Saskatchewan is projecting a $1.3 billion drop in potash revenues this fiscal year but still hopes to post an overall budget surplus.To deal with the shortfall the government says it will take a $185 million dividend from the Crown Investments Corporation and delay funding the Children’s Hospital in Saskatoon and some schools.

Compare and contrast that to the LeaderPost’s coverage of the potash shortfall…

Then there’s unexpectedly higher revenue of $668 million from oil, taxes and federal transfers, which covers half the potash revenue shortfall. Gantefoer will make up the rest through accounting measures like taking a $185 million dividend from the Crown corporations and by deferring $132 million in capital projects still in the planning stages. That doesn’t mean the Saskatoon Children’s Hospital has been cancelled, as some critics suggest; the money will be there once construction begins.

Two media sources, two dramatically different stories.  The Canadian Press take on the potash shortfall calls to mind images of sick kids standing on the streets saying, “We don’t have a children’s hospital in Saskatchewan.”  The Leader-Post version spares us that rage-inducing image.    Why is there a disparity here?

The first idea that springs to mind is the fact that the Canadian Press is a pretty bad source for a story of this complexity.  The Saskatchewan Party is making up the lost revenue through a creative use of accounting.  Essentially, they are going to report expenditures in different places and at different times.  For example, they are going to ‘take a dividend’ from the Crown Investments Corporation.  Rather than let the Crown Investments Corporation report those assets, the province is going to report them in its own financial statements.  And, they are going to ‘defer capital expenditures’ (like the Children’s Hospital).  Defer does not mean ‘cancel’, it means ‘enter it later.’

This brings up an interesting question.  Politicians have been using accounting measures to improve their financial results for several years.  Creative accounting cuts all across party lines.  Is this really acceptable?

Personally, I fall into the camp that suggests that government should use the most transparent accounting methods possible.  Deferring expenses and using journal entries to maintain projections seems a little bit questionable when applied to the public records.

What do you think?

 For instance, let’s say that you’re sitting at your computer when you hear a knock at your door. You get up, open the door and see a politician running in a local election. Now let’s say you’re sitting at your computer and you see that the same politician is following your twitter account, or has added you as a friend on Facebook; or maybe they made a comment on your blog. To which are you more receptive?

 Consider how great the influence of social media on the global political scale. There are several countries around the world that have placed grave restrictions on freedom of speech, the freedom of dissent, and on independent media and engaged citizens. Places that are currently in a state of social upheaval, but where people face restrictions in speaking out, are using social media as a way to get their voices heard. This is happening in China, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Palestine, Russia … even in Mongolia to a certain extent.

 In locations where government seeks to commit repugnant acts against its residents without impunity, social media is facilitating the circumvention of restrictions, once again giving rise to the voice of the populace – whose views are neither valued not wanted by oppressive regimes that seek to silence them.

 However, is this access to the world (through the internet) changing the ways in which governments act and create policy? To be continued…

Amir Javadifar, a student protester arrested on Jul 9th, died in prison. #iranelection http://bit.ly/XqsqH #Iran #g88

Messages like this are source material in the history of one of the most important fights of my generation.  They also speak to the power of social media.  The western world would not know that Amir Javadifar died in prison if not for social media.  And then there is the organizational power of the social sphere.The #iranelection hash tag is buzzing with calls for a general strike on August 5th (the day that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be sworn in as leader).  It will be very interesting to watch what happens as the inauguration approaches!  If the western media cannot report what is happening in Iran, Twitter most certainly will.

I am very curious about what sort of impact services like Twitter will have upon foreign policy towards Iran.  How will foreign governments navigate through the confusing world of social media?  Will they be able to sift through all the lies, conjecture, and propaganda to find the threads of actionable truth?

But, I am even more curious about how future governments will behave in a social media dominated world.  What kinds of effects will the mass acceptance of social media have upon the future of activism?  As an example, consider the Chilean coup of 1973.  Augusto Pinochet converted the National Stadium in Santiago into a giant detention centre/house of torture immediately following the coup.  Would a government be able to engage in such a massive human rights abuse in a social world?  Will governments be able to keep mass genocide a secret anymore?

How will government behave in a web 2.0/3.0 world?

 I would argue that our legal system is designed to serve certain people and not others. Take the most basic of facts – if you are going to enter into a court case, you need time and you need money. Competent lawyers cost a lot of money; hell even incompetent lawyers cost a lot of money! Planning a court case and then going to court takes an incomprehensible amount of time – most of which is spent being apprehensive and stressed out. Most people simply can’t afford the time and money it takes to see a court case through – which can take years.

 The very succinct point that I’m trying to make is that when rights are violated, some people have more recourse than others do. The impoverished are only one of those demographics that feel the intolerable sting of injustice. It leads to less dignity and recognition of the inherent humanity in the person/people to which the infamous scales of the law do not tilt toward. It’s just a thought… ; D