The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - The Wider War Has Arrived.

Episode Date: February 5, 2024

The fear since October 7th has always been that this Israel-Hamas conflict could turn into a wider war. Well, it has and Dr Janice Stein joins us to give us her take on what it now means.  Plus some surprising intrigue in Ukraine, and Janice delivers on her promise to also give us some "good news".  We'll also unveil the question of the week.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. The much feared wider war has arrived. Janice Stein, coming right up. And hello there, welcome to Monday. Monday means at the bridge, it means international, foreign. It means Israel, Hamas, it means Ukraine. And today it means something different. If you recall, last week Janice Stein from the University of Toronto's Munk School told us,

Peter, we've got to talk about good news at some point. Well, she has a good news story to tell this week as well. And we'll get to that coming right up. But before we get to Janice, it's Monday, and that means I've got to give you a heads up on the question of the week. And we've started that, this idea of the question of the week at the beginning of this year. And we're going to keep it going for a while

because people seem to enjoy it. But there are some people as well who are saying, you know, do you still read my letter, you know, my thoughts about such and such an issue that you brought up? Yes, I do. And I'm going to look for a way to bring in some of that correspondence as well. Maybe this

week, maybe next week, but we'll see. So if you have strong feelings about any particular issue, not necessarily the question of the week issue, I still read your letters. So send it in, no problem there. But same rules apply to those letters as to the letters for the question of the week. Get them in before 6 p.m. Wednesday. Include your name and your location. Okay, and keep it tight. Keep it relatively short. That's been working out really well.

Fine, so what's the question this week? The question is this. Tell me the one, the issue is climate change. Right? Many of you have been writing about, don't forget that climate change promise you made us that you're going to occasionally talk about climate change through the bridge us that you're going to occasionally talk about climate change through the bridge. Well, we try to have some kind of climate change story at least once a week, even if it's just an end bit. So this will be our climate change story for this week.

It's a question to you. And here it is. What's the one thing you've done in your lifestyle that you think will impact climate change? And once again, be innovative. We've had some wonderful answers to our questions of the week. Answers that have surprised us. Answers that have inspired us. answers that have inspired us, and that's what we'll be looking for here as well. So if you've already accomplished one thing in your daily lifestyle

that you think will impact the climate change story, share it with us. Or if there's one thing you're planning on doing, share it with us. Or if there's one thing you're planning on doing, share it with us. All right? So it's a little more wide open, this question, but we want to hear it. What's the one thing you've done for your lifestyle or your family's lifestyle that is, in your view, going to impact the climate change story. And perhaps it's something you're planning on doing. Whatever the case, we're looking for the one thing. Okay?

One thing. Name, location, keep it short, and get it in before 6 p.m. Friday. Excuse me, 6 p.m. Wednesday of this week, Eastern Time. Okay, there you go. You can be thinking about that. And I always get a kick out of it because sometimes people write in like, bingo, they're in at, you know, 1 o'clock Mondays. Just heard the program and they're sitting down writing.

So we're looking for those kind of non-obvious answers, right? Where do you write, you say? You write to themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com, themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. Okay, our regular Monday feature is a conversation with Dr. Janice Stein, and she sounds subdued this week. And I think it's the topic. And the topic this week is, you know, the much heralded, you know, something better get done or we're going to end up in a wider war.

Well, as that moment arrived, Janice is founding director of the Munk School for Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. She is a constant traveler. She's an amazing person. She's in her 80s now, but she's off traveling again this week. She advises governments. She advises businesses because she's so well connected. She knows a lot of stuff.

At times, she can be a controversial figure, but for the most part, she is somebody we learn from. Is she right 100% of the time? Of course not. Nobody is. But she's pretty darn close. Somebody I've relied on for the last 40 years in this business and somebody I will continue to rely on. Great person.

All right, enough of that. Let's get into it with Dr. Janice Stein. And remember, I find her kind of subdued right now. I think she's quite worried. Let's get started. Dr. Janice Stein right here on the bridge. So the fear has always been a wider war. Well, it seems to me any way you look at it now, we are now in a wider war.

