The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Are We Sleepwalking Into A Global Catastrophe?

Episode Date: February 12, 2024

Donald Trump's latest claim of what to expect from a second Trump presidency has the alarm bells ringing in NATO capitals around the world. Trump says he'd abandon any NATO country that fell behind in defense expenditures and would tell the Russians to invade if they want to. Really?  What would that mean? Dr Janice Stein is with us for her regular Monday appearance on this subject and a lot more - Ukraine, Israel, Pakistan.  

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Are we sleepwalking into a global disaster? That's a pretty heavy question, but that's what's being asked after this weekend. We'll have the story coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here in Stratford, Ontario. Welcome to a new week, welcome to Monday, welcome to The Bridge. And because it's Monday, that means Dr. Janice Stein from the Munk School at the University of Toronto. We're talking, well, we're talking big time foreign affairs. And with the events of the last couple of days, it couldn't be perhaps any bigger than the discussion is today because big questions about the future are now being asked.

We'll get to those with Dr. Stein in just a moment. But a little bit of housekeeping, first of all. Monday mornings, we give you the question of the week, and I'll do that right now. But I'll also tell you that this week's your turn. I kind of split the time a little bit. We're going to do the question of the week, which I'll unveil in a minute. But we'll also take your comments on other issues as well, like we used to.

I know there have been a number of you who have written saying, you know, I miss that part. I'd still like to hear some of the feelings that people have on a variety of different issues. So we'll do that. We'll do that this week. We'll test it out. We'll test out the combination of both things.

The question of the week has been extremely successful. There are lots of new people writing in, lots of them, and way more people writing in overall than there used to be. But we're still missing that other element, the opportunity, the true opportunity of your turn, which is letting you say what you want to say about various issues. So we'll try and do a combination of both this week and see how that plays out.

The question of the week is going to be this one. A little lighter in tone than some of the others, but still important, especially for those who travel by air. The question is, if there's one thing you could do to change the way the airlines operate, what would that one thing be? All right? If there's one thing you could do

to change the way the airlines operate, what would it be? So there's your question. Think about it. Send it in to themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. Have it in by Wednesday, 6 p.com. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. Have it in by Wednesday, 6 p.m.

Don't forget your name and location and keep it short. And the same goes for general comments on other things. Same address, same time

period and same kind of conditions on your entry. So, looking forward to hearing from you. All right. Let's get to the conversation with Dr. Stein, because it's pretty important,

and it comes as a result of things that have happened over the last two, three, four days. I won't say any more than that. It's self-explanatory when we get into it. So, Peter, let's get into it. Here she is, Dr. Stein. You know, Janice, for the last few weeks, we've been kind of talking in a very, well, not a very pleasant way about the different possibilities of a wider war, be a kind of pre-war feeling that's out there in a lot of different countries.

And, you know, let's face it, you know, a World War III situation is what some people are worried about. So then into this, you have Donald Trump loss over the weekend saying in a campaign speech, and we got to remember, you know, with Donald Trump, the advice we always get is, you know, don't take him literally is one thing we hear. But the other thing we hear from some of those who worked for him is you know when he says something believe it so what did he say over the weekend he said that if for for if he was president of countries that weren't uh ponying up to the bar with their uh two percent on of gdp on defense spending nato countries that he wouldn't protect them and in fact fact, he went a step further. He said he'd invite Russia to attack them. I don't know.

I've never heard a statement like this. I've never heard a statement remotely like this from any responsible leader of any NATO country, frankly, Peter. It is just mind-blowing uh is all i can say and the trump really couldn't have picked a worse time to let loose first of all i do think we take him at his word he's he's had it in for nato as a so-called rip-off. He sees NATO exclusively as a financial issue. And it's all about who's paying their share and

who's not, and is the United States doing a disproportionate amount? Which is, of course, exactly the wrong way to look at a collective security organization for the most powerful military in the world which is the United States. So I do take him at his word and that's why I found what he said so shocking. You have to ask yourself what does Vladimirladimir putin make of that speech um and donald trump's remarks comes on the heels of a tucker carlson interview with vladimir putin that also in many ways was unprecedented two hours uh by a journalist former journalist with Fox News, who got privileged access.

