The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn on Curling (My Bad!) and The Ranter.

Episode Date: March 16, 2023

How could I have forgotten about curling but I did and listeners pounded.  On that plus China, AI, submarines and a lot more. And then the Random Ranter wades into dangerous waters by taking on a subject that always causes controversy.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Thursday, that means your turn and the Random Renter. And hello there. Monday, we opened up this week with a discussion about refereeing and the impact it was having on sports in a number of different areas, in hockey, in baseball, in football. I got a lot of letters on that program. The guest was Bruce Dobrigan from Calgary. He was great.

Got a lot of letters. None of them were about refereeing. Well, a couple were about refereeing, but the majority of letters were not about refereeing at all. And we're going to get going on those letters right now, so you'll have some idea of what inspired people to write. Like Donna Edmonston from Winnipeg. I continue to enjoy your podcast each and every day.

Thank you. You mentioned your love of sports on a recent show. I'm with you. Go Jets go. I love all sports, none more than curling. I was shocked to hear that you did not mention watching any curling last weekend. What? Last weekend, the Canadian Men's Curling Championship, better known as the Briar, wrapped up Sunday night from London, Ontario. An exciting final, indeed, featuring Team Dunstone from Manitoba versus Team Gushu from Newfoundland.

Team Gushu took home the trophy after an outstanding week of curling by all teams. You're missing out, Peter. Add curling to your list. Hurry. Hurry hard. All right. Good point. You made your point.

Mike Kaposowski from Sundry, Alberta. I enjoy your podcast every week while working in my shop. On Monday, you referred to your weekend sports viewing, hockey, basketball, golf, baseball. You missed an amazing display of Canadian sports this weekend. The Briar playoffs from London, Ontario showcased some of the best curling that I've witnessed. They should have had a disclaimer on the broadcast. Do not attempt these shots at your local club. And to speak to your concern about refs, curling is very, very rarely decided by refs. Ed Koontz from Calgary. Surely you also took in the briar over the weekend.

If not, you missed some fantastic curling. Robin Ward from Edmonton. I just listened to your introductory comments to Monday's podcast. What? No mention of the briar? Okay. I was wrong. I should have mentioned the briar.

I should have mentioned curling. In fact, I watched some of the curling on the weekend as I was moving around all the different channels and all the different sports going on. But I did not mention curling, and I should have. And, you know, just to ensure that I'm, you know, I know a little bit about curling. I did spend 10 years in the West, Manitoba.

I was in Manitoba during the big years, Donnie Duguid, briar champion, Oris Mellischuck, the big O, briar champion. I was related to a couple of curlers who were known across the country as the best sweepers. This is back in the old day when they used actual corn brooms. The Dudar twins. So I've watched curling. I've been at curling manches.

And I curled myself. Poorly, but I curled myself. Went in great events like the Newsman's Bond Spiel. That's back when it was the Newsman's Bonspiel. And I think, I'm trying to remember the different places that I went to in the Newsman's Bonspiel. Edmonton, Regina one year, Winnipeg of course. So, you know, I've been around the ice. I've even done the, I did the national ones from Portage to Prairie,

my old hometown, Portage to Prairie, Manitoba, in the curling rink. So there is curling in my background. And how I could have forgotten it on Monday? I'm not going to make excuses. I was wrong. I apologize. I should have said something, especially when there are so many curling fans in this country. Curling always gets huge numbers on television.

Huge. But did I say anything? No, I didn't. Now, while most of the letters were about the fact that I didn't say anything about curling, there were a couple on the issue of referees and how the question was, are they getting in the way of the game? Has something happened to change the situation? So let me read just two letters. Matthew Beatty from Calgary. I enjoyed great interest and a slight bias to Monday's pod regarding officiating as a former lacrosse and basketball official.

I was very curious to see how much blame would be placed on us zebras. Also recognizing that officiating is an imperfect science, developing the next generation of officials, no matter what the sport, is becoming increasingly important, yet difficult given the self-righteous attitudes and opinions of every my-kid-is-the-next-Connor-McJesus parent who berates that 14-year-old kid who gets paid less than minimum wage when divided to game fee time

to show up to the rink at 6 a.m. to ensure the next Johnny Hockey has an opportunity to showcase their 99-like talent. Hate to break it to Hockey Dad of the Year, but the person making their double-double got paid more on Sunday morning than the ref. Rant over, but not sorry to stick up for the guys and gals having the courage to put some air in a whistle. We need them.