Yeah, I agree, Peter. There's fighting in Gaza. The only border really that hasn't exploded yet is the northern border between Hezbollah and Israel, along the border with Lebanon. But the United States bombed 85 targets. That's not small. 85 in Syria, in Iraq, right along the Euphrates River, and made a point of saying this was not over. And then several hours later,

the United Kingdom and the United States bombed Houthi targets in Yemen. So there's no question that the water war that the United States has said it wanted to avoid is here. Now, how deep this escalation will go is still an open question it was fascinating to listen to the Iranians over the last 48 hours say over and over again

we have no interest in escalation after the strikes against where effectively they're called popular mobilization forces, but they are Iranian-backed and Iranian-supported forces in both Iraq and Syria. Yes, the Iranian foreign minister condemned, did not threaten any retaliation.

This is the risk, frankly. When you push up to the edge and think you can push up to the edge, it's wholly unpredictable when you cross the line. But the Iranians must have known there would be a point at which the Americans were going to retaliate in a bigger way as they continue to support these various groups that they back in Iraq and in Syria. They must have realized what was going to happen. So what, it's so interesting because, of course, I often get a chance to look at the documents or the papers after. And so, you know, in a long career of watching this, you think that. But clearly what the line was, was when American servicemen were killed.

And that's what it was. Whether the Iranians fully understood that, we'll know later. But what was clear is that when it became apparent that the United States was going to retaliate, Iran backed right down and sent message after message after message that they do not want to escalate this fighting. What they are trying to avoid, Peter, at all costs is a war against the United States directly when the United States hits Iran directly. So on the American side, Biden took an incredible amount of heat this week. From almost everybody, he did respond.

They did attack, but again, on the scale, this was probably the least escalatory attack that he could have chosen because they have not given up. I would say, and this is, I suspect, not what most people are saying or writing about at this moment, the United States and Iran are both now trying very hard to avoid any further escalation. I'm fascinated to watch what the Israelis do here because if there was anybody who would prefer

that the Americans did hit Iran, it would be the Israelis, Netanyahu especially. You know, there are continued rumors that the Iranians are very close to the nuclear capability now, just a matter of months, maybe as few as two or three months away from that. And you just know that Netanyahu would love to see somebody hit them, including his own forces. Out of the, if you look back at these last three months out of that Hamas attack on October 7th, you know, 3,000 people crossed the Israeli border. And everything starts from that, frankly. Well, Netanyahu could not have designed a better scenario.

If he tried, then the Houthis and the popular mobilization forces, Iranian-backed forces attacking the United States. For him, as badly as this war has gone for him, and it has gone badly, both at home and in Gaza, that's how well the escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran is for him. He would like to see it, of course, as you just rightly said, go all the way because he wants to see Iran badly weakened. Iran understands that very well. And that's why it's so It's so calibrated. And everybody, including Washington and Tehran,

are sending each other these subtle signals by whether you attack Iranian forces in Iraq and Syria, but you don't go anywhere near Iran itself. That's a message. We have to do this because your guys did this to us, but you stop now and we won't go any further. And by not calling in typical Iranian hyperbole for action against the great Satan

and death to the United States and death to Israel, none of that, None of that. Over these last three days, the Iranians are sending back a message. We don't want this to go any further. We don't want this to go any further. What have you heard about this? I just want to pursue this nuclear issue. Just one more question.

What are you hearing on that in terms of how close iran is to having that capability because in netanyahu has always said in fact israel has always said they would not allow another country within that region to have nuclear weapons without conceding that they do themselves of course i mean netanyahu has led this charge right like he has been the most determined and in fact twice in 2010 and 2012 the united states came very and israel came very very close to attacking iran and was only pushed back by the united states um Where are the Iranians now? They have enriched up to 60%. The distance between 60 and 90% is meaningless.

