The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - The Weekend Special #44 -- True Confessions

Episode Date: January 15, 2021

Your questions and comments -- and some interesting and revealing answers, especially the last one!

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here with the latest episode of the Bridge Daily. It is Friday, that means it's the weekend special. It's the Ides of January. January 15th, says my little calendar here on the desk of my studio here in Stratford, Ontario. The Ides of January. Man, 10 months since we started. The end of 44 weeks of our special coverage of, well, you know, started off, as you know, about COVID, but it's branched out. It's about a whole bunch of different things, with obviously a particular eye on what we've witnessed south of the border over these last few months, and especially now as we get

ready for next Wednesday's inauguration of Joe Biden as the 46th President of the United States and the departure, one assumes, of 45, Donald Trump. You know, I, as I've told you before, I flip around in the mornings on various different programs, everything from Canadian Pickers to the various morning shows. And as I was flipping through the morning shows this morning, I saw somebody pop up who I like to listen to. I've always found him interesting. His name's Donnie Deutsch. It was on the Morning Joe program on MSNBC.

And Donnie is no spring chicken. He's been around the track a few times, and he knows his stuff. He's kind of a marketing and advertising guy. And there are days where he reminds you of the Mad Men TV show. And there are days when you look at him, you go, man, this guy knows his stuff. And he understands politics, and he understands Trump, and that's not surprising because he has spent a good amount of time in the last 20, 30 years with Donald Trump. They're certainly not friends anymore,

and they haven't been for a few years, but he knows Trump, and his insight into Trump has always been helpful and useful at least to me well this morning he said something that I've been thinking as well so obviously it must have been a really smart no he was kind of winding up on this discussion about fascism, and especially in today's world, in today's world in the United States. And so there was a lot of talk about Hitler and Mussolini.

And he stopped himself dead in his tracks. He looked into the camera and he said, you know, there was a time, and it wasn't that long ago, where you couldn't say Hitler or Mussolini and compare it to anything in today's world. That was unacceptable. You couldn't use Hitler, Mussolini, Nazis, any of those words in the same sentence or in the same thought as something current. That nothing compared to Nazis and Hitler and the horrors of the 1920s, 30s, 40s. Now, I sat up when I heard him say that because I've been thinking the exact same thing in the last little while. You hear those words thrown about now. There are no guardrails anymore. You hear those words tossed around in describing what we're witnessing in the U.S.

and comparisons between the Trump administration and Trump in particular to fascist leaders of the past. And, you know, I got to tell you, I remember in the summer of 2016, I was reading one of the relatively new, and they come out every couple of years, and they're always written by brilliant historians who are trying to understand what the hell happened in the 20s and 30s that produced Adolf Hitler and Mussolini to a lesser degree and to fascism overall.

And I can remember in 2016 reading the latest book on Hitler by a British historian. I've forgotten his name off the top of my head. I think it's Kershaw. And as I read that, I kept saying to myself, my gosh, because there was talk about how he'd come to power in the 1920s, you know, the Munich Putsch in 1923, the Reichstag fire in the early 30s, the campaign while he was in jail after the Munich Putsch, that kind of defined the world he wanted,

the whole sense of Germany first, all these things. And I kept reading these and saying, geez, this is like a playbook that Trump and Bannon are using right now, 2016, in the campaign against Hillary Clinton. But whenever I'd raise that with anybody, the similarities, people would say, no, no, no, no, you can't. Nothing compares.

You can't ever use that. And so I didn't. But now it's interesting, right? Four years later, at least this morning on MSNBC, that was acceptable. But that's not alone. You hear it on a lot of different programs now. And read it in different columns. The similarities. the comparisons,

especially after last week's treasonous riot in the U.S. Capitol. And the more you hear about some of the people who were involved and are being charged and investigated, the more you see some of those similarities. Anyway, I wanted to mention that. Before we get started with some of your thoughts and letters and questions. There were quite a few this week, and they were very varied.

So I've actually cut it down to only three or four that I think give us the opportunity to discuss a number of things that are playing out in our world right now. First one comes from Connor Nix in Regina. He writes, I'm a new listener and we're always, we love to hear from new listeners and we love to hear from new writers who are sending in letters. So that's great to hear from you.

