassinated our democratically elected leaders and brought in a brutal dictatorship? Would you hate that country? Would it be for some abstract reason, like, “we hate their freedoms?” Or would you hate them because they meddled in your affairs, and killed your leaders? Would you hate them, because they’re the incarnation of a beehived bully of a busy-body, armed with assault weapons and cash, willing to lie as needed to achieve whatever misguided goals they capriciously imagined were important?

I invite you to study any and all of the above-listed events. Our CIA regularly sacked the ambassadors and CIA agents in the regions who knew the most about the countries they were in, because those knowledgable people advised against overthrows. Our leaders willingly disregarded reality, imagined boogie men, and fatally meddled in the affairs of sovereign nations. I want LESS of this behavior, not MORE.

So please, read the foreign policy pages of each of the candidates for president. Ask yourself, which one will give us more of the same, and which will act like adults of integrity, and consider the facts before acting?

Personally, I don’t want a commander in chief with a “moral purpose” to meddle in the affairs of other countries, and snub them at global summits. I don’t want leaders who think “what’s best for the US is best for the world.” I don’t want a leader who, when the path is unclear, simply chooses action.  No, we are not better than everyone else. We are hurling through space on a rock with 7 billion other people. It’s time we started regarding them as equals, and respecting their rights.

So, I ask you, do you still believe that our safety lies in building military strength and projecting our will in the world? Now that you know how quick we are to compromise our own integrity by toppling democratically elected leaders, and make up media stories to dupe whole populations?

I love my country, and I stand for freedom. We have a history to be proud of, from our formation through harrowing internal struggles. Like so many of my countrymen, I reject communism, and am skeptical of big government. But I think we can let other countries who choose that path see what results they get, free from our meddling.

I expect better from our leaders. We need someone who breaks this cold war thinking. We need someone who rejects covert action, and embraces a free press, even when reporters write things our leaders don’t want to hear, or want us to know. I can only think of one candidate who even comes close to qualifying for president of the US. It isn’t any of the Republicans.

Edit: Some light bedtime reading material: The Church Report. I <3 The Freedom of Information Act.