If you can enrich to 60%, you can enrich to 90%. And when you enrich to 90%, you have all the material you need for a nuclear bomb. So it is only a matter of weeks, Peter, until they could make a nuclear bomb. You then have to put that device on top of a delivery system. A missile is more difficult, an airplane. But that, again, is a question of months. Everybody I know who works in this field considers Iran a nuclear threshold power.

In other words, so close to nuclear capability that it is. And it is unstoppable. Frankly, should it decide to do so? Now, why doesn't it do so? Because not only has israel said that they would go all out in an attempt to destroy that capability but the united states has said they as well um would um they've used the same language would not tolerate a nuclear armed iran so you get the best of all worlds. You go right up to the end.

That's what you're seeing all over the region right now, except in Gaza. You go right up to the edge, and as close to the edge as you can get, and then you stop in the hope that you're not going to push everybody over the edge. Because the moment there is an attack against Iran, and I think it is impossible, by the way, to destroy Iranian nuclear capability. There is no attack that would do so. Why is that?

Because their enrichment plants are buried kilometers down underneath the ground. So just as people were shocked by the 450 miles of tunnels instead of the 200 that they expected, Iran has had years to be able to bury very deep underground its nuclear capabilities, and there's a limit to how far bunker-busting bombs can go. Ultimately, there would have to be ground troops.

Iran is a country of 90 million people with a very good army and well-armed civilian militias. If there were any such war between the United States and Iran to occur, what we've just seen in the Middle East for three months, would be at the palest imitation. The wild card in Iran still, though, is the population itself. They do not have a happy group of people

living in Iran. In other words, happy with their government. They are in a state which appears on the verge of, well, on the verge of revolt. I mean, we've seen the population revolt. We've seen it. We don't have to speculate, Peter. We've seen it twice in the last four years. The last time women revolted over the wearing of hijab, compulsory hijab, and the activities of the religious police. I think the majority from everything we know from surveys, because Iran has a very active civil society,

it's very well connected to the outside world. You know, I'm sure our listeners know about VPNs or virtual private networks that you plug in and you go around all the Internet blockages that exist. So Iranians are among the most skilled in actually reaching out. They have very, very deep connections with the outside world. And there's, from everything we know, the majority of the population wants this government gone. Largely because the population has become,

it feels, it's a hard spot exactly, because secular doesn't really do it. It's not pro-Western. Those words don't really capture it. The feeling is of deep anger against the restrictions that the government imposes on the way people live their lives. They want the government out of their face. That's really what it is. And in fact, the government is more repressive than ever. So things like the, you know, the besiege, the

religious police that intervene and have no compunction at shooting at civilians, it's that that absolutely infuriates Iranians. So it is unpredictable what would happen were there to be an attack from outside. What we know generally, when governments are attacked from the outside, populations rally around their leader. We saw it happen in Israel, where there were deep, deep, deep divisions.

The moment that attack happened. Those differences were put aside. But the challenge in a country the size of Iran, the scope of the, and it's the fanatical element of the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij who are wholly committed to that regime and run the economy and would not hesitate for a minute. Unlike the Egyptian army, which would not do it, the Revolutionary Guards would fire on the population in a minute. Okay. In your first answer today, you talked about the northern border for Israel and Hezbollah and southern Lebanon. There seems to be an increasing feeling

that Lebanon is the target now for Israel. If you listen to the Minister of Defense, Yorg Galant, he's the one who's saying this again and again and again time is running out we can't move our population back um i think there's a division in that work cabinet i think that nathaniel and galant are on one side of this. They are both from the members of the existing government. The other two members, Gadi Aysen, called a former chief of the defense staff, and Benny Gans are not in favor of escalating on the northern frontier.

And the United States shut it down once in the first week of the war, and I would imagine would go all out, Peter, to stop it from happening, especially given what's going on in the rest of this region. I mean, you do, and here's where I think the way you started us off captures the mood. And you have the feeling that fires are raging everywhere right now. And that's always a dangerous environment because something can explode no matter how hard you try to contain. And no matter how careful you are, and both the Iranians and the Americans are being careful, one lit match in that environment can set off a chain of explosions. And that's why I think the United States will go all out to stop the Israelis.