Connor, hope things are good in Regina. My old hometown. I mean, I only lived there for a year, but I had a great time in Regina. Here's what Conner writes. The provinces need Ottawa to supply the COVID-19 vaccines, and Ottawa needs the provinces to administer the COVID-19 vaccines. How political does this become with a federal liberal party potentially seeking re-election in the coming year with so many conservative premiers? Who takes responsibility for its success or failure?

And does it become the ballot box question? Well, there are really two questions there, Connor. I would like to think, and I do believe, that the distribution of the vaccine is not going to be political. That in spite of differences that some of the provinces and the feds have, that on this issue, they just want to get vaccines to people to protect them. And there may be disagreements on the way they do that, but they're not partisan differences, I don't believe. And taking responsibility for success or failure will come from the people. They'll make that determination. Let's hope, let's hope that at the end of all this,

they're both being given words of encouragement about success. That's our hope. We all hope. There are struggles out of the gate on the vaccine distribution. Some of that could have been expected, but that better end soon. Your second question, though, I think has more potential. Does vaccine distribution become the ballot box question? Well, it may well do. It certainly will do if the vaccine distribution is a disaster

in the way it unfolds. Then it's going to be a ballot box question no matter who's involved in the election. Whether it's a federal election, there are some provincial elections that are due in the next year or so, there are municipal elections happening everywhere, and the municipalities have a role to play in all this too. So vaccine distribution could well become a ballot box question. Thanks, Connor. Now, Alan Taylor writes. He's a new listener as well. Relatively new. Likes the podcast.

And he listens as he does his daily walk. And I guess Alan figuring that, you know, he hadn't listened for the first months of the podcast. He gets a chance to ask a whole bunch of questions. Well, he asked three and they're all good. So I'm actually going to answer all of them, which is rare that I do that. I usually just pick one out of people's lists, but here's, here's the three things he has to share. Number one, he headlines it making news.

Today's episode touched on the newsroom, both the throwback to the 80s with you and David Bowie, as well as the real-time decisions newsrooms make every day. In case it's something you've not been referred to, let me highly recommend The Newsroom on HBO. I'm now on my third time watching the series, all three seasons, and am once again struck by how relevant the storylines are to where we are today in the USA, not to mention getting a fairly realistic view into the world of reporting the news. The season one pilot will astonish you in terms of relevance to what has been going on in U.S. politics. Well, I would echo Alan's recommendation. The newsroom on HBO, that particular series, Aaron Sorkin, producer, is a really well done series. And of all the different things I've seen on people trying to paint a picture of what it's like in a major newsroom, it comes the closest to the ones I've seen.

And there have been a lot. You know, the old Mary Tyler Moore show was fun, and we knew what it was. It was a local station in Minneapolis, and Mary Tyler Moore and Lou Grant and Ted Baxter and all that, and it was fun. You know, occasionally they would kind of touch a little bit on journalism, but for the most part it was a comedy, and it was a great comedy,

and it still stands up today. But there are other programs, some even called the newsroom, that I was not a fan of because I thought they made light of what happens in a real newsroom, and they took some of the stereotypes that had been developed over years by comedy writers and satirical writers about how things operate in the news. But at a network level,

when you've worked at a network level in a real network, in a real newsroom, you watch that stuff and you go, come on. You know, the whole sort of if it bleeds, it leads. Criticism of television news. You know, it just, for a major network,

watching these, it's, you know, you sort of resort to the fact, okay, so they're having fun. It's, you know, it is what it is. It's not a documentary. I can remember once a producer sending me a number of the draft initial scripts of a series that they wanted to do on Life in a Newsroom. And I got it and I agreed to read through it and

give my comments. And so I did. I read through it and give my comments, and so I did. I read through it, and then I contacted, I can't remember whether I contacted them in writing or in person, but whatever, I contacted them, and I said, this is great. You know, this is really good and very enjoyable to watch. And he said, well, what do you mean enjoyable? I said, well, you know, nobody's going to take it seriously. It's kind of funny.

It's well done. There's some great lines in it, and there are moments of real humor. And he said, humor? This isn't humor. This is what it's really like. And I said, well, he's sorry. This is not what it's really like. I know.

It is my life. You know, there are moments that you capture, and then there are a lot of moments that you don't. Maybe you were thinking of doing sort of a Mary Tyler Moorish type local show. This is closer to that. Anyway, we agreed to disagree. It eventually became a television series and it did very well. It was a hit.