AI officials be damned. Corey. AI officials be damned. Corey Dahl from Toronto. The discussion today about umpires and referees in sports and new technologies like virtual strike zones brought to mind what I consider a huge improvement made to tennis during the pandemic, automatic line calling. At an increasing number of major tennis events, we no longer see volunteer line umpires who often made mistakes with the naked eye,

driving players mad with anger, derailing matches, and sometimes impacting the result. This shift to automation has eliminated the uncertainty caused by a bad call being made. Great example of what's shifting officiating from a human to a technological solution has made a sport better to watch. Hoping the same will come to more sports soon. All right, moving on to the biggest, I guess, news story of the last few weeks, and that has been the whole question about China and questions raised about past elections in Canada,

specifically the last two, and whether or not China was getting its fingers in the pie, so to speak, of trying to influence what happened in those election campaigns. Doug Clark from Castlegar, B.C. writes, it would be of interest to hear some knowledgeable people speak to China's growing misbehavior and why the government hasn't drawn a line in the sand in its interaction with China. I'm also appalled that Canadian universities have helped Chinese students and researchers gain access to leading-edge technological research. I hope you can spend some time discussing the new Cold War.

Oh, we've been talking about it. And we've been talking with some knowledgeable people who are covering the story. But I hear what you're saying, and that's why some kind of public inquiry would be a good thing, because you'll get a variety of different thoughts and opinions in a public inquiry on all these topics. An inquiry that's a closed-door one, that's not going to satisfy anyone. But there are difficulties in having an open-door one. I get it.

Darren Skimmer. I'm not sure Darren says where he's writing from. It's not just election interference where there doesn't seem to be any action. What about reported illegal Chinese police stations? The two scientists fired from the Winnipeg bio lab, the surveillance of students from Hong Kong, the bullying of Uyghurs and Tibetans in Canada,

the money laundering through Wealth One Bank and other mechanisms, the wolf warrior tactics of Chinese diplomats. Instead, we get reporters accused of racism, weeks of move-along, nothing to see here, focusing on the leakers instead of the spies, statements that the overall outcome of the election wasn't changed, as if it's not important that the outcome of elections in individual ridings was changed. Here in BC, most people think results

in Richmond were changed and that the East doesn't care. I don't think that's fair. There's just as much spotlight on a number of Ontario ridings as there is on BC ridings and questions being raised. Finally, I would, back to Darren's comments, finally I would point out that while attention is focused on our current government, the previous conservative government was also told about and downplayed China's espionage and influence operations.

The concern of at least a part of the public is that our apparent unwillingness or inability to push back against those operations is institutional or cultural rather than partisan. Roman Kisielowski. And not sure where Roman's writing from either. You've got to please remember to add where you're writing from. It really does help get a sense of how feelings are spread across the country. Roman's written a long letter. I'll read one part of it. I started listening to your podcast with an open mind, but must say you and your guests are very biased toward the Liberal Party.

I seldom hear any criticism of the current PM and his cabinet. Scandal after scandal, which seems to be weekly, blunder after blunder, and the media, including your show and guests, never ask the real questions. If a Conservative PM and his cabinet had the same track record for scandals, ethics, violations, and blunders, the media would be up in arms. It must be because of the constant handout the federal government, the Liberal Party, donates to the media. That's such garbage, that last line. I'm listening to you on your concerns that the media is not doing a good enough job

and is biased, but to suggest the media is influenced by government grants that have been afforded to different media organizations, please spare me. What I will say is every story you're mentioning, you wouldn't even know about if it wasn't for the media. So if the media is soft on the Liberals, why are you talking about these stories? You're talking about them because they've been broken by different media organizations. Is that how the media is sucking up to the Liberals? I don't think so. They should be as aggressive on the Liberals as they are on the Conservatives,

as they are on the NDP, as they are on anyone seeking the public trust. And they are. And that goes back through governments. They were on the Harper government. They were in the Mulroney government. They were on the Krychan government. I mean, please, spare me this accusation

that the media has never exposed scandals on behalf of past governments, no matter the stripe, because they have. Then it's up to the people to make decisions on who they want to govern them. Right? Connor Whalen from Flusherton, Ontario. I've heard many people say the story around Chinese interference is not news. It's a statement I do not understand.