And it's not true to say they can't. They did. They did stop them in October. They would go all out to stop them again. Would Israel say they didn't go all out to stop them? Could Israel run a two front war like that? One in the southern Gaza, one in the north? Yes.

Against them, they could? Yes. Yes. So why is that? Because if the original reservist brigades that went into Gaza, three quarters of them are out. What remains in Gaza, and depending on how you count, one and a half to two brigades who are essentially there to hold the territory until there is some

resolution, whatever that might be. And of course, from the perspective, again, of Gallant and Netanyahu, that's going to last for a long time because they do not expect that there will be, they expect to stay in Gaza for months and months and months and months until there is what they call a civilian-led Palestinian government, not Hamas, not Fatah, but civilians living in Gaza who can stand up a government. That's months.

That's not the day after. That's not the week after. That's not even the month government. That's months. That's not the day after. That's not the week after. That's not even the month after. That's months. Everybody else has been released from service and sent home. Now, would additional forces have to be mobilized in the North? Yes. But do they have the military capability to do that?

Unquestionably, they do. Where is the long-awaited resolution do where is the long-awaited resolution where's the long-awaited resolution because we even come to now and look what we might talk just for a minute peter about the ceasefire and hostage negotiations that are going on now that's what that's what i actually meant by the intermediate resolution. The intermediate resolution. So negotiations have resumed. They're back on, right?

The Egyptians, the Qataris, the Americans met in Paris last week. Proposals are going forth. Let's just look at two that have gone. One is fundamentally a version of the Israeli proposal that has now two months ceasefire, 60 days. That's far longer than what they were willing to talk about even two months ago in exchange for women, remaining children, older people, and wounded soldiers,

but then a resumption of hostilities. Hamas has put forward a proposal, 135 days. Think how many months that one is. The release of one, this one is really interesting. The release of one hostage per day. If you want to control the message,

you know how you build a story every single day around the moment when that car crosses the border with the hostage. You totally, totally control the narrative and you control the political space. And at the end of that 135 days, complete ceasefire. The remaining

hostages, a small number of remaining hostages would be held back at the very end and the condition would have to be a complete ceasefire. Israel is saying that's unacceptable. The mediators are going back and forth, and the negotiations are still going on. Now, that doesn't work to Hamas's advantage past a certain point, because the Israelis are now almost up against the Egyptian border.

In Rafah, where there are a million Palestinians who have fled multiple times, and this is the last remaining area of large populated area where there are Hamas leaders. But while this has been going on, Peter, in northern Gaza, which the Israelis claimed they held a month and a half ago, there is now renewed fighting

because, of course, Hamas fighters move through those tunnels. And the insurgency, if you want to call it that, ambush, if you want to call it that, ambush, if you want to call it that, it doesn't matter what language you use for describing the same thing. Hamas retains a capacity underground, no matter what happens above ground, to harass and to kill Israeli soldiers that are above ground. Just think of the challenge of standing up any kind of civilian government under those circumstances.

And meanwhile, the horror for civilians trapped in Gaza continues. Yeah, we're talking now about 800,000 to a million Palestinians, half the population of Gaza almost, pushed up against this last frontier near the Rafik crossing in Egypt. And there's one other factor here that we should all watch for. The Egyptians don't want this to happen. So this time, it is not only a question of Hamas and a public opinion in the Arab world that are saying stop, stop, stop. It's very different when the Egyptians get involved because that is a fundamentally important security relationship between the Egyptian government and the Israeli government. They cooperate on almost everything. All right.

We're going to take our break and we have two things a lot to discuss today we have the the very strange thing going on in in ukraine we got to talk about that and you promised us last week that we would do some you would have a good news story to tell us this week so we're all looking forward to that because we sure hear enough bad news uh That's all coming up right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to the Monday episode of The Bridge. Dr. Janice Stein is with us.

