The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - YOUR TURN ON DOUG FORD AND "FREEDOM", AND THE RANDOM RANTER

Episode Date: November 3, 2022

Your Turn, emails, comments, questions on a wide range of topics this week, and of course our regular Thursday commentary from The Random Ranter.  Issues from Doug Ford, to the monarchy, to Ukraine, to voter turnout.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Thursday, your turn, random renter. It's all coming up in just a moment. And welcome to another episode of The Bridge at Being Thursday. Yes, it's your opportunity to weigh in with your thoughts and your ideas, sometimes some of your own questions. Also, an opportunity to hear from the random renter. What's he going to have to say on this day? I want to start by just explaining something that happened yesterday.

Some of you may have noticed. But after a couple of years of doing the bridge and you know more than a few times when we've heard from some of our listeners who said you know why don't you why don't you put parts of the bridge on your own youtube channel so we can actually see you guys talking. And the suggestions were to try and do like Wednesday, Smoke Mirrors and the Truth with Bruce Anderson. And Friday, Good Talk with Chantel Hébert and Bruce. And so actually we figured out how to do that. It's actually not that complicated. But it does involve some time.

But we wanted to try it. We tested it out over the last couple of weeks and we launched it yesterday now already i've had some mail asking how do i get that well first of all it doesn't impact at all anything we're doing now if you like just listening to the podcast or if you like listening to The Bridge on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, 12 noon daily is the first edition, the release point. Same time it's released as a podcast, and it's repeated a couple of times, like 5 p.m. in the afternoon, Eastern.

That will still happen. You can still get The bridge exactly that way. You don't have to change anything. If you want to see the video version, and it's pretty straightforward. It's basically the Zoom video of the podcast being put together. It's always live to tape. Some interviews are pre-recorded, but they're inserted live to tape. Some interviews are pre-recorded, but they're inserted live to tape. If you want to watch it, it's very simple. Just go to my bio. That's a little description of

me that's either on Twitter or on Instagram. If you follow me, you got to follow me to get that. And you just click on it, on the insert in there about the YouTube channel. And bingo, you're there and you can watch it. There's no charge. It's free. So go for it. Let me know what you think. It's very straightforward.

It's very simple. It's not a high-end television production. It is what it is, warts and all. All right, having said all that, let's get to your letters. After all, it is your turn. And the random ranter will pop up somewhere in the middle, probably. We start out with a trio of letters about the actions of Premier Doug Ford in Ontario. And we start with Nancy Abba in Toronto.

I'm beside myself with the Ford government and their upcoming legislation that would strip workers of their rights to collective bargaining and then use the notwithstanding clause to ensure they have no recourse under the law. This is not how the notwithstanding clause to ensure they have no recourse under the law. This is not how the notwithstanding clause was ever meant to be used. This is the Ford government abdicating their responsibility to negotiate in good faith in favor of behaving like schoolyard bullies who are in possession of the biggest stick in the playground. It is completely unacceptable. I've never been a part of a union and cannot claim to be an expert, but in my opinion, employers and governments and unions

have a responsibility to negotiate in good faith, and in the situation where they cannot reach an agreement, they should be forced to go to binding arbitration. This would or should eliminate the need to strike, as well as possibly force all parties into more reasonable starting positions, as they may need to convince an arbitrator that their position has merit. The Ford government is not the only provincial government slope for the state of democracy in Canada. Nancy Abba in Toronto. Renee Switzer from Roberts Creek, British Columbia. I usually listen to your podcast during my twice-weekly commute to Vancouver as I listen to Why is Ford saying no, that's about testifying.

A frequent thought came to mind. Political convenience has taken over where ethics and ideals should take precedence. There was a time when a person running for political office had beliefs on policy that were articulated during the campaign. If the person was elected, those beliefs guided their actions, speeches, and voting record. It is depressing to understand that in many cases these political hopefuls speak and act based on what they think will get them elected, not necessarily what they actually think. As an example, Pierre Pallev ran his recent leadership

campaign supporting a group that were not shy about wanting to overthrow our elected government. Now there's talk in the media about what he will do about that now. The guy either really supported the convoy or he was faking it for political reasons. Whichever is true, that is not the kind of person that I feel could ever be trusted in a leadership position. And the last letter about Doug Ford comes from Scott Clark. Peter, I enjoy listening to your podcast. I can't take credit for this. I heard some version of it on social media, but it did

get me thinking. Wonder if any of the freedom-loving convoy participants and supporters will weigh in on Doug Ford's government taking away, at least threatening to, Ontario education support workers' charter-protected right to collectively bargain. It's one thing to legislate them back to work, but another to invoke the notwithstanding clause to shield bargain. It's one thing to legislate them back to work, but another to invoke the notwithstanding clause to shield themselves. That's an interesting comment, Scott. We'll have to watch to see whether any of, quote,

the freedom-loving convoy protesters, unquote, come out against Doug Ford. Moving on, Patrick Talon in L'Origna, Ontario. Yesterday's episode of The Bridge, he's talking about Tuesday, with Brian Stewart was particularly interesting. The idea that we could see a collapse in Russia because of Putin's criminal misadventures in Ukraine was fascinating and a potential case of history continuing to repeat itself. 1917, 1991, and perhaps 2022-23 are years when the Russian people turn on their leaders and the sprawling empire collapses. This morning, Globe and Mail had a

front page article on the struggles Russia has to maintain sovereignty over a 1,300-kilometer stretch of islands that border eastern Russia and northern Japan. This stretch of islands was occupied by the Soviets in August of 1945, and the border dispute, according to the Globe article, has never been formally settled. Japanese fishermen are routinely hassled and occasionally detained by Russian officials over apparent border incursions. Maintaining these vast borders and the strain it has on Russian resources was a key point of Brian Stewart's assertions that Russia may be on the verge of another collapse. Hearing his theory on yesterday's podcast was further supported by the story in today's Globe and Mail. Thanks for the timely and in-depth insight.