But it still didn't convince me that it was a hit that was resembling anything that serious journalists were involved in. But nevertheless, to Alan's point, the newsroom, you know, if you haven't seen it and you're looking for something new to binge on, it's really good. It's very good. Point number two from Alan, divorce rates. Oh, he's wound up here. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Someone famous I don't remember once said,

I'm in the middle of a divorce settlement that has taken a few years to resolve, Alan writes, but the primary bottleneck at the moment is getting a judge to hear the case. In Ontario, and this might be true in other jurisdictions, but the primary bottleneck at the moment is getting a judge to hear the case. In Ontario, and this might be true in other jurisdictions, divorces are not being granted at the moment. Something else that might be germane is the number of couples who have separated is apparently extremely high. My family lawyer says she has never seen anything like it. My point is that the stats on divorces being granted may not, in fact,

reflect the relationship unrest that actually exists. Now, this is in reaction to a story I did the other day. It might have been yesterday. It might have been Thursday. Talking about the statistics in the U.S., not in Canada, in the U.S., that showed marriages down. We understand that because so many weddings have not been allowed to happen because of gatherings. And divorces down considerably.

And questions being asked about, well, I wonder why that is. And a variety of different answers being given. And none of those answers included the suggestions that Alan's making that the problems he's having getting his divorce. And your last line, Alan, my point is that stats on divorces being granted may not in fact reflect the relationship unrest that actually exists. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. You don't know, you don't offer any proof.

All I was quoting from is stats that actually do exist that are based on real numbers, but still with some lack of understanding as to why they are what they are, plus different country. So I don't think we're in agreement on that one. Third, monetizing your work. Now, a number of people have written over the last month about this, and Alan captures what some of them have suggested, so let me write. Let me read what he writes, because this is all about the bridge,

which is going to be, well, it's not really going to be changing in what you listen to from me, but the way it comes on the air is going to be a little different. It's called Monetizing Your Work. I could write at length on this. Very tricky subject. Content is everywhere. Listeners who have found you and

stayed have done so for a collection of reasons. You raised two of them during your January 4th episode, Truth and Trust. You have a level of credibility that is pretty unmatched. People believe you or they believe you are being truthful. You admit your mistakes when you make them. You declare your biases when giving opinions you're open about knowledge gaps when they exist well i think you absolutely deserve to earn a return to the for the investment you have made in building the bridge my concern is that you don't lose the audience you've attracted who have grown to expect and become used to an environment where there is no hint of sponsorships or selling products anywhere

that might have you in any way compromise our trust or the truth my two cents okay i appreciate that alan and i appreciate there are some who feel the same way you do i've also noted that i've received you know reaction from more than a few people who suggest, listen, you've been doing this for a little over a year. You've spent a lot of time, energy, and money arranging this. And it's become quite popular. In fact, very popular for a podcast. And the fact that there were a number of different major organizations,

credible, real organizations that you trust, who want to associate themselves with the bridge, I take as a major compliment. And if it can make the bridge better, I'm not looking for a rate of return on my investment, but I certainly am looking for ways of covering some of the costs and the increased costs as we move along to make the bridge better. And so that's the whole idea behind this.

There will be sponsorship, but I'm not going to be involved in like, if you're wondering, is Peter going to be involved in like, if you're, if you're wondering, is Peter going to be there, you know, reading commercials? No, that's not going to happen. And I will retain control a hundred percent of the content, the editorial direction of the bridge. So that's what's important to me. And I'm really looking forward to a new era in the bridge. But for you, it should sound pretty much the same. There will be sponsorship, but it'll be kind of,

it won't, as I said, it's not going to be me reading it and I'm going to be very careful about the sponsorship issue. So you can be assured of that. But I will also appreciate the sponsorship because this is the way I can make this program better. Now, let me add to that. I'm hoping that maybe next week we'll be able to make this announcement and get underway under the new arrangement probably sometime the next month or so. So that's where we are on Alan Taylor's letter. And thank you, Alan.

Lots of good issues there. Okay. Here we go with a couple of other Interesting things This letter comes from Chris Newman I work for an American software company In sales But prior to beginning with my current company

I lived in Hong Kong Since moving back to North America I've always kept an eye on the local news in Hong Kong, mainland China, and Asia beyond. After listening to one of your recent podcasts on the poor chap whose experience going through Incheon International Airport in South Korea, back and forth between South Korea and the UK, I thought I would share this article from the South China Morning Post and the writer's experience of flying from continental Europe into mainland China. This is a great article. I'm not going to read it all. As Chris says, you can go to the South China Morning Post that comes out of Hong Kong and look up for, you know, my trip through China's extreme COVID-19 quarantine is the article. It's quite lengthy. But there's a couple of things in it that I found, you know, really interesting.