Putin was clearly sending very strong messages to the West. We are not going to back down. There is no strategic defeat of Russia in the horizon. You have to make a deal with us. That was a subliminal text of that whole interview. You put these two conversations together. If you're Finland, if you're Sweden, if you're the Baltics, if you're Poland, even though those countries are paying their share, you really have to worry.

You know, the danger with Trump at this moment is, you know, he's not even the nominee yet. He's almost certainly going to be the nominee for the Republican Party for the presidential election in November. But he's not the president. He's not running the United States yet um if he's ever going to again so the the challenge is like what do you do what do you say um in a way you know other than saying he's nuts he's a crackpot he's whatever um it's out there and as you say you know the finlands and the swedens and you know in a lot of other countries, Latvia, I mean, you name it, the list goes on. They're going to say, what are we going to do about this?

You know, it's a deeply destabilizing speech to everybody. The biggest risk of all is Vladimir Putin can, we often see this, that outsiders don't understand American politics. Even Canadians sometimes, and we're so close to them, we sometimes misjudge American, I meant American politics there, not Canadian politics. And Vladimir Putin is listening to this, his team is listening to this. So the first big worry, what does he make of that speech is the united states in fact backing off uh its commitment to nato is this a moment of opportunity for him and it could be a moment of opportunity peter to go much harder in ukraine in the New York term. But what next? How firm is the U.S. commitment over the long term to NATO?

So even though he's not the nominee and he doesn't speak for the United States, it's still so destabilizing. For the Europeans, this is a nightmare because they've never been able to get their act together on shared defense spending. They just haven't.

They've always relied on U.S. leadership. And every time in the past, the United States has frankly stepped up. There's a big question mark over that now after this speech. So I don't, I would bet you anything there's not a security expert in NATO right now that's not worried after this speech. I'll tell you, Peter, in Washington, there is already tabletop exercises going on.

What would NATO look like if Donaldald trump wins the presidency what are the options you know i heard john bolton um over the weekend there's you know the former trump um well he was what was he national security advisor he was un ambassador at one point too i mean he's he's been around um He asked about this. He said, look, this is what he tried to do in his first term, and we remember that, at NATO, basically threatening right there when he was in the new building of NATO headquarters in Brussels, I guess. But what Bolton said was the difference between then and now is then

there were people of some weight and significance around him advising on foreign affairs and foreign policy and what to do in a kind of a situation, a crisis situation. He says there's no evidence that there's anybody like that around him now. I think that's a really, really telling point. You know, Trump burned through Jim Mattis, General Kelly, John Bolton, who has very strong views, but is experienced and knowledgeable in foreign affairs. Nobody of any weight is on that team now. Stephen Miller is still there, who has very, very, very, I would honestly say views that are at the far end of the spectrum, but there's no generals who have experience. There's no experts who worked in the field for a long time.

And this, were Trump to come to power? And you rightly said at the outset, we don't know. There's many a step to go yet. But were he to come to power? He's a team that is coming in determined to make use of those first 18 months. They learned from the last experience. You get the best crack at what you want to get done at shifting institutions in those first 18 months.

They're doing that on the judiciary, Peter, and they're doing that on international security. And, you know, Trump walked away from that NATO experience saying it worked look i'm the only one who got those european allies to increase their defense spending and to pay their share which is a bit of a stretch he won't try it again yeah that claim was a bit of a stretch because in fact obama had obama had Obama had got them to start doing that. But there's no doubt they did more when Trump was there.

This isolationist threat in the United States is nothing new. We've seen it before. We've seen it for decades. I mean, people tend to forget. You know, they got into the First World War two years after everybody else. They got into the Second World War two years after everybody else. They got into the Second World War two years after everybody else because there was real resistance to going and to spending the money. You know, when you have these talks like you've been having in Washington

the last week, what do you hear about that, the isolationism and how strong a movement it is? So you're absolutely right, Peter. This is a longstanding tendency in U.S. politics. So people here are familiar with it. But they make a good argument. And where is it now most strongly entrenched it's among the make america great republicans who are blocking military assistance in out of ukraine

and trump controls the republican party he has his fingers now on all the critical levers of the party so the rump republicans you know, the admirers of Ronald Reagan, these are the people in a sense that are most worried, most concerned, because they know how much damage can be done if you mismanage a crisis in the early stages. You know, Vladimir Putin walks away thinking, oh, this is where the United States is going. That's a serious problem for everybody.