Not news? For whom? CSIS? Government officials? Partisans? I follow the news and politics very closely just about every day, and it's very much news to me. Never have I heard of interference to this level. It's certainly a news story to most Canadians, and to call it not news is simply gaslighting the public. Well, you're right, some people have called it not news.

Not me, or I wouldn't have been talking about it for the last couple of weeks. What I have said on the not news argument is that this story has been around long before the last couple of weeks. It's been at play for the last 15 years almost, at different levels. I agree with you that interference at this level we haven't seen before, but it's been a slow and steady drip up to this, and how serious it was taken back in the Harper years and now in the Trudeau years is debatable.

So thanks, Connor. I hear where you're coming from. I'm just putting it in some context. So thanks, Connor. I hear where you're coming from. I'm just putting it in some context. David Harrison writes, and David, I don't think has got his location here. Yeah, I don't see it. And David is pointing out an error on my behalf, or on my part. Last week when I was talking about Katie Telford during Good Talk with Chantel and Bruce,

when I said she's been with Trudeau forever, including from before when he was Prime Minister, before he was Prime Minister when he was was in the opposition leader's office. David leapt on that right away. She never worked in the office of the leader of the opposition because Justin Trudeau was never the leader of the opposition, which is quite correct. He was the leader of the third party. It was the NDP who were the official opposition back in 2015. So, my bad.

Again, man, they're racking them up today. Moving on. Different topic. Submarines. Bruce and I have our differences, as you heard yesterday, on this purchase by the Australians of nuclear-powered submarines and a new kind of three-country pact, the UK, the US, and Australia, and me wondering, why aren't we somehow involved in that discussion? It doesn't have to be about buying submarines,

because there's a lot more going on than just buying submarines here. There's a whole discussion about how to protect the Pacific region from China. But we're not there. At least we're not there yet. Joe Adams writes, is it time for Canada to explore the option of acquiring what Australia did not want from France? Remember, France originally had a deal with Australia to sell submarines. The Australians got out of that and made instead this deal they're making with the Brits and the

Americans. France may be interested in an alternative, which would be Canada. The whole issue about our submarines, whether we need submarines, what are we going to do in the Arctic, all of that stuff is now at play. That story keeps changing, right? And you all know my bias towards Arctic sovereignty and climate change and all that. The Arctic is a whole new region at play. And if we're going to declare it ours,

that part of it which we feel is ours, then we've got to be there. And we've got to be there in more than just kind of walking around. Albert Versteeg writes on this same subject. In my opinion, Trudeau is China-centric and a closet pacifist. This might even apply to the Liberal Party. Add to this our lack of defense spending as a percentage of GDP and a secret service that is leaking like a sieve and I'm supposed I'm surprised we are still part of the five eyes five

eyes is that group of countries that shares secrets right PS I love the last rant of the random ranter using the words of the Christian Taliban. Amen to that rant. All right, Albert. Albert is from Grimsby, Ontario. Kevin Chan from Mississauga. First, this nuclear submarine plan is an act that constitutes serious nuclear proliferation risks, undermines international non-proliferation system,

and fuels the arms race. Second, it sets a precedent that could be used by others to hide highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the core of a nuclear weapon, from international oversight, and worse, to arm a non-nuclear state. When that happens, how do we then put on our hypocritical hat to halt the transfer?

Therefore, I'm happy to see Canada not being part of this pact that arguably violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that for sure makes the world more dangerous than it is. Okay, that's a different view from Kevin in Mississauga. One more, two more, two more on this issue. Don Mitchell. So when AUKUS, that's Australia, the UK and the US, was announced, our absence was duly noted by nations that mattered.

We put up a brave face, but this is humiliating to an administration who only eight years ago proudly proclaimed that Canada's back. Do not be deceived by the crowd who says AUKUS is only about submarines. This is much more, because submarines do not work in a vacuum. They are an integral part of the maritime domain that encompasses everything from the sea floor to outer space. Hopefully, a Canadian announcement of the purchase of the P-8 maritime long-range patrol aircraft during the Biden visit will stop our slide into irrelevance.

I guess we'll see if that happens. Dwight Powell from Wasaga Beach, Ontario. In listening to today's podcast, Where's Canada?, I'm sure that we meet all criteria for admission in terms of geography, being a Pacific nation, values, protecting our people, guaranteeing long-term security. So it seems the price in admission is to invest in three nuclear-powered subs of either U.S. or U.K. build, which could be the wave of the future, so to speak, in terms of effective defense platforms and tactics. Certainly, such long-range subs seem perfect as a deterrence to threats against our Arctic sovereignty by aggressive nations such as Russia and China. If we have the political will to buy the subs, then call it caucus.

