The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - SMT -- Do Endorsements or Interviews Matter?

Episode Date: January 28, 2025

Plus an excerpt from my onstage interview at the Montreal Holocaust Museum with Auschwitz survivor, George Reinitz.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Tuesday. It's Smoke, Mirrors and the Truth with Bruce Anderson and Fred DeLore. And hello there. A little SMT for you today. Bruce Anderson, Fred DeLy in the house for Smoke, Mirrors and the Truth. We've got a number of topics today, gentlemen. I want to start with the issue of endorsements, because, you know, they always play a role in different campaigns. They're playing a role in this leadership campaign. And the question is, how important are they? Do they really actually make a difference? Fred, why don't you start us this week on endorsements?

Sure. Well, look, I would say endorsements are a classic double-edged sword in politics. They bring risk and reward. And in my experience, the risk sometimes outweighs the reward. You know, I've managed three leadership races in four years and the vast majority of MP endorsements. Deliberate little, very little in terms of actual tangible results. Local writings rarely actually bend on who an MP or MPP or MLAs endorse. And they also bring baggage of sorts at times when, you know, when I've run campaigns twice, I've had the most endorsements for my candidates. And I can tell you the campaign

I ran when I didn't have, it was the most liberating. You could focus on your actual plan and policies and not have so many backstreet drivers out there telling you what you should be doing every day. So that's one of the problems with endorsements. So for every great one, there's some that brings distractions and lots of demands. One of the interesting ones, Ontario, 2018 leadership race, I managed Christine Elliott's and we had the most endorsements. Doug Ford had almost no endorsements at all. And it worked very well for his narrative because he was able to push that the party needed fundamental change.

And that was part of the problem. That's why we were losing to the Liberals so often. So it fit his narrative well that he didn't have the caucus support. And then the members overwhelmingly chose him as leader. So and he's obviously had great success since then. Contrasting one of the, you know, some big endorsements that mattered. I remember in Aaron O'Toole's 2020 campaign, you know, I was very clear during that one that anyone who wanted to support Aaron, you had to endorse him and push his narrative.

It wasn't about what the endorser liked about Aaron. It was about our story that we were pushing and what he stood for. And Jason Kenney was a huge endorsement on that front, a huge boost. You know, he was seen as a true blue conservative and that led a lot of credibility. So it certainly helped a lot. But on the other side of it, of endorsements that don't work, like looking at the Mark Carney leadership campaign, you know, he's trying to position himself as an outsider, a builder who's here to change things. But then you see him in all these videos with Trudeau's cabinet ministers, the very people many Canadians blame for the country's problems. And

to me, that's a big problem with your narrative. If your story about building something new, you don't hang out with the folks who tore things down. So again, you know, for me, that's a big problem with your narrative. If your story about building something new, you don't hang out with the folks who tore things down. So again, you know, for me, it's a simple lesson. If you have endorsements, you got to use them strategically and you got to make sure that they advance your narrative and don't, in this case, I think, hurt it. All right. Well, let's see how Bruce responds to that one. Yeah. You know, look, I love Fred and I love his analysis always. And I agreed with about 42, 43 percent of what he said there. And certainly I don't challenge anything that he said about how the Conservative Party works. It's clear he's got all the battle scars and he's won some wins and he's had some other outcomes. So I'm always interested in them. But I don't know that the Liberal Party is the same as the Conservative Party as it relates to endorsements, at least in particular in the current context. I mean, yes, Mark Carney has a lot of endorsements from a caucus. If endorsements

were really that bad for him, I guess the question in my mind would be, would Chrystia Freeland rather not have those endorsements? Would she be better off? Is she better off because she doesn't have those endorsements? It doesn't feel like that to me. And part of the reason I think is that the culture of the Liberal Party and its place in the political firmament right now is quite different from the Conservative Party and where it's at right now. And what do I mean by that? The Liberal Party culturally has been historically built as a coalition of people who wanted to win, who wanted to form government, who cared about forming government, whose values were fairly predictable, fairly reliably center, center left and a little bit center right, depending on the issues.