You know, David Brooks is writing column after column. He's a Republican. He was a middle-of-the-road Republican, saying, my Republican Party is dead. So what you have now in the United States, this has to worry allies. It should worry Ottawa deeply. We have a two-party system in which one party is strongly isolationist and strongly protectionist. Both.

Not a good combination for us. No, no, it's not. And, you know, when you have a two-party system, sooner or later, the other party wins. Yeah. Yeah, you know, I do find it amazing when people like Brooks, New York Times, highly respected. Very. certain stature who are bailing on the party you know yeah some saying i'm no longer a republican or either i'm still a republican but i'm not this republican yeah and you you know you hear this day

after day after day from from prominent people and names that we're familiar with and you go well who's left because whoever's left whoever's left is significant enough that he's positioned again for that possibility of winning. Well, you know, two comments there, Peter. One, that base in the Republican Party that's isolationist, that's populist, that's 35% of the total electorate. Part of why we're all so, let's just remember that. Part of why we're all so worried is the United States, quite frankly, has a crazy presidential electoral system.

They don't vote directly for the president. They vote for people that they call electors, the electoral college. So what are people talking about all week? Four swing states, 100,000 voters out of a country of 350 million people roughly are going to decide this election.

So you saw the president's team out in Michigan, because that's one of the four, talking to Arab American voters this week. Because I have to get those voters back in order to take Michigan in the general election. This hangs by a thread because of the absolutely weird nature of the institutions that the founders know that the founders of the american constitution designed to protect against um an irresponsible public look how that backfired yeah um okay i i want to go kind of in the reverse order that we've normally gone here for the last few months, which has been Israel, Hamas first, then Ukraine, and into what are we missing. But I want to move from this Trump discussion to Ukraine because it's almost a natural fit here.

It's been another bizarre week we've talked the last couple of weeks about the the split with the uh with solutiony and zelensky and now it's finally happened and it seems to be even bigger than just solutiony um when you you see him overhauling his whole war cabinet you go obviously they're losing the war yeah or he wouldn't be doing this yeah yeah i that's absolutely clear you don't do this you don't shake up your whole senior military command not only solution but five other generals out along and he had fired before that with the head of one of the intelligence operations. So this is really a message from the political leadership. We need a different strategy.

We need a new strategy. Well, they have to design that new strategy, Peter, in the most unforgiving climate. Let's be, I i mean this is brutal when your principal allot who promised we will stand with you for as long as it takes can't you know because of congress can't send you artillery shells just imagine trying to fight a war when you're rationing the number of artillery shells that you're firing against the Russians from the trenches. Frankly, brutal. That's all

I can say. What's the new military strategy? Well, the most controversial piece of it, mobilization, draft. And that's partly why this split happened now. So Luzhny wants to expand,

lower the age of young people, young men in Ukraine who are drafted from 27 to 25. That's already, and just think about this, we often talk about demographics and where they matter in the world. But let's just talk about it in Ukraine for just one minute. That age group, men in their 20s, already the smallest proportion of men. The large, it goes out like an inverted triangle. Largest group is men in their 40s. The men in their 20s are dying at a disproportionate rate in this war so to push it down you're actually going to deplete the childbearing males you know of of the ukrainian

population for decades on into the future there There's protests against lowering that draft. And where's the protest? It's quite interesting. It's coming from Western Ukraine, which is the most secure part of the country, farthest from Russia. But their kids have been mobilized, the 27-year-olds.

They've died. These 27-year-olds who were mobilized at the start of the war have not yet had regular furl to go home and get a break from the war so what's a break you fight in the trenches for two weeks then you your break is you live in an abandoned house just back of the trenches for two weeks. So that kind of political unity that Ukraine had at the start of the war is cracking under the pressure. And Zelensky, who was still very popular, that's the reason this exploded. It's over the draft. It's going to be the first thing that the new commander has to figure out.