Just so you know, buying three nuclear subs would cost billions of dollars, right? Like we're talking billions of dollars. Okay. A number of comments about our friend the ranter. And we'll run them before we run his rant for this week. Debbie Prince writes, Christian Taliban, best phrase I've heard in a long time. Love the ranter.

So far, I agree with most of his outlook on subjects he's ranted about. Today, you called yourself a jock because you watch a lot of sports. I might be wrong, but I think a jock is someone who plays a lot of sports. Just saying. You know, you may be right about that. I like to play sports, and I like to talk about sports. And I like to watch sports. So I kind of, I'm a variety jock.

Robert Bjarnason from Carberry, Manitoba. The ranter has redeemed himself after he was picking low-hanging fruit in his federal leader critique trilogy. His thoughts and concerns on our societal direction as a result of American influence are spot on. Much of what happens in America of a cultural and political nature infiltrates many Canadians' views. I too have days when I despair about this influence on Canadians.

The move to embrace this vitriol along with alternative facts, aka lies, raises concerns both culturally and politically. By the way, just to get another shot in, Rob says, you didn't watch the curling playoffs, Peter? Amazing shots and strategy, plus no referees to mess it all up. Thanks for the info on not licking books. Ditto on frosty flagpoles.

Man, he's getting all the Canadian end bits in there in one shot. Gian Carlo De Fazio. If these criminals, this is on the China story again. Sorry, is it on China? I guess in some ways it is. But no, no, no. Sorry. It's not on China at all. It's about the ranter's rant that included a phrase a couple of weeks ago

about guns saying he's totally against handguns, wants them abolished. So Giancarlo De Fazio says, if these criminals are already breaching the law by purchasing smuggled firearms, how does making it more illegal fix the problem? Shouldn't the RCMP be doing a better job preventing illegal smuggling of these firearms? So that way the criminals don't get them in the first place. Should there be even more safety training for legal firearms owners? So basically, why make the laws tougher to buy a handgun when the criminals aren't buying them in the first place? Or at least they're not buying them legally in the first place.

And our last letter on the ranter comes from Jordan Kayak in Iqaluit. I just wanted to say that the rapporteur should be none other than the ranter formerly known as Random. He has no political bias. He seems to be truthful. And we will finally get to know his name

all right jordan perfect introduction to the ranter for this week you got something to say some of you aren't going to like it some of you are that's the whole idea of the ranter be provocative provoke some discussion and thought. You ready for it? Here he comes. Right now. I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. I don't know if that makes me some kind of heathen, but if it does, please don't pray for me. Or go ahead and pray, I guess. I'm easy to get along with that way because I support religious rights. If you're religious, well, I'm happy if you're happy.

I'm just glad you have a community. We all need one. I just don't think tax dollars should fund it. Where am I going with this? Well, due to a quirk of confederation in three provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, there are still fully publicly funded Catholic school boards. In every other province, if you want your child educated in the Catholic faith, you have to pay out of pocket. Now, this is unfair on so many levels. The obvious one, well, it's Catholic only. If you're Jewish or Muslim or anything else, and you want your kids educated religiously, well, it's private school for you. So get out your checkbook. You're going to need it. Secondly, it's a giant waste of resources. I mean, talk about the duplication of services. You've got multiple school boards in the same areas, each with their own six-figure superintendents, directors, and administrators. Then you've got trustees, vehicles, busing,

maintenance, add in some half-empty buildings, and then factor in advertising budgets. That's right, advertising budgets. Because guess what? The public and Catholic school boards, well, they compete against each other for the same taxpayer-funded students. It goes on and on. The waste is colossal, and all at at a time what education is hurting. It's struggling for resources. Kids are trying to recover from a giant COVID setback. Now, I've got nothing against Catholics and nothing against Catholic schools. They're filled with dedicated teachers who love and cherish their students, who wish the best for each and every one of them,

and work hard every day to inspire, engage, and support them any way they can. Because that's what teachers do regardless of faith. I just think Catholic schools, or any religious school for that matter, should not be 100% publicly funded. And honestly, to hell with what the Constitution says, or what our founding fathers intended. This is Canada. We're not originalists. Our Constitution should be changeable with the times, because, well, a lot has changed. Think about it. For Indigenous people at the time of Confederation, a Catholic education meant a residential school. And LGBTQ rights? Well, they didn't exist. And while we're going there, I don't even want to speculate on what Catholic sex education must look like. I'm thinking you could learn more from watching an old episode of Murder, She Wrote.