And we've dealt with the Middle East as best we can for this moment. We're going to move to the Ukraine-Russia stories, mainly the Ukraine story this week. You're listening on Sirius XM channel 167 Canada Talks or on your favorite podcast platform. In Ukraine, we have the Battle of the Zeds or the Battle of the Zs going on. Zelensky versus Zelushny.

We all know who Zelensky is. Zelushny is kind of the top commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and has been a hero in his country. He's a huge man, right? When you see him standing next to Zelensky, Zelensky looks pretty small. Zelushny's a big guy, he you know he ran the ukrainian armed forces at the beginning and they're in their valiant defense of their country against the russians but he didn't deliver on the

counter-offensive and that seems to have got zelensky upset and it appeared to be and it may still happen i don't know it appeared to be that that Zelensky was going to move him out, bring somebody else in. But he was a very and is a very popular figure. So you have this kind of bizarre situation going on of Zelensky and Zelushny at each other. What do you make of it all? So, Peter, this is the story you and I have talked about.

It started when solution e issued that report saying openly this war is at a stalemate right and we talked about that we both said you don't have a chief of the defense staff coming out in public and making that kind of statement in any democracy. I frankly thought he must have political ambitions when he did that. That was, you know, that was no question. You hear that as a criticism of the government. He is now more popular in the public opinion polls in Ukraine

than Zelensky is. And were they to compete head-on for the leadership of any political party, particularly Zelensky's, Zelensky would win in the polls. Now, that is going to make any wartime civilian prime minister very, very, very nervous. Zolushny compounded it 10 days ago, talked about what was necessary to win the war.

Again, wrote about a technological breakthrough. I think he must have issued that report. Who knows here? Because he anticipated that Zelensky was about to make a move against him. The former president, very well-known in Canada, frequent visitor to Canada, Petro Poroshenko, came out and appealed to Zelensky not to do this.

This was wartime, not to divide the country. Apparently he pulled back, but I think you are correct in saying this could still happen. I can't see how Zelensky can tolerate Zeluzhny as the commander-in-chief much, much longer. It's like Truman and MacArthur. This is a challenge. And I'm not going to dress it up in the language of civil-military relations and, you know, this civilian government has to control the military

and the democracy. It does. But this is far more elemental. This is a struggle between the two most popular leaders in Ukraine for who is going to be in charge in this next year to 18 months, who's going to shape the critical decisions about the battlefield. And it's clear by now they cannot stand each other. What does it say about the overall picture in terms of the war? I think 2024 is going to be a really, really, really difficult year for Ukraine. You know, there was one break in the unremitting stream of bad news, which came this week in Europe

when Viktor Orban of Hungary backed down. Interesting. The European Union pushed him to the wall and he just paved. He didn't even put up a fight and allowed that $54 billion aid package to go from the European to Ukraine, which really will make a difference because Zelensky needs that money to pay salaries, to pay civil servants, to pay the military.

Leave aside that he needs to buy military equipment and ammunition. He needs the money to keep the government going. That's what U.S. assistance was doing. And it's still held up in Congress. There's no end in sight to that deadlock. But it's almost impossible to see how Ukraine can regain anything like the momentum unless it is resupplied

on a very, very, very significant level. Everything from artillery shells to drones to better air defense, none of which is right now in the pipeline. So this is going to be a hard year. The real question is, does Russia break through? Does Russia, in fact, find a way to break through Ukrainian air defenses and Ukrainian lines and acquire momentum of its own? Ukraine will, you know, if Ukraine can hold on through this year until the United States can resupply and until there's more industrial capacity in some of NATO,

that will be an achievement this year. You know, the $54 billion, Mark, I mean, that is a huge amount of money. It's stretched over a number of years. It's not like yes immediately all 54 billion goes in but it does put the lie to those americans including trump who maintained that europe's not you know it's not uh uh contributing uh in a way that uh that uh the americans have been contributing because it's just not true. It wasn't true before this. It's not true.

