NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

Talk:Family Security Matters

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Revision as of 05:54, 4 October 2009 by Howard C. Berkowitz (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition American conservative educational organization presenting its view of national security issues to the general public [d] [e]

No, Paul. It's the self-description of a very much ideological group, with the details really in the Related Articles page. This is a group that has input into the U.S. national security process (i.e., Military Workgroup), as i comes through in its Related Articles links.

Now, I can expand this to a full article at some point, but the interconnections of interest groups are extremely important in U.S. politics and military. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This mission statement is bad writing because it is America-centric: "Americans" should be referred to by "their security" not by "our security". "Our" refers to all possible readers. Clearly the writer of the mission statement is not aware of any other people than Americans that may read it. For the writer the world consists of two kinds of people: Americans and "our" Enemies and because he thinks that the enemies won't read his mission statement, "our" feels correct to him.
Anyway I see now that it is their text and not CZ's and that's why I put it in a blockquote. Also I amplified the first sentence in CZ style. --Paul Wormer 05:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
If you look through their list of participants, the America-centric and indeed fairly extreme position -- my opinion -- is fairly obvious. I don't think I can stay neutral and say "they have no clue that any country besides the U.S. matters", but quoting their own words conveys that message. Of course it's bad writing; it's bad propaganda except to their U.S. political base.
Feels correct to her, incidentally. I'm still trying to summarize [1] coherently and neutrally. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)