Vive Party Bias During The Election

Thanks Susan, that should clarify any questions. I didn't have concerns but I like that you take the bull by the horns so to speak and address concerns promptly. Everyone should be clear on that issue now, so we can get on with good debates!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Fair enough.

Just a note, I think the title of the article probably should say, 'during' not 'duing'...minor detail but thought I'd mention it.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Most people that deal with conflict of interest issues would tell you that the perception of bias is as bad as the bias itself. Those that do a good job in the ethics world (and there are some) would insist that directors/management/staff step down if there is a conflict between their assigned duties and their political aspirations. I seem to recall that Michael Valpy temporarily stepped-down as a columnist for the Globe and Mail for that reason.

The fact is that the “shameless plug” is just that, a plug for the editor of the site, who is seeking political office. While it is not an “official endorsement” by whoever governs vive, it is still a plug … the only plug that has been offered to any candidate in this election.

Similarly, the article questioning the practice of parachuting a Green Party candidate into the editor’s/NDP candidate’s riding appears to be using vive as a forum to extend her own political reach. Even if was not the intent, it leaves the impression of a conflict of interest.

Finally, I have noted that there is content on vive that has migrated onto the editor’s election website, making it look like vive is a vetting ground.

Ethical lapses by all parties have played a significant role in the malaise felt by most Canadians when it comes to politics at all levels. The only job of a politician, it seems, is to get elected

<blockquote> Most people that deal with conflict of interest issues would tell you that the perception of bias is as bad as the bias itself. Those that do a good job in the ethics world (and there are some) would insist that directors/management/staff step down if there is a conflict between their assigned duties and their political aspirations. I seem to recall that Michael Valpy temporarily stepped-down as a columnist for the Globe and Mail for that reason. </blockquote> Given that Susan has hardly posted here at all during the election, this is mostly moot. What would you suggest Susan do should she win? Step down permanently? Is it truly only possible to do one job at a time? <blockquote> The fact is that the "shameless plug" is just that, a plug for the editor of the site, who is seeking political office. While it is not an “official endorsement” by whoever governs vive, it is still a plug … the only plug that has been offered to any candidate in this election. </blockquote> That link is small, inobtrusive, and buried far down on the page. It is hardly noticeable. Further, it is honest; I don't think honesty is a conflict of interest. Yes, there would be an ethical problem if vive had a story every day about how awesome Susan is. There would be a conflict of interest if vive were posting susan's blog entries as news. As it is, I think there is *less* ethical conflict because that link will draw discussions by and about Susan off of vive. By keeping a clear separation and being honest about it, people will be more likely to take things with a grain of salt. You would be doubly incensed to discover *after* reading a submission that Susan was actually running for office. <blockquote> Similarly, the article questioning the practice of parachuting a Green Party candidate into the editor’s/NDP candidate’s riding appears to be using vive as a forum to extend her own political reach. Even if was not the intent, it leaves the impression of a conflict of interest. <p> Finally, I have noted that there is content on vive that has migrated onto the editor’s election website, making it look like vive is a vetting ground. </blockquote> You've got it backwards. Running in the election is extending Susan's political reach *from* vive. Having started this site almost a year and a half before even thinking about running for office, you would expect the mission and thus the majority of the content to agree with Susan's views. The NDP asked Susan to run, based at least in part on her involvement with vive. Her views aren't about to change just because of her candidacy. <blockquote> Ethical lapses by all parties have played a significant role in the malaise felt by most Canadians when it comes to politics at all levels. The only job of a politician, it seems, is to get elected </blockquote> <p> And yet you are suggesting that Susan give up her duties on vive while trying to get elected, and that she should refrain from stating her mind for the duration. An open and honest politician would be a refreshing change from someone who is afraid to speak their mind or appear to support a particular community(i.e. vive). <p> It is less ethical, not more, to hide the connections you have to other organisations. If no one knew of Martin's involvement with Canadian Steamship Lines, we would not be better off. If no one knew about Bush's ties to Halliburton and other big business, we would not be better off. If either of them had temporarily stepped down from those involvements while running for office, it doesn't change the fact of their involvement. </p><p>---<br>Jesse <br />

Well said Jesse, I think we are fortunate that Susan is running for the NDP and that clearly by her association with vive any voter can read her pre-election views and see that her commitment to sovereignty is the same. She isn't changing her colours to run a campaign, she is evolving as a person and not hiding from what she was in the past to promote something fictitious she will become, as we see everyday in politics. Forget what we did before, elect us and we'll be different, Susan is clearly saying I am what I am, and will continue to be that person. If all politicians were as forthright we'd be better off as a country.

We didn't get the news about Martin and his steamship lines from his mouth, or the tax breaks he created etc etc. We had to get that news through the back door. I like the truth.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Sorry about yesterday, I was on an emergency business trip.<p> I'd like to add too, that my opinions do not nessesarlly mesh with Jesse's or Susans - except that we all have the best intrests of Canada at heart.<p> When I post an article that someone has written, I don't always agree with it, but I release it based on whether it meets with site rules, and whether I think it'll be good for discussion. I posted that copy of an article Susan did on the weekend, with a few words changed, because I thought it would be good for discussion. It appeared to be a tounge-in-cheek rebuttal of her story. had I thought it was an outright attack, it never would have been released.<p> Let's face it folks, this site is supported by donations, but Jesse and ultimately Susan have the final say. It's her sandbox, and I for one admire that it has not become politically biased in one direction or another.<p><p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

Dr. Caleb, no apology necessary, it is crazy to think that work would interfere with the vive rants, let's try to keep our priorities straight!!! Ha Ha just teasin'

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Again, an anonymous poster railing against bias. Har
har. Why don't you just admit that you're running for the
Anonymous Party? So we can take your postings with a
grain of salt? It's only fair.

---
“Sex, Drugs, Love, Marx...”
Flick Harrison’s new digital feature
MP3, trailer, scenes and stills at:
http://www.armedrabble.org/sdlm.htm