These are all big, modern problems. And Catholics? They don't have a good track record on any of them. It's not good, and it's playing out in real time in publicly funded Catholic schools as I speak. The curious thing I find about this is that you don't even need to be Catholic to go to a Catholic school, and I think that leads to some, not all, but certainly some students being enrolled for all the wrong reasons. Chief among them is their parents' wish to avoid what they perceive to be the pro-LGBTQ woke agenda of public schools. Let's call that what it is, homophobia. And look, let's go a step further. In a lot of places, the Catholic school is the

preferred choice, and the public school is where the kids from the wrong side of the tracks go. And that, while in many cases, that's just code for Indigenous kids. Look, I really hope I'm wrong on this, and I hope someone proves me wrong, because on this one, I don't want to be right. The random ranter with his take on an issue that every once in a while bubbles up in this country, elections have been decided. Political futures have been decided around that issue. Doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. Okay, we're going to take a quick break. We have a few more letters, quite a few more actually, that are your turn.

And we'll get to them right after this. Welcome back. Peter Ransbridge here in Toronto for this day. You're listening to The Bridge. You're listening to the Thursday episode, Your Turn on the Random Rant. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform.

More letters. Here we go. And this is, they're all over the map here on this final segment. Gary, or no, James Carr in Vernon, B.C. is writing about Gary Lineker from the BBC.

We'd love to hear your thoughts regarding the Gary Lineker situation with the BBC. There seems to be pressure on the BBC in terms of how they have handled the situation, and some are calling for resignations. Based on your extensive experience in working for a public broadcaster, what's your take on the situation? How careful do people affiliated with a public broadcaster need to be in sharing their opinions? Well, they need to be very careful

if they're in a news position. We're not interested in hearing what their public opinions are. At least that's my feeling. But Gary Lineker was not a news presenter. He was a sports presenter. And I have no problem with him speaking out, just as I would have no problem with various sports people here

speaking out, as long as they do it responsibly and with some degree of accuracy. So I was supportive of Lineker, glad to see what happened. Interesting to see how it will all turn out when all the various investigations are over. I don't know enough about the process in terms of how they came to that decision, but I'm glad to see that Gary will be back on the job this weekend. Adrian Hill writes, this is another got me wrong, you know, caught me out on something.

Adrian Hill writes from, where is he right from? Nepean, Ontario. No government has promised to save the investors of the Silicon Valley Bank. The depositors will be protected, according to Washington. No, the investors, shareholders, bondholders will not and will likely lose their entire investment. Quite correct. I was wrong in the way I said that the other day, no doubt about it.

Pam Butler writes an interesting letter. I've enjoyed listening to your podcast. I'm a little behind. I've just listened to the one from March 8th. You mentioned that one of the members of The Band had committed suicide. I wondered if you were aware that they are trying to change the wording around suicide, saying someone died by suicide is the preferred wording now. We wouldn't say someone who died from cancer has committed cancer. I hope you take a moment to consider using the new wording in the future.

Well, I have been thinking about it and will continue to think about it. I find your wording interesting. You know, I wondered if you were aware that they are trying to change the wording around suicide. Who's they? Well, they are a number of different activist groups who are concerned on the mental health front and feel that that change in the wording is warranted.

That's not to say that all suicides are involving people with mental health conditions. The scientific and medical community says about half are. I don't know how they come up with these stats, but that's what they do. I've, you know, done some reading since getting this letter, but it's certainly something to consider. You know, we are reexamining our language in a lot of areas. You know, the rancher last week talked about when he was watching the CPAC members in Washington. He said, it's all crazy down there.

They're all crazy. Well, some people object to the word crazy being used on defining something like that because they feel it should only be used in a straight medical sense for those who are challenged in a certain way, not in the way that we commonly use the word crazy. But I appreciate Pam's letter, and it's something to certainly consider. There were a couple of letters on AI,

artificial intelligence, after our wonderful discussion with Michelle Rempel-Garner, I guess almost two weeks ago now. Michael Williamson writes, and Michael didn't tell me where, oh no, sorry, he's writing from Burlington, Ontario. What if AI becomes self-aware and is classified as a unique species? Has society evolved enough to properly identify when that has occurred and treat AI appropriately when it does? At the rate things are evolving, perhaps we should start thinking about that now.