What do you do about that? Well, you're right, because if there's anything that's going to affect morale more than anything else, it's going to be, you know, my son, my daughter. Yeah. You know, there's a wonderful article written by an iconoclastic guy, you know, a scholar, but it was always very, very interesting. And he said, look, if you want to understand Western attitudes towards war, just look at the average number of sons born in rich, developed countries the fewer you have the more reluctant you're going to be to let your government go to war because you understand who's going to pay the price it's your son and if you only have one which is increasingly where we are in the western world i that's an argument that he he wrote that i think 30 years ago ago. Edward Ludwig, he's still right. And all you have to do is look to history and walk the cemeteries of the, you know,

First and Second World War in Europe and elsewhere and see the ages of who's buried there. You know, you mentioned the artillery shells, and I know this is a different issue, but let me back up to that for a second, because what I've found interesting on this issue is that the Americans, the Republicans in Congress who are against funding or pushing more money to Ukraine, keep talking about the billions of dollars that go to Ukraine. Keep talking about the billions of dollars that go to Ukraine. What they don't seem to talk about is the money doesn't go to Ukraine for Ukrainians to make artillery shells. It stays in the States. You know, when you toss around these billion dollar figures, almost half of them stay in the States. They don't go anywhere. They create jobs in the States. And I think there are four or five different states who are world leaders in making artillery shells. You know, it's just a great point, Peter, because you look at the performance of the U.S. economy. It is the leader in the world. It is roaring ahead.

Manufacturing is up. Unemployment is down. Part know, unemployment is down. Part of it is, part of it is war manufacturing, frankly, which has always fueled the economy. So this is industrial policy. 50% of what's been allocated for Ukraine has stayed inside the United States to spur military manufacturing. That's not how the MAGA Republicans understand it, unfortunately.

You know, last point on Ukraine, Russia. A couple of months ago, with my limited knowledge of things, and I bow to you on this, but a couple of months ago, I would have thought, you know, Russia is probably willing to sit at the table if they can just get the territory that they've accumulated already. Now I'm going, I don't think so anymore. That's left the barn already. They've got greater hopes for what they can achieve now. Well, listen, for any of our listeners that were willing to sit through two hours of dubbed over Vladimir Putin, it was an eye-opener.

It was an eye-opener. And you know what I found the most fascinating part of that interview, Peter, was the half hour off the top where he took us back on a trip through history. Now, his version of history. And I can tell you if we had a Ukrainian, they would give you exactly the opposite story about the same years. But that doesn't matter. What he really told me, that's where his head still is really and he said it over and over again in that interview ukraine is not a nation ukraine never ukraine was never a nation ukraine was always part of russia uh he hasn't moved an inch frankly from where he was for his being for the last 10 years.

You know, the best opportunity to end this war was in the first month after it, when there were negotiations going on between Ukrainian delegation, Russian delegation, and it was clear that this was not going to be a three-day effort. And he was kind effort and he was kind of he was shocked at that point he missed that opportunity

and no nothing as good has come along since there was no way he was going to come to the negotiating table when he was losing which was the fall of 2022. You don't go to the table when you're losing.

That's why Zelensky won't go now. And you don't go to the table when you're winning. So when you go to the table, it's really difficult. That's why we have this aphorism. Wars are so much easier to start than to end because both sides have to have given up hope of winning at exactly the same time in order to get negotiations going. Right now, Putin has the bit between his teeth.

I agree with you completely. Oh, boy. There seemed like there might have been a window, I don't know, in the fall. We were all talking stalemate. Yeah. But that moment seems to have passed, although you never know with these things. No, and we don't know what the rest of this year is going to look like. Some people are really worried that Russia could break through.

If the deadlock continues in Washington, they are worried that they can break through those defensive lines. And then it becomes an entirely different calculation for Zelensky if that happens. Okay. We're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we're going to move to another guy who isn't budging an inch. And that's Netanyahu on the Israel-Hamas situation. And talk about the number of new angles developed in the last few days on that one. Be right back after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Monday episode. You're listening to us on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform.