Whereas I think the conservative party makeup has been a little bit more influenced by some people who really want a very conservative government and some people who just don't want too liberal a government. I don't think the Liberal Party has the same degree of animated base that would make me think, OK, it doesn't really matter where the local MP is. I think the local MP's point of view does matter. And I think it matters maybe in particular in a situation where the party is so far behind in the polls, staring an election in the face, where a lot of MPs might lose their seats, where the Liberal Party might be reduced to third or fourth place, a really desperate situation that the party has been feeling for a period of time. And they're looking, I think, party members for what is it that might take us away from that kind of scenario. And I think in that sense, they're looking for signals from people who are, you know, front and center talking with the candidates who know Chrystia

Freeland, who know Karina Gould, and who've come to know Mark Carney a little bit. So I think in that race, those endorsements do matter. But there's one other thing that I wanted to mention, which is Elon Musk has been endorsing candidates around the world now. He talks about Nigel Farage in the UK. He's endorsed this Alternative for Germany party, far-right party in Germany. And he's endorsed Pierre Polyev in Canada. And I think that's an endorsement that matters, but I don't think it's a good endorsement for Pierre Polyev. I think it's got a potential negative effect for him.

And I think that's probably true if Donald Trump were to even more overtly endorse Pierre Polyev as well. You want to respond to that? Before you do, I should remind everybody here, because I didn't mention at the top of the program, but for those few who probably don't realize this already, Bruce is advising Mark Carney in the Liberal leadership race, and Fred... Is not. That's right. Fred is not.

He's trying to, but... Fred ran the Erinald Toole campaign, as he suggested there just a few moments ago, and he's likely to be involved in the Doug Ford campaign in Ontario. Is that correct, Fred? That's right. Okay. So to respond to the Elon Musk question is a good question.

It is. I mean, are there endorsements you don't want, whether it's Elon Musk or anybody else? What do you do when you're endorsed by somebody or something that you don't want to be endorsed by? Well, I think, well, Pierre Palliet was asked that very question about the endorsement or whatever it was that Musk said. And I thought he handled it very well when he said, this is an entrepreneur who has lots of jobs. And if he wants to bring jobs to Canada for Tesla, with the electric cars or SpaceX or anything like that, you should be welcome to do that. So I thought it was good how he pivoted

right back to his core message about bringing jobs in the economy instead of dwelling on any of the baggage that Musk would take or even saying whether he accepts it or not. Who's it more important to, the endorser or the endorsed, when you have an endorsement? Because clearly some of these who endorse are in it for themselves as well and positioning themselves. Yeah, and that's why a lot of them go with who they think the frontrunner is, right? They're auditioning for cabinet. Usually your closest allies are the ones who are the first out of the gate supporting you. Get those coveted spots or at least have something to ask ask for where if you're not on the right side sometimes you kind

of should give it a cold shoulder Bruce on that uh yeah I mean just the way that we're talking about it there and maybe it's the way that you put the question from a journalist's perspective, which I kind of respect and understand. But the implication is that there's something kind of inherently sleazy or wrong about people, you know, working in a party, trying to understand how they can add more influence. Not necessarily because they just want to be more influential. Sometimes it's because they have things that they're passionate about that they want to see implemented. In fact, in my experience, I would say mostly people are trying to do that. in their party and making choices about who to endorse based on who they think will win and how they can work with that person. I see that as being, you know, part of the good chemistry of politics, not something that's kind of nefarious or a little bit skeezy.

Yeah, I wasn't. See, I was just talking about the Liberal Party, so that's why I took that angle. Yeah. I, of course, was not trying to suggest anything on the part of anyone. And I'm sorry about that. There was a little interruption here while you were speaking, Bruce. You might have heard the knock at the door. I'm in a hotel room in Montreal.

I saw a wave and I didn't know. Yeah, I was trying to wave off the fellow who'd brought into the room chocolates. Lucky you. I'm at a hotel. I'm not getting that kind of service. Okay, let's shift it from endorsements. I've got to be really careful how I ask this because I don't want to be suggesting anything sleazy here.

But here's the second one. It's interviews. We'll let you know. Yeah, I know you will. It's interviews and whether or not you want to do them or not do them. And I think we've seen, and it's not just this leadership campaign, we've seen it in election campaigns. We saw it in the Trump-Harris campaign where one side was doing interviews,

the other side wasn't. Then one side was not doing the normal kind of interviews you associate with a political campaign, but doing podcasts, and very successfully so. So we're starting to see a little bit of this right now in terms of the Liberal leadership campaign, who's doing interviews, who isn't doing, or who isn't being asked to do interviews. You know, the coolest thing, the coolest thing that we're seeing now, Peter, I don't mean to interrupt you, but let me interrupt you. You do.

