Icebergs

It was US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who talked about 'known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns'.  That was at the time of Iraq and the possibility of her having WMDs, back in 2002.  But this week I've found myself being brought to a greater awareness of these three classifications. (The academic might say there are four, because the third one can be divided into what we might or might not understand if we only but knew of these things.)

As one who has foresworn TV, knowing from past experience of its addictive properties, I enjoy my evening 'unwind time' watching videos on YouTube and I have many regulars, which include themes that are to me an education of what had hitherto been 'unknown unknowns', such as the industrial history of Greater Manchester, and the extent to which railways had covered this country in the early part of last century, and how much of that vast network had already been closed - and virtually all evidence removed - before the famous Dr. Beeching began to wield his metaphorical axe in the 1960s.

Politicians are notorious for their vague, unhelpful or misleading answers to interviewers' questions.  It was over forty years ago that I first realised their use of the basic fact that the total expense on something is dependent on both the unit cost and the number of units ... in mathematical terms, E equals C times N.  We regularly hear answers like one I've heard much repeated this week.  

The question concerned the miserly award of 7p to pay for the increased cost of providing a free school meal (C).  The politician's response is to quote an amount invested (whether this is the total cost of the service, or just the sum injected to provide the increase (E).  The emphasis is on the apparent enormity of E, when taken out of context, and the subtext is 'look how much we're spending on this - why are you complaining?'  The question remains un-answered, and the implication is that the politician is either unaware of, or just doesn't care, how small C is; or is unable to divide E by N; or is totally unaware of N in the first place.

Back to my education (although the above was an education to me, having had no contact with school meals for decades!).

One video I watched this week answered the question why Vladimir Putin is so keen on annihilating Ukraine.  In essence - as I try to summarise 40 minutes of swiftly delivered, illustrated commentary - when the USSR dissolved and Russia was left in 1989, Russia lost, in effect, a sizeable proportion of its oil and gas reserves, mainly to Kazakhstan and Ukraine.  We hear much about the extent that the EU depends on Russia for their energy; I certainly had had no idea just how much of Russia's gas and oil trade is with the EU.  If they could add back the Ukrainian element to their own, their economy would be under far less pressure.

Closer to home, I read a very informative blog this week, which expanded and explained - and it extended to several pages to do so - the situation regarding our Government's attempts to refine, or completely override, the Northern Ireland Protocol, which is part of the Agreement with the EU that achieved Brexit.  Although I have followed the progress of Brexit intently since its inception, there was much about the underlying ramifications of which I had been unaware.  I won't do the blogger the insult of trying to summarise his content - indeed, it would be totally beyond me to do so - so I'll leave you a link, so you can read it for yourself.  It's both surprising (it was to me, anyway) and informative.