Dr. Jana Stein is with us as she is every Monday. All right, so Israel-Hamas, and you've got Egyptian tanks heading towards the, basically towards the Israeli border. You've got Egypt talking about pulling back on some elements of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. Now, you know, this was not supposed to happen. And it's very worrying, to say the least, looking at that. You know, this has to be the biggest strategic blunder

that Netanyahu has made after the original set of strategic blunders, frankly, Peter. That peace treaty with Egypt signed in 1982 has provided fundamental strategic

stability for Israel. With Egypt out, and you know, there's no Arab leader that doesn't know this. With Egypt out of any wartime coalition against Israel, there's no combination of Arab militaries that stands a chance of taking Israel on. And so to put that at risk, you can hear in my voice, it's just literally astonishing. And this is, of course,

you know, President al-Sisi, not, as Joe Biden said, of Mexico, but Egypt. Just a little mistake there in that interview. But for him to go public with this, this is probably the strongest threat that anybody can make against Netanyahu in order to get him to stop.

Now, in response to those military maneuvers and to conversations that to stop. Now, in response to those military maneuvers and to conversations that are, of course, going on between the Egyptian military and the Israeli military, these two militaries know each other very well. They have long, this is not the public view, but they have long collaborated together in the Sinai. There has been an insurgency in the Sinai, which the Egyptians claim is Hamas inspired or Brotherhood inspired or ISIS inspired. It's all one to them. And they have relied on the Israeli military and the two militaries have worked together. So there are conversations going on right now at the professional level. And actually, I think they probably shouldn't be happening this way because

those conversations are, if you do this, you need to limit it this way. That's not helpful to the president of Egypt who's saying, don't do this under any circumstances don't do this as frankly as joe biden it's not quiet anymore the diplomacy it's open it's public joe biden said in that the rest of that interview israel went over the top he sent his deputy national security advisor, John Feiner to Michigan, who outright said, we made some mistakes. We didn't push hard enough.

Just this morning, Netanyahu's team issued some sort of ambiguous statement, which is, we will find a safe way to evacuate. Rough. We will make sure that we follow humanitarian law. Now, why did he make that statement? Because the Biden administration came out over the weekend and said 45 days to tell us to confirm that you are following the laws of war otherwise no more

military assistance how nathaniel does this whether he does this under in the face of this kind of opposition i i can't think of any other israeli premise too that would go ahead, in all honesty? Is this designed to put pressure on Hamas in these hostage negotiations, which, by the way, are still ongoing? They're deadlocked because the distance between the two parties is quite wide. Is this a pressure tactic? Boy, if it is, is he gambling with the most fundamental piece of israel's security here meanwhile they're approaching 30 000 deaths if you believe the palestinian authority on the health services in gaza um and let's not forget p Peter, for our listeners, how many people are in Rafah? Out of a population of 2 million, over 1 million are now in 10 cities in Rafah pushed up against the Egyptian border.

That's why the Egyptians are so exercised. Because it does bear saying here the Egyptians want not one Palestinian on the other side of the border. Not only because they don't want to be complicit in yet another displacement of the Palestinians, and that is certainly a part of it, but for security reasons. They regard the Palestinians in Gaza as infiltrated by Hamas. They have a security problem in the Sinai already with militant Sunni Muslims, and they are not prepared to have one person pushed across that border. So we're going to know in the next few days whether Netanyahu goes ahead or not. Is Netanyahu playing the americans like a fiddle well you know for that to be true he would have to be succeeding peter right uh what he is

is showing himself utterly immune to growing pressure that the b Biden administration people are putting on him. If, in fact, he continues down this path and he alienates the Biden team and the Egyptians, I think it would be impossible to consider that any kind of success at all. It's a massive defeat if he does that. Well, at this point, what is success for Netanyahu? Well, you know, success for Netanyahu, and this is all politics for him, because as we've said many times,

he wants to prolong this war to stay out of court. But what would enable him to claim success? For Yaya Sinwar to leave Gaza, right? That's what it would have to be. That's the Hamas leader in Gaza. Yeah, who's in tunnels somewhere. Originally under Khan Yunus, but clearly moved in time. Now allegedly in Rafah underground where there are four functioning battalions left.