The coolest thing is how many prominent conservatives are now so passionate about media interviews in the case of Mark Carney. And I just don't remember them being that keen on media interviews before. And so something's changed. I'm not sure what it is, but maybe Fred can shed some light on it. But it's really welcome because we do need a very healthy media and we need leaders who respect journalists, who don't act disrespectfully towards them, who kind of welcome their questions, who embrace the role of a free press. And so it's so good that these conservatives

have been really voluble about that lately. So, I mean, more people like you who embrace the questions journalists ask. Don't accuse them of being sleazy or anything like that. It's just sometimes the question is a little bit out there. Anyway, let's focus on this issue of questions. Not necessarily in this particular campaign, but the question of interviews and the impact they can

or cannot have in a campaign, Fred. Look, I think they're important if they continue to tell your story. If you have your narrative and you're pushing it and there's different ways to reach different people. I thought Polyev had two really good examples recently. He did the Peterson podcast, which or the interview, I don't know if it was a podcast, but it reached a lot of Canadians who are a type of voter that probably don't vote often and that are feeling angry and are looking for a champion. They feel they're left behind. So I think that sort of interview worked well, and I thought he did well on CTV Atlantic. He had an interview a few days ago where he really got into the weeds on some of the Trump and tariff stuff that we hadn't heard before.

So I thought that was good. I thought Mark Carney going on The Daily Show was interesting. I thought that was a, you know, it's a US show, but a lot of Canadians obviously watched it. I thought he looked warm and smart and kind of introduced himself to a lot of people who don't know him. Not sure what his story was there. I'm not sure if he had his narrative or why he was. Obviously, he hadn't launched his campaign yet, so he wasn't quite there. But it goes the other way. There's so many risks. We saw Christy Clark destroyed herself on CBC's The House a few weeks ago, and she went out and said she was never a Conservative Party member.

Christy Freeland was on The House this past weekend, and she's the agent of change now, saying that Ottawa needs change, and she's that candidate, which is just mind-bogglingly crazy um so there's different things like that that you know when interviews they can help you hurt you you gotta know who your audiences are and who you're going after um and it's got to support your narrative and another example ctv's question period had uh minister champagne who was a long time Trudeau cabinet minister, senior minister, going on there talking about Carney and how he's changed as well. And to me, that is a damaging interview when you have someone who really is incredible to talk about change and how they

need to bring change when he's been a part of the problem the whole time, or at least that's the perspective Canadians have. It doesn't help your cause. And it takes the Carney campaign away from what the message and narrative should be. I think they have an interesting one there. It's time to build is what he's saying. And he wants to be the outsider. He's got to act like it and not have people like that going up talking on his behalf. I don't know about that. I mean, I think that there probably are two ministers in the Trudeau cabinet, Chrystia Freeland and Melanie Jolie, that were somewhat known by Canadians, but most of the others were not that well known. So I don't see them as being people who,

when they're exposed to the public in interviews like that, the immediate reaction is, oh, no, that's the kind of person who's been making my life painful for 10 years or some part thereof. But setting that aside, I do think that the kind of interview is an important thing. Peter, and this is not to butter you up, but you're going to feel like you're being buttered. The long form interviews that you always did with candidates during an election, those were always really good. Why? Because you wanted to explore for things that

people maybe hadn't heard before. You wanted to ask questions that were kind of on point, but not aggressive. You wanted to create a conversation that the audience could kind of listen to and react to. And I think that the more that journalism approaches politics, and by journalism, I mean kind of small, Jake, it can be podcasters, it can be YouTube vloggers. Formal journalists typically do, again, I don't want to sound too critical of them, but they can kind of come at it with, I need to make some combustion happen. I need to cause some embarrassment. I need to poke holes. I need to interrupt and challenge. And I understand why politicians look at that and say, is the upside of doing this interview really worth it if that's going to be the framework? And, you know, yeah, you want to be known, you want your narrative out there, but if you're not going to get a chance to get your narrative out there,

it's easier to decide to look for other platforms where you might have a better chance of doing it. And Fred mentioned a couple of examples where for Pierre Poliev, they did work. Well, I guess that's what I'm getting at is because the conventional interview, and thanks for the nice things you said about my past interviews, and I had some good ones, I had some bad ones, they cut both ways.

