Fester : 23 Dec 2010 11:08:46am So what you are saying is that if government policymakers start becoming trasnparent with the reality of the situation as opposed to prolonged philibustering that people will have a more accurate way to make assessments of the situation and be better informed. By being better informed people will then have a more tangible yardstick to gauge and judge whether our politicans are actually effective, wise, capable of leadership, and worthy of being elected. This of course would be a threat to their electability. In an age where we have massive amounts of information, unprecendented in history, available to the general public, it is not sufficient to just 'fudge it' any more. So the more doubt you can cast over facts, the more that you can muddy the waters, the more confusion you can spread, the more disinformation that is available, the more that you have the populace arguing - the stronger your political position. Indeed you would not even have to make a political decision, just spin, philibuster, game-play, manipulate, evade and blame. It could be argued that politics has always been like this, and to a certain extent it is true. The difference is in the information-rich certainty-poor world we have created around us, the last thing our politicians would ever want is the facts to be known. Information is not power. Uncertainty, means that people can be exploited. Now that's power! Jenny Goldie : 23 Dec 2010 11:08:42am This is a timely