And I'll tell you why. Well, first of all, Chris wrote this because of the piece I did, as he mentioned, about the fellow who was flying into Korea and the horror show. Well, horror show is not the right word. But the determined effort on the part of the airline that was flying him to Korea to ensure that they did not have a COVID-19 problem. And all the tests that were done before he got on the plane, when he was on the plane, when he got off the plane, and the days in quarantine where he was kept in a hotel, wasn't allowed to leave the room, the food was checked very carefully and what he was allowed to eat and the whole bit. It was quite intensive and extensive in terms of the procedures and the protocols that were used.

So this one is similar in many ways. This fellow lived in Brussels and he took a flight from Amsterdam to Shanghai because his dad had just been diagnosed with cancer and he wanted to get there to be with his father because it was quite serious so he takes this flight and i'm just going to mention one part of it because there were many other parts that were similar to the original story but this is what struck out to me he gets on the plane everybody on the plane who was working on the flight, in other words, the flight attendants, the mechanics who came on and off the plane before it took off and after it landed, everyone was in head toe P&P, the whole bit. And you can see, I think I'm going to put a picture in the cover art for today, of the way he was greeted at the airplane door by the flight attendants.

So this fellow writes, I chat with one of the air hostesses. Her transcontinental work, challenging enough on normal days, has become downright brutal during the pandemic. The crew are not allowed to take off their PPE, personal protective equipment. They're not allowed to ever take it off during the flight. And they are advised, personal protective equipment. They're not allowed to ever take it off during the flight.

And they are advised, and this is what made me go, whoa, they are advised to wear diapers. Their task is to protect China, which is now largely COVID-19 free, from the infected rest of the world. The flight attendants wearing diapers. That flight to Amsterdam to Shanghai is about 12, 13 hours. That's a long flight for anyone. But they don't want the flight attendants going into the washrooms. They don't want anybody going in the washrooms unless they absolutely have to, and they pre-advise passengers to consider ways to avoid having to go to the washroom.

They don't want people in a confined space. They don't want to have to constantly be cleaning washrooms between usage. But this image of flight attendants wearing diapers was something that really made an impression on me. And let me explain to you why. Okay, this will tell you a little something about me. And let me explain to you why. Okay, this will tell you a little something about me. You know, if you've listened to this podcast for more than a while, that I love stories about airlines and about the airline industry. Based on my own early days,

the first real job I had after I got out of school and out of the Navy was working for an airline in northern Manitoba. And it was a regular scheduled airline, so we dealt with passengers. And this was 1968 when I started. Now, that was a very different era in the airline industry. In those days, I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but it was probably somewhere around 98% or 99% of flight attendants, if not 100%, were women. And we didn't call them flight attendants.

We called them stewardesses. And there was this aura around stewardesses in the 1960s. You know, it was a very special profession, and everybody kind of looked at them and envied them. And many young women wanted to get into the airline business and wanted to be stewardesses. Today it's much different, obviously, as we know. It's probably 50-50 between men and women.

There are women in the cockpit now. There weren't women in the cockpit then. Anyway, I was this young guy working for the airline in Churchill, Manitoba, and the high point of every day was when the flight would come in, the main flight would come in from Winnipeg, flight 105. Winnipeg, the Paw, Thompson, Churchill was a milk run. It would arrive and we'd see the stewardesses. And in those days,

you know, for a young guy seeing these young women, it was a big deal. It was really something to look forward to. And there was one flight attendant in particular, one stewardess in particular, who I used to scour the details from the dispatch office in Winnipeg every day to see who the crew was,

who the pilots were, who the flight attendants were. And whenever this name popped up, I was really, couldn't wait for that plane to land. That name was Linda Hart. And she had a nickname, Poopsie. Poopsie Hart. That's what the pilots called her. That's what the pilots called her. That's what the mechanics called her. That's what her fellow steward I called her.

And that's what I called her, Poopsie. And I was smitten by Poopsie, just like most of the other people were. Anyway, we had a good relationship. And we used to talk every time she came into Churchill. I mean, she was only there for an hour. The flight arrived, you know, we'd get all the baggage off. We got the passengers out, new load of passengers come back on to fly back towards Thompson, Nepal, Winnipeg. Anyway, that relationship, I don't know, lasted whatever.