But the question is more about those conventional interviews of the past. Have they now been outrun by what we're more used to today, whether it's podcasts or something similar to that? And not necessarily, you know, on the mainstream legacy media, but I mean, we watched Joe Rogan, who was already, you know, a name in the podcast world, but suddenly become a name in the political world in a big way, in big numbers. I had more people listen to that interview and watched it on its YouTube version than all the other ones put together. So are we heading in a new direction for politicians when they're looking at how their campaign is going to unfold,

not just where they travel, who they see, what kind of rallies they have, but where they make themselves accessible to some form of media. Fred? Yeah, media has evolved drastically. Twitter, Facebook were kind of the first. Now we have all these other like YouTube's exploding bigger in the podcast world. Media has grown. It's not like, you know, for when I was? People aren't watching CTV and CBC News at night like they were when you were hosting, Peter. got to find new ways to reach them. And there's different types of people who just never were tuned into that sort of news. But people do want to be informed in certain ways. And there's different people like Rogan that interest them. So they listen to it. And it just brings credibility to your campaign when you can go on those and handle yourself well, knowing that some of them have different views and are not always the easiest interviewee or interviewer. Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. I think that the competition for attention, and Peter, you brought this up, you know,

I think you listened to an interesting, maybe it was an Ezra Klein broadcast or podcast when we last talked. This competition for attention is so intense right now that everybody who's doing kind of traditional media interviews and traditional media platforms understands that the average consumer has a million different other things that they can do with their time. Everything's coming at them on their phone, on their watch, on all of the devices. And the amount of time that they're willing to give to anything is so fractured now that for the politician, the real choice is you need to join people who are having the conversation they want to have if you want to be part of their lives, if you want to be part of their thought process. You can't expect them to come and join the conversation that you want to have, except maybe for a few days. And I mean, just a few days in the course of a 37 day election campaign. Otherwise, you got to join their conversation. And that means going to the

platforms that they're using and talking about the things that they're talking about. And on the whole interviewer thing, I think people still crave the interaction of a good interview. I listened to one this morning on The Daily, the New York Times podcast. And it was a person who was the host of The Daily interviewing a journalist, Jonathan Karl, about Stephen Miller, a prominent figure in the Trump White House. I found it a fascinating interview, but it was an interview in the context of a platform that didn't exist before, a podcast host interviewing a journalist about a political stakeholder. And for me, that's kind of typical of the way that even people who are interested in politics will consume information about politics these days. Okay, a quick last one on this point. Can you foresee the day where

a successful politician gains a win without having to do any interviews? Either one of you. Well, yeah, I think, look, I think it's one thing it does is it gives you credibility when you have a good interviewer do the interview. And it certainly launches you. But if you are able to reach enough people with your own media, your own creation, your own products, you can certainly do that. Now, at what level? Like, can you become prime minister of Canada? I think there'll be

during a 36-day campaigns, there will be questions and a narrative developing that you're running for media. That can take off on you and damage you. So at what level are we talking about running? But you can certainly see it going that way. It was, you know, I think historically, and I grew up, you know, I'm older than Fred. And so there was still CBC and CTV and there was two newspapers, but there really wasn't much else. And in that time frame, the journalist was in effect the intermediary between the public and the politician. And I don't think that journalists necessarily have that role anymore or to the same degree. So an intermediary can be Hassan Piker, who does this podcast that reaches enormous numbers of

young people in particular, progressive voters in particular. And the impact that those kind of intermediaries have is much greater, I think, than traditional media have been able to kind of map. And part of the reason is that the ability to use it when you want to use it is very flexible. And they also get that intermediary sometimes playing the endorser role, to go back to our earlier discussion about endorsers. So if the person who's kind of doing an interview and commenting and has millions of people who have kind of similar values, that endorsement can be really quite powerful. It's different because it's not a politician and it's not a, obviously it's not a journalist, but it's somebody who's quite influential. All right. I'll take a quick, quick break back for a final word on the Doug Ford campaign. Coming back right after this. And welcome back. Final couple of minutes for Smoke Mirrors and the Truth this week with Fred Delorey and Bruce Anderson. Doug Ford, can I call an election campaign for the end of February in Ontario?