It's certainly not true now. That's right. And what's so interesting here, Peter, this is not NATO. This is the European Union. These are not countries that, you know, by kicking it up, are going to meet some 2% defense spending target and get the Americans off their back. This is the European Union that has put together this aid package, defense spending target and get the Americans off their back.

This is the European Union that has put together this aid package. And this is totally independent of any military assistance that will come to Ukraine through NATO. Okay. Hit me with the good news. Oh, so here's the good news. And to me, this is just a hugely good news story. It is the good news um and i couldn't you know to me this is just a hugely good news story it is michelle o'neill uh the leader of the shin fame in northern ireland who became the first minister of northern ireland today the first time in Northern Irish history that the Sinn Féin has ever had the equivalent of a prime minister. Just take a step back and think, you know, the Good Friday Agreement was 1998.

We're talking less than 30 years ago, 30 years of troubles, of bombing in the streets, of hatred between Catholics and Protestants and young men dying went on in a scene that would never end. And then you fast forward 30 years. Now Brexit helped them along. There's no question that when Brexit happened, Europe and Britain agreed to draw borders through Northern Ireland and none of the Irish were happy with that.

Not the Northern Irish and not the Republic of Ireland. So that unfroze some of the hostilities. But I was struck by her statement today, Peter. And I thought, where's the leader in the Middle East today? To say, Michelle O'Neill said, as she was walking in, and with a grave expression on her face she said i can't ask people um to forget but i can ask people to move forward you know history is an amazing thing because you know things can change and do change you know i think i've mentioned before that i i can remember sitting

with with barbara from in the uh in the makeup room before the national journal in the you know the the late 80s and we we we discuss and debate and argue about whether there would ever be an end to apartheid in south africa whether n Nelson Mandela would ever be freed from jail. And it just seems so hopeless to even have that discussion. And then a couple of years later, there was Barbara sitting in the backyard of Nelson Mandela's home in South Africa. I remember that interview. Interviewing him on the day he was released from jail.

And then the end of apartheid followed. Now, it hasn't been all rosy for South Africa. In fact, it's been pretty damn messy there. But things can change. And your good news story about Northern Ireland and what's happened there is... You know what's interesting, Peter? Because that's exactly right.

You know, her counterpart because that's exactly right. Her counterpart, there's two. There's a first deputy, there's a first minister and there's a first deputy. He's, of course, Protestant. From the DUP, the Democratic Union Party, they're working together. And what's their big

issues now? The population doesn't, the majority of the population in Northern Ireland no longer defines themselves as either Catholic or Irish or Protestant. Other things matter. What's most important for them, those two, as they begin this session? Cost of living, ending a strike, and improving health care. That's what they're focused on. Nobody's talking about unifying Northern Ireland with Ireland, despite the fact that we have a Sinn Féin prime minister,

a Catholic prime minister from the, what is Sinn Féin? The political wing of the IRA that was setting bombs off in the streets 30 years. So for all the people in the Middle East who are watching the Middle East who think this will never, ever get better, things can change. Okay, nice note to end on. I know you're off on some of your regular travels,

but hopefully we'll still connect next week. Absolutely, we will. Okay. Take care, Janice. We'll talk soon. Have a good week. Dr. Janice Stein, Munk School, University of Toronto. Another great conversation.

Monday's on the bridge. She's here. She's given us things to think about And that last one Was a great one to be To be thinking about When you're worried about the state of things Okay

We're almost up out of time But we do have time for an end bit And where do I go when I like end bits? I go to an aviation story, of course. Here's one totally different than everything we've discussed today. Whenever you travel on a regular passenger jet, a domestic jet, you know, 737, 747, do they even fly those anymore? I don't know, 777, 787, Airbus, all of those planes, those kind of planes. The cruising speed of those planes,

about roughly 550 miles an hour. Now, you give or take depending on which way the wind's blowing, right? And you know from traveling across Canada, if you're flying, say, from Vancouver to Toronto, you're with the wind. The wind's pushing you along, and it can be quite a help. And so the time in air from Vancouver to Toronto is almost always less than the time in air from Vancouver to Toronto is almost always less than the time in air from Toronto to Vancouver because you're going against the wind. That makes sense, right?

