You should, if you have the time and I strongly suggest you make that time, listen to Eamon Dunphy's compelling interview with Sam McBride, author of Burned, a book just released about the cash-for-ash scandal in Northern Ireland.
he interview on Dunphy's podcast, The Stand, examines some sensational and truly disturbing revelations from the book.
In the interview McBride recounts, through emails and texts which have come into the public domain, that the then Sinn Féin Minister for Finance Máirtín Ó Muilleoir sought advice and consent from certain people over the renewable heat incentive and retrenchment of the financial incentives.
ó Muilleoir, whose department would control £10billion in UK government expenditure, did not go to any government department people with expertise in either contract law or the provision of energy. They did, however, go to a cabal of senior republicans who are close to or sit on the IRA army council.
If the Sinn Féin Minster for Finance in the Assembly is looking for permission or advice from the IRA kitchen cabinet, where would a Sinn Féin government based in Dublin take instructions from?
Who would they be reporting to on matters of state? Although it scarcely seems believable, would all policy come from a smokey backroom in a republican club in West Belfast?
The question is: Who is running the show?
We will leave the political analogies to one side in the knowledge that over 75 per cent of the population of this country did not vote for Sinn Féin.
The question, though, needs to be continuously repeated - just who is running the show?
From a rugby perspective, that question also bears some scrutiny.
Last week Foxtel, the subscriptions-based sports channel owned by News Corp in Australia, landed a bombshell on RA (Rugby Australia).
Australia's SANZAAR partners had all landed new but not improved television deals for all aspects of their game. Australia were slow to announce the same progress and the reason has become apparent.
Foxtel, who had a contract which yielded $57m per annum, came to the table with an offer of $20m. That $37m drop in income was effectively the entire player pool wages. Australia are gone as a serious professional entity if they cannot pay their Super 15 and international players.
Optus Sports, an online streaming sports service, came in with an offer of $30m but that is still a million miles from where RA need to be. The fight goes on and a poor compromise is expected sometime next month. Whatever the outcome, it will hole Australia below the waterline.
People this side of the equator are glorying in the Six Nations Championship and we have been richly entertained by the fare so far - to the point that nobody cares about a TV rights squabble thousands of miles away.
Last week, part two of a global conundrum came to the fore. South Africa have publicly shown disaffection for Super Rugby and have made overtures to Europe about their provincial sides joining in with one or other European competition.
The whole concept would just not be feasible but still the rumours persisted. Then we learned it has been strongly mooted that South Africa could join the Six Nations from 2024.
Just quite who is proposing or entertaining this notion is a mystery. It just doesn't fit on any level, irrespective of what additional revenues the Springboks can bring.
At the very least, Italy negate the need for a bye week for one of the other nations. If you bring in South Africa you will have bye weeks and a ridiculous call to bring in somebody like Georgia.
It ruins the aesthetic and the appeal of the competition. The reason the competition works is because it's 'our thing'. Ourselves alone.
The appeal of the Eurovision Song Contest was that it was a cosy western European cartel. Our thing. Now the whole thing has become political and completely unwieldy.
Has the doubling in size added appeal or value? No it has not and to my mind you had a much better product when you had just the original members. Ourselves alone!
So what happens when or if South Africa decide to make the jump? I was always fascinated by the call for Rangers and Celtic to join the Premier League.
From a money point of view it would work. Would they have been competitive? Possibly. What happens, though, if one or both got relegated?
What happens to Scottish soccer if its two giants upped sticks? Scottish soccer would fold in an instant. I was always amazed at the Scottish FA's latitude. Who exactly was driving that bus?
The same can be said for SANZAAR. What exactly are New Zealand thinking while their South African buddies are looking to abscond from their obligations to Super and international rugby?
The Rugby Championship does not work without South Africa and New Zealand. Stuffing Argentina and Australia at test level isn't going to entice the TV paymasters or put bums on seats.
If you asked me did I want to watch Italy play Scotland or New Zealand play South Africa, you wouldn't need to wait too long for an answer.
Can South Africa play in February and March in the Six Nations, August and September in the Rugby Championship and tour again in November for the money-spinning autumn series? Could they take a touring Six Nations side in June or July?
Is this just a power play? What are the Kiwis thinking right now? What are Australia, who are in dire financial peril, thinking right now?
What are Fox Sports thinking if they feel that South Africa are leaving southern hemisphere rugby?
Who is pushing this agenda? Are they not aware that small in this case is beautiful and just right for the needs of the competition?
Are they aware of how much damage they will do to the aesthetic and the appeal of the competition?
Who is running the show here? Do they report to the mandarins only or take any opinion from their stakeholders or constituent parts?
Not only is there no need to alter the Six Nations in any way, but there is no need to engage in talks, even tentative talks, to mess with the glittering prize.
The Six Nations works because it's just us - England, France, Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales. Ourselves alone. Leave us alone.