Six months, a year. Very high school-ish. And then, whatever happened to Poopsie Hart? I'll tell you what happened. She was on a charter, working a charter from Winnipeg to Chicago. There's a fair amount of traffic between Winnipeg and Chicago. I believe it was Chicago.

Pretty sure it was. She was on a charter to Chicago, and in the turnaround time, she and her friend stopped in the airport at one of the kind of restaurants to have something to eat. And she saw this guy, kept looking at her, and he looked kind of familiar, and one thing led to another. She ended up led to another.

She ended up talking to him. They made arrangements to see each other at some later date. And they fell in love. And she got married to this guy she'd met in the airport. Broke a lot of hearts, mine including. When Poopsie ended up marrying F. Lee Bailey. Now, I don't know how many of you remember F. Lee Bailey, but F. Lee Bailey was a famous lawyer, one of the great defense lawyers of the United States,

defended some of the big cases through the 60s and 70s, 80s, even in the 90s. He was one of O.J. Simpson's lawyers. And for the most part, he had a pretty good track record. He also defended Patricia Hearst, the heiress to the Hearst fortune when she got involved in a terrorist gang.

She also, or he also defended the Boston Strangler. And in many of these cases, he got his clients off, and that was what created this fame around F. Lee Bailey. So for Poopsie, this was a big catch. She ended up marrying F. Lee Bailey, the famous lawyer. The last I heard of Poopsie was she'd taken F. Lee to the cleaners on a divorce settlement. A bunch of years later.

So how did I get around to telling you that story? Well, I can tell you this. I never imagined Linda Hart wearing a diaper on an airplane or any other flight attendant that I met over the years. So the flight attendants on that flight from Amsterdam to Shanghai admitting to our friend here that they were told to wear diapers, is quite something. All right, folks.

There are your little stories for today. If you're looking for something this weekend to do that's different, you want a kind of uplifting moment, here's one for today. If you're looking for something this weekend to do that's different, you want a kind of uplifting moment, here's one for you. Do you belong to Instagram? I got a kick out of Instagram for the most part. It hasn't slid down that awful area that Facebook and Twitter have got into all the crap that's on

their social media. Although I still use, I still use Twitter for legitimate stuff. Anyway, on Instagram, which can be a fun platform. If you use it properly, look up basement Gang. These are

three kids from Mississauga. Nathaniel, Nicholas, and Kadeem. And they're just buddies. They're pals. They're not super young. They look, at least when I look at them, they look that they're in their late teens or early 20s. And they like to dance. I don't think they're dancers as such. They don't look like they went to a dance school.

But they like dancing. And they've got all these videos on there. They're short. They're kind of like TikTok length, I guess. And the three of them dance. And it is so fun to watch them because they're clearly having fun. Now, they're not brothers, I don't think. So I'm not sure if they're still able to do this right now, given the new regulations that are in effect.

But there's a ton of stuff on their Instagram site. Okay, I'll give you that again. It's called Basement Gang. One word. Okay, Basement Gang. And it's just fun, and it'll bring a smile to your face. And if you're looking for that moment this weekend, that's where you'll find it.

Okay, next week's a big week, the inauguration of Joe Biden. Trying to plan some special stuff along with Bruce to do on that week and on that day. So we'll look forward to having that with you. In the meantime, have a great weekend if that day. So we'll look forward to having that with you. In the meantime, have a great weekend if you can. You know, we're all under, or at least most of us are under certain restrictions as to what we can do and where we can go.

But there's still a big world out there. And if you can, get some fresh air. Get out there for a walk or a skate. I thought it was great. I heard that in Ottawa they're going to open the Rideau Canal, if they haven't already, and let people skate socially distanced, but, you know, getting the fresh air. And there are cross-country ski trails,

and there are lots of different places where we can go to get some exercise and get some fresh air. So try to do that. But keep in mind all the normal stuff, you know, washing hands, socially distant, wearing masks, and avoiding areas where there are a lot of people. And be kind.

Be safe. Care about others. We're going to get through this. It's going to be a while yet. We've got to be patient. But we're going to get through it. All right, my friends. I'm Peter Mansbridge.

This has been the Bridge Daily, the weekend special for week 44, Ides of January. Have a great weekend. We'll see you again on Monday. Thank you.