So what you look for, what pilots look for, of course, when they're able to, is the best The best wind for their flights. The best jet stream, you might call them. And if they can convince air traffic control to let them fly in that particular pattern, that would obviously help in terms of flight time, in terms of fuel use, all of that. Well, the Washington Post has a story last week about a roaring tailwind that hurled a passenger plane at not 550 miles an hour, but 826 miles an hour. Just imagine the difference. It was China Airlines Flight 5116,

rocketed to a speed of 826 miles an hour as it bolted eastward across the Pacific Ocean. And that'd be about 10 days ago. It was a Thursday. Potentially breaking informal records for passenger travel. The commercial flight which departed from Taipei landed more than an hour early in Los Angeles, propelled by exceptionally strong tailwinds. A roaring Pacific jet stream, supercharged by the El Nifio climate pattern, and moving at more than 250 miles an hour, gave the flight its boost. Official records for commercial flight speeds aren't kept, but a recent article in Simple Flying said a British Air Boeing 747 flying near Greenland had set a record when it reached 825 miles an hour in February of 2020.

Other flights were also hurled by this week's extra swift high altitude winds for example china airlines flight six flying the same route as flight 5116 at 822 miles an hour delta from tokyo to detroit reached 817 philippines airlines from manila to Los Angeles reached 819. So there's a bunch of these, right? Pretty amazing. Now, the Concorde used to fly above the speed of sound, right? And therefore, its flights flying Mach 1 point something, Mach 2, whatever, were much faster.

But these on regular flights like the kinds we can fly on today, this was quite something. Imagine arriving an hour early. Of course, you know the problem with arriving an hour early. I've arrived early in lots of flights, not that early, but early. 15 minutes, 20 minutes, half an hour sometimes early on transatlantic flights. You know what the problem is, of course? They're not ready for you.

They know you're going to be early, but they don't have a gate for you. So you land, you're all excited, I'm home early, you're going to see the family, et cetera, et cetera. And then you sit at the gate or near the gate, on a ramp near the gate, waiting to get to the gate. Then you finally get there, and then there's some kind of delay in the baggage, and there's this, and there's that. Meanwhile, you watch that time you saved crunch up very quickly, and you end up late. That certainly happened to me enough times in the last

year. Anyway, nice story to hear. Okay, before we go, quick reminder, question of the week. Name the one thing that you or your family and your family are doing to have an impact on climate change or something you are planning on doing. One thing, be innovative. Don't give the obvious. Tell me what you're doing that would have an impact on the climate story. Name, location you're writing from.

Have it in by 6 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday. Send it to themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. Letter of the week. Gets a signed copy of one of my books. So I look forward to doing that. That'll be Thursday's edition of Your Turn. That's where we'll read your letters, and I'm still reading, as I said earlier,

I'm still reading any letter that comes in about any topic. At the moment, though, we're just going with the contest, but I'm saving these letters, so keep them coming. I do read them. Also on Thursday, The Random Renter. All there for you on the bridge. Tomorrow, special program. Special program.

Tuesdays are usually pretty special. We try to do something different, and that usually involves a feature interview. Well, tomorrow's feature interview is with an author who's actually teaching at a university college in London, England right now. He's the author of Fluke. It's a fascinating book.

One of the reviews recently was, The world is falling apart. Blame the flukes. You're going to find this interesting. Brian Kloss is the author. He's going to be with us tomorrow and really look forward to talking to him. I'm not going to say anything more than that, other than I think you'll find it fascinating. That's tomorrow on The Bridge. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you again in a mere 24 hours.