Does that have any impact on a liberal leadership race? Can it have? Bruce, you start. I don't know if it. I think it's too early to know what impact it will have. I'm curious. I mean, I've always thought that Doug Ford was going to win another resounding majority. And then every once in a while, I think, you know, there have been examples of people who called elections sooner than they needed to in the belief that they would be able

to secure another mandate because they were riding a wave of popularity or perceived need. And, you know, there are times when that goes wrong. There have been times when it went wrong. It didn't work very well for Justin Trudeau. So I don't know how it's going to turn out. I do think Doug Ford has been very effective at saying, I'm about the economy. I'm laser focused on the Trump trade thing. I think his messages have been solid, much more so than Daniel Smith. I think his tone has been right. And I think he's effectively saying to people, I'm kind of like you, I get you, but I'm a strong-willed politician who can lead the province as well. So I don't know how it affects the federal political thing.

I think it's too early to tell. Fred? Yeah, I think it's – it'd be interesting to see how the liberal candidates react and what they say if they're trying to think he's an opponent of some sort. He's been he has stepped into a major void that's been left by the absence of the federal government in the whole Trump scenario. And I think, you know, he has rightfully earned the title Captain Canada right now. So I don't know how the liberals will be able to contrast that or if they would to, or just stay as far away from that as they possibly could. Well, you certainly got the cap for it. All right, gentlemen. Good SMT for this week.

Good to have you with us. Good to have you on YouTube with this SMT broadcast, as well as obviously on SiriusXM and on our audio broadcast. Thanks very much. Talk to you again next week. Good to talk to you guys. Talk to you next time. Always fun.

And welcome back. Segment two of The Bridge for this day. The first segment, as it will be throughout the liberal leadership race and possibly into the election campaign, depending on where that is, is Smoke Mirrors No Truth. Bruce Anderson and Fred Delorey.

As you just heard. You can also watch it on our YouTube channel. So it's available for you to screen there as well and will be each Tuesday. Just the first segment of The Bridge on Tuesdays, Smoke, Mirrors and the Truth, about a half an hour.

Okay, segment two is, well, it's special. I like to think all our programming is special. This one is particularly special. Last night was the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Russian troops in January of 1945. That liberation obviously came too late for hundreds of thousands of Jews especially, were liquidated, eliminated, killed, murdered at Auschwitz. But among those who survived, there was a fellow by the name of George Runitz. George was only 13 at the time

the Russians arrived in the camp. Sorry, 12, when the Russians arrived in the camp. And he'd seen horrors unimaginable to his family, to his friends, and to people he never knew. Last night at the Holocaust Museum in Montreal, they invited me to come and talk to George on stage in front of an audience. The room was packed.

Packed. I'm not sure what the actual numbers were, 600, 700, but I don't think you could have got another chair in there. And George was, well, you know, he's got a remarkable life story to tell, obviously, that element, but more when he came to Canada in the late 1940s. He took up a number of things, including wrestling,

and represented Canada on the world stage in wrestling. He became an extremely successful furniture salesman in Montreal. And now at 92, he reflects on a life that has had, to say the least, challenges. And he has an incredible family around him who look after him, who care for him, who encouraged him to write a book,

Wrestling with Life, from Hungary to Auschwitz. Hungary is where George was born, to Auschwitz to Montreal. And it's been out for a while. It's been out for a couple of years. If you get a chance to read it, you will find it extraordinary, and his story extraordinary.

Anyway, last night I had the chance to talk to him on stage, and we talked for, I don't know, about 45 minutes. Hard topic to talk about, obviously. And I'm going to run a segment, just a short segment, from that discussion we had last night in front of the live audience. Run about, I don't know, six or seven minutes. Just to give you a sense of his story. So, why don't we get going with that?

Enough talk. George Reinitz, on stage last night at the Holocaust Museum here in Montreal. Here we go. It was May 1944 when you arrived at Auschwitz. Yes. In the train going to Auschwitz, what do you remember from those moments? Well, we were packed into a railway car.

Seventy people were assigned to one railway car, and it really had to be squeezed in. There were two soldiers who had a long pole, and they were just pushing the people into the car like we were animals. And we ended up, when they closed the door, and we didn't know where we were going.

And two days later, the lights were on in Auschwitz. We didn't know where we are. That's what I remember. We had to get off the train, leave all our baggages on the train and had to separate very quickly. They were pushing and there was also dogs who were, if you don't move fast enough, they bite your ankles. You're with your father, your mother and your sister when you get off the train. Yes.