So in effect, if the leader of Hamas wants this to stop, he leaves and then stops. Because that gives Netanyahu the fig leaf to say, well, I achieved our objectives. So that's what it would be. There was a very interesting U.S. intelligence briefing to Congress this week, which is much more conservative in the number of Hamas fighters that have been killed than the Israeli numbers. And in a capacity of Hamas to reorganize itself, even in Gaza City in the north.

There's no credible way right now for Netanyahu to claim a military victory against Hamas in Gaza. It's at best a stalemate with horrendous destruction of Gaza and almost unimaginable numbers of civilian deaths. So that's where he's really stuck. He can't go forward and he can't move backward. Okay. What are we missing?

What part of the world are you going to point us towards now? Boy, when I get discouraged reading about the Middle East or Russia, Ukraine or NATO, I flipped to read about this incredible election in Pakistan that took place this week, Peter. You know, ever since India and Pakistan were created in 48, 49, interesting, at the same time as Israel and Palestine. And the number of people, we don't talk about this enough, who were exchanged in that one, 13 million. Each absorbed in the other's country. In Palestine, Israel, three quarters of a million. And those refugees were not absorbed. And that's why we're talking about Gaza.

That's a big part of those stories. Well, the military has shaped politics in Pakistan. They pick the prime ministers. When they don't like them, they arrest them. They picked the prime ministers. When they don't like them, they arrest them. They send them to jail. They run the country for three or four years till people get tired. Then they step back in the shadows

and they pick the prime minister all over again. And that's the one-liner version of Pakistan. Well, Imran Khan, the former prime minister, well-known cricketeer, had a bat, a cricket bat as a symbol of his party, increasingly challenged the military, was forced out by him and then arrested last year and imprisoned. But did something unprecedented. His party ran for office with him at the head of it from jail. But what did the military do?

Allowed another former Pakistani prime minister, Noah Sharif, whom they had also arrested and then exiled, to come back and run against him. And that was the showdown that we saw this week. And Imran Khan's party, the PTI, got the largest plurality of seats. That's a way of saying Pakistani voters turned out to vote against the Pakistani military. This is the most stinging defeat that the Pakistani military has ever experienced. What a concept.

What a concept. Somebody running from jail and winning. That could never happen here. No. And the other piece of this, which was a kind of window. So in a deep way, that's a good news story. You know, these are citizens. And by the way, they took away his bat as a symbol,

the symbol of his party. He couldn't use it. And the literacy levels in Pakistan are such that those symbols recognize those symbols really matters to people. They still went to the polls and they congregated and they helped each other to figure out which party was in running guns. And then here's a window into the future. The night when the results started to trickle in very slowly, and that always happens when somebody's manipulating results, Imran Khan's team issued

an AI version of him. He sent the notes for the speech out. They did what you could call deepfake audio, but it wasn't a deepfake because he authorized it, and it was a great celebratory audio and video that was broadcast. And I thought, okay, I see where we're going he must sometimes think oh cricket was so much easier than it is but he was a great cricketer a great great great cricketer and and why was it easier because there were rules yeah play cricket by the rules like you play any other sport by the rules.

And what we're seeing everywhere, the rules are gone. And that's what's creating this incredible turmoil and uncertainty that we're seeing everywhere in the world. I'm glad you reminded us of the kind of 47, 48, 49 period when maps were being redrawn. And remind us, by whom? Oh, by these maps were redrawn by the British, right? That's where the imperial story. They redrew both those maps with some knowledge of local populations, but not huge. And there are multiple movies of those days when Lord Mountbatten comes and the British flag is brought down and the Indian flag and the Pakistani flag are raised for the first time.

And then these refugees that grow out of British imperialism, frankly, because Pakistan and India were one country, India, before all this started. Yeah, it's important for us to remember the history on both these areas because these troubles didn't start yesterday or even a couple years ago or 10 years ago. They started kind of at the beginning of the last century. Yeah, they came out of World War I, Peter, right? Right.

Yeah, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed and Britain was given the mandates in Palestine. And the whole story, in a sense, starts there. Yeah. Okay, well, we'll save that for another day. Because these days seem to be continuing without any question and also without any question is your help and trying to understand them so good conversation yet another one enjoy your time in in washington we'll we'll talk to you again in a week janice cnx on cnx monday folks well there you have it dr jan Janice Stein had quite a conversation this week, you've got to admit.