Stephen Zhu from Vancouver. Now, I can't read Stephen's big long letter, but this will give you something to think about. He was on ChatGPT recently, so he instructed ChatGPT to comment on current affairs using insights from various political and military leaders throughout history. He sent me the excerpt and suggested that Brian and I read it. I wonder if both of you will get a kick out of reading it, as I did. In particular, I found it very remarkable that the AI volunteered the names of Putin and Xi as modern manifestations of Caesar.

So he includes the chat GPT excerpt. And for those of you who are still not familiar with this, you basically throw in a kind of a question like that, a request like Stephen did, and instantly the AI involved in chat GPT spits out basically an essay that addresses that very question. And it's not just a copy of somebody else's essay. It's something that is created in AI.

And it's all in there. Interesting topic. I'll show it to Brian. Dean Lestoria from Burnaby, B.C. You know, the other day I did the, you know, I talked about the run on the banks, and I used the It's a Wonderful Life image. It's part of one of the most successful films of all time, right?

So Dean writes, I think there's a better bank run scene than It's a Wonderful Life. It's from Good Morning morning miss dove from 1955 a geography teacher to everyone in the town of liberty hill miss dove saves the bank by cutting past the angry line and blocks the teller's wicket miss dove makes a very slow deposit shop stopping everyone else from withdrawing their balances. And wouldn't you know it, none of the bank's pens seem to have ink. Finally, she makes polite conversations until the 3 p.m. bank closure. She then lectures the near-riotous line about civics. I had one teacher like that. I hope you did, too. Not important, but sometimes you need to get beyond Capra.

Thanks, Dean. Two letters to go here. Stephen Tost of London, Ontario. Tost, toast. Hope all is well. I had a thought after last Friday's show when you were wrapping up with Chantel and Bruce because you ran out of time. I realize there are time constraints for your satellite radio obligations,

but none exist for podcasts and YouTube. Why not finish up the show for radio, then continue with another 10 or 15 minutes for your podcast and YouTube folks only? It can make some more podcast subscribers out of your radio audience. Just a thought. Well, Stephen's a marketer, right? I'll see what Bruce and Chantel think of going longer.

We just love the luxury of an hour. Trust me, after spending our last whatever number of years in a broadcast situation where we couldn't go anywhere more than like 15, 16 minutes at the most, to get an hour, that's a luxury. Final letter comes from NanusBC. Douglas Moore writes, I've just listened to your end bit asking what one does to fall asleep at night.

I want you to know that I listen and or watch and thoroughly enjoy each and every podcast. I do so sometimes in the morning, sometimes in the afternoon, sometimes in the evening, and sometimes after having gone to bed using my iPad. Now, I don't know whether he means he goes to bed using his iPad or he listens on his iPad when he goes to bed. What a kidder, right? Now I know that you're not going to like hearing this, but invariably we know what's coming, right? Now I know that you're not going to like hearing this, but invariably, we know what's coming, right? I know that you're not going to like hearing this, but invariably, I fall asleep before even halfway through the podcast. I'm not suggesting that your podcast is akin to the BBC

shipping forecast, which we talked about the other day, or though the podcast is not interesting, it's just that if I close my eyes, your voice and those of your guests, excepting perhaps the renter, is sufficiently calming that I drift off to sleep. I hope that you'll forgive this confession. Not to fear, however, because when I wake up in the morning, I get back on my iPad, fast forward to where I last remember the conversation, and finish.

Cheers. Doug Moore, Lenox Bay, BC. Well, Doug, you know, if you're in bed and you started listening to this podcast 42 minutes ago, then you're probably asleep when your letter came up. But we're all sending you our best wishes out there in the Noose Bay. Sounds great. Now, I know other people have told me they fall asleep listening to my voice. There were people who used to tell me they fell asleep during the National listening to my voice.

But they always said, you know, it's not your voice, Peter. It's when you get into items that, well, you know, they're perhaps not that interesting. Sure. That's going to wrap it up for today. Hey, wakey, wakey. That's going to wrap it up for today. Tomorrow, coming up, it's good talk. Chantel and Bruce will be by and as we always do,

we'll find an hour's worth of things to talk about. Thanks for listening on this day. We'll talk to you again in 24 hours. Music Music Music Music