And almost immediately, they're separating families. Yes. Now, in that moment, as that was happening, did you realize, did your family understand what was happening, what Auschwitz was going to be all about? No, not really. We just follow orders and, you know, everything happened so quickly. I, as a 12-year-old, I didn't realize what was going on. I followed my father. All the procedures from the train went very fast, very fast. And it was no time to think or no time to think of where we're going or where we are.

Did you ever see your mother and your sister again? No. No. That was the last time we said goodbye to each other. My mother and my sister were gone, taken away. And according to some of my relatives who survived, they told me that my mother was hanging on to my sister. They wouldn't let her go.

And when you do that, usually they get the two of them into the gas chamber. How did you and your father handle that moment? You're suddenly separated. You don't quite understand why, but you're separated from your mother and your sister. Turns out you never see them again. What did you say to each other? I don't think there was many

dialogue. It was always, what's next? Survivor. You start thinking of food again. You don't think of your mother, your sister. When you're hungry, you're not normal.

You can't, a human being, you can't believe how people behave when you're hungry. A10440. Yeah. 10,440. Right. What's that? Well, that was a number that after their selection, when they go through a door and an officer decides in your life that you're going to stay alive or not,

he points left and right and left and then you end up, and it happened to end up on the right side. You have to get undressed and put on a striped uniform. After that, we said, now this is your number, and go over to another table, and this number will be tattooed on your arm. And that was the situation that we, my father was next to me. His number was 10,441. And they used a dirty needle? Yeah, my arm all fell off. It was all infected.

And after a while, I met some other inmates, I told them that my arm was hurting me so much. What should I do? What should I do? So he told me, he says, don't complain. Because if your arm wouldn't hurt, then you wouldn't be here. What happened to that tattoo? Well, I have a tattoo over it, and what it really it's Canada. And I've been in Canada since 1948, and I love the country.

I love it. It was very good to me. I love the country. It's been very good to me. George Runnitz. Just part of his story. You can imagine how emotional that evening was last night. For many people, there were a number of other survivors in the room

from Auschwitz. The numbers, obviously, are getting smaller. George is 92. Great health. He's a golfer. He was kidding me about golfing because he's a good golfer at 92. He had just come back from down south where he'd been golfing. Anyway, I wanted to run a part of that interview for one reason mainly, and we talked about this last night with George.

And that is we have to keep telling that story about what happened. Because we're living in a world where a lot of people challenge it, say it never happened. It happened. Because we're living in a world where a lot of people challenge it, say it never happened. It happened. And a lot of people know nothing about it. There was a survey just last week of a number of European countries, and it was astonishing the figures. In some countries approaching 50% who'd never heard of the Holocaust. Not just not understanding what happened. They'd never heard of it. So this story needs to be told.

We need to be reminded. And when we have people like George around, allowing him to tell that story is an important part of understanding history. So, as I said, that was a really special evening, and I was honored to have a small role in the evening. And I thank all of those at the Holocaust Museum in Montreal, here in Montreal, for asking me to come. I definitely enjoyed it. Well, enjoy just seems like the wrong

word, but I learned. You know, that's what so much of this is all about. Alright, that's going to wrap it up for this day. Let me give you a couple of hints. Tomorrow is our Encore Wednesday. And I've had many requests already from people who heard it yesterday, listened to Janice Stein

on the Monday episode of The Bridge, wanting to hear it again. So we will make sure that happens as our encore edition for tomorrow. Thursday, it's your turn. The question of the week,

has the way you get news changed? And there's already been a lot of veil to the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. Remember, keep it short. Include your name and the location you're writing from. If you don't follow those basic rules,

it's unlikely that you'll make it onto the air. So those are the basic rules for your turn for this week. Has the way you get news changed as a result of all the changes in the news business over these last number of years? So let us know, not only how has it changed, but why has it changed? All right? That's really important. It's all nice to get a list of, I listened to this,

this or that, or read this, but why, why have you made the changes you've made? Okay. So that's, that's Thursday's show. And then Friday, of course, there's Good Talk with Sean Talley Bear and Rob Russo. I'm looking forward to all of those programs through the rest of this week. Finally, the name of that book once again. And it's, I believe it's from the McGill University Press. But the name of the book is Wrestling with Life, from Hungary to Auschwitz to Montreal.

The story of George Reinitz. Honored to meet him last night. All right, that's going to wrap it up for this day. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. And we'll talk to you again in almost 24 hours.