There's so much happening on the world stage. And I know that, you know, for most of us, the world stage is not the stage we focus on. It's more of a domestic stage with domestic concerns, and there are lots of them. But the fact that we spend one day a week talking about the foreign stage, I think, is important, especially these days with the kind of things that are happening, whether it's Ukraine-Russia, whether it's Israel-Hamas, whether it's Pakistan, and whether it's the ramblings and mumblings of contenders for the U.S. presidency, those will all have an impact on us as well.

So thank you again to Dr. Janice Stein from the Munk School at the University of Toronto. A couple of minutes left to remind you of the question of the week. It's about airline and the airline industry. The question is, if you could do one thing that would change the airline industry, improve the airline industry, what would that change be? And write to the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com, the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. Get it in by 4 Wednesday at 6 p.m. Eastern Time. Name, location, and keep it short.

And if you have just general comments about any number of issues, could have been the ones today or the ones we'll talk about tomorrow, we're talking about Black History Month. We have Marcy Ian with us, who any of you who've watched television in Canada over the last 20, 25 years know who Marcy Ian with us, who any of you who've watched television in Canada over the last 20, 25 years know who Marcy Ian is. She was a great commentator and host on CTV. She's now in the federal cabinet. But we're not talking to her about politics.

We're talking to her about Black History Month. And it's a good conversation. That's tomorrow right here on the bridge. I'm going to tell you a quick airline story, just to get you in the airline mood. Here it is. Some of you know I used to work for an airline. That's before I started working for the CBC,

so we're talking the late 1960s. I worked for a little airline called Transair for about three years. Thoroughly enjoyed every day I was there. Among the different things that I used to do, everything from, you know, loading bags to loading freight to checking in passengers to making out the load and balance sheet for the pilots. And out of Churchill, we used to fly, for the most part,

we flew DC-3s, DC-4s, and eventually, just before I left, they got a 737, a jet. So one of the things you'd have to do when you were involved in the front desk operation was make out a load and balance sheet for each flight that was taking off. And that would basically tell the pilots how much the plane weighed with all

the bags and freight on it and the people and where the center of balance was. And that would depend on where you loaded things, right? And which compartment you loaded things in the belly of the airplane. So I used to be pretty good at that. I enjoyed doing that and understood the responsibilities of it. And you were always looking to make sure you were obviously underweight restrictions and that you had a good balance situation for the pilots. Now, one of the things you had to do was include a calculation on the weight of

passengers. And the way you did that was there was a generally accepted weight. And if I recall correctly, it was 50 years ago, if I recall correctly, male passengers, you put down 165 pounds. That was the average for male passengers. For female passengers, I'm trying to remember, I think it was 110. I could be wrong. I'm sure about the 165, not so sure about the 110. But that's how you figure out weight of passengers. Now, why am I telling you that? I'm telling you that because a Finnish airline, Finnair, has announced it's going to start weighing passengers

to get a more accurate reflection. They're actually going to have a weigh scale at the check-in counter, and you have to stand there and get weighed when you check in. Now, I'm not sure how well that's going to go over with a lot of people can you imagine standing in the in the line there's a there's a story in the daily mail about it includes a picture of some guy at a at the way encounter and you don't just weigh yourself. You weigh yourself plus all your carry-on baggage. So you've got to carry all that to the little weigh scale at the counter.

Now, I don't know. I would be surprised if one of you writing in with your one thing you'd do to change the way the airlines operate, answer would be, I think they should start weighing individual passengers and all their carry-on luggage before they let them on the plane. But you never know. Perhaps one of you will write that. Get your cards and letters in.

I'm looking forward to reading them this week. Remember, it's the question of the week. Plus, if there's something you want to say about any particular issue, here's your opportunity. And we'll afford time within the Thursday program, along with the Random Ranter, for some of those answers too,

some of those comments as well. That's it for this day. It's Monday. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Great to have you with us.. Don't forget that feature interview with Marcy Ian about Black History Month. I think you'll enjoy that as well. Thanks for listening today. We'll talk to you again in 24 hours. Thank you.