Sean Shaw writes from Victoria. Your segment on interest rates today was missing a pretty big piece of context. Rates this year may have risen back to something more normal to 15 years ago, but the relative price of houses compared to present-day income is much higher too. That's true. And I think we actually, maybe we didn't point that out, but if we didn't, we should have. Perhaps also name a time when rates have risen so fast. Well, that's easy.

I don't know how old you are, Sean, but in the 1980s, especially the early 1980s, they rose very, very fast, up to as much as 20% for interest rates. So rising three times has happened before. Back to his letter. Finally, to qualify for a mortgage, you have to be stress tested. For example, my mortgage that was 1.75% this time last year, I qualified for a tested rate of 5. I bought a house for $1.2 million that 20 years ago sold for $200,000.

There's no such thing as a $200,000 home today, or whatever the 2022 comparison is. That's true. Lots of things have changed over time. As I said, in those early 80s, rates were very high. House prices were lower. There's no doubt about that. Salaries were considerably lower too.

When interest rates went up, inflation caused incomes to go up as well and had been going. That's what the whole issue about inflation became and that's what we led to wage and price controls. Wage and price controls. Anyway, Sean, thank you. Pedro Tuchori from Whitby, Ontario.

I found out about the podcast a few months ago, the old-fashioned way, by reading a signed copy of your latest book, Off the Record, which I highly recommend. Hey, Pedro, thank you very much. As a newcomer to this country back in 2009 from Brazil, I used to watch The National in order to learn more about Canada's affairs, and I'm glad I can keep doing so by listening to The Bridge. Well, that's very nice and very kind of you.

You can continue to learn about Canada by watching, you know, the national newscasts on the television networks, reading papers, listening to radio, and yes, listening to podcasts that you trust, that you have some faith in. Brent Rohrer describes himself as a frequent listener of The Bridge, going right back to its beginnings. About two years now. Well, it's actually more than two years. However, this is my first time taking the opportunity to write into the show.

I'm writing to you from the great town that Stompen Tom put on the map, Tilsonburg, Ontario. I wanted to write about it after listening to the random ranter last week who spoke about the convoy and the response to it by our elected leaders. I wasn't sure where he was going to take his rant, but wow, did he hit the nail on the head. We actually had a lot of positive notes about the ranter and his rant from last week. In fact, I think it was 100% in favor of what he had to say. So if you didn't hear it, dial back to last week last

thursday he's coming up again on this show on a different topic in a few minutes i have to say it was so refreshing to hear someone who admittedly is not a trudeau fan recognize that not everything is trudeau's fault and that all our elected leaders have a responsibility to represent canadians and stand up for what is good and right. As a lifelong Liberal, I'll be the first to say that I did not feel Trudeau's initial response to the convoy helped the ordeal. His approach was divisive and miscalculated, as it only further fueled the convoy members' anger. However, it is also so important to recognize and remember that many

members of the Conservative Party embraced the movement and welcomed the convoy with open arms, including the man they just overwhelmingly elected as their leader. I guess my point is that it was encouraging to hear the story presented from a lens of logic and accountability, he's talking about the ranter here, rather than a political statement, a perspective that holds elected leaders accountable for their actions or lack thereof. I hope moving forward, the media will start to transition back to presenting the news in this fashion again,

but I don't have high hopes. Oh, Brent, don't give up hope. Ernest Warnelius responded to last week's Your Turn segment was almost exclusively trying to answer that question of if you had the opportunity, what's one thing you would do to the CBC or for the CBC? So Ernest writes, to improve the CBC, I've largely stopped looking at it. I'm not a neocon and describe myself as fairly liberal,

but there is a flavor of rabid wokeness radiating from the CBC that seems to permeate all parts of the product, some kind of social engineering agenda that drives everything it does. I imagine a room full of frowning, politically correct, ultra-woke overseers filtering everything the corporation does. I suggest the corporation lose the agenda. All right, Ernest, let me, look, I don't work for the CBC anymore. I did for 50 years. I'm a big believer in public broadcasting, but I've never been shy about criticizing when criticism

was needed. And I do that. I did that when I worked there. I still do that today. But I believe that public broadcasting is really important to Canada. And so that was the basis of the question that I asked last week. But let me just say this about what you said. You started off the letter by saying you've largely stopped looking at the CBC. Okay, that's your right. But if you stop looking at the CBC, how can you say there's a rabid wokeness radiating from the CBC that seems to permeate all parts of the product? If you don't watch it, how do you know what permeates all parts of the product? Some kind of engineering agenda that drives everything

it does, you say. Well, that's a criticism you can absolutely make and put forward examples if, in fact, you watch it, but you say you don't watch it. And then this line about the room full of frowning, politically correct, ultra-woke overseers. I don't know what you're talking about. You know, I've sat in those rooms for decades where we make decisions, or I used to be involved

in those decision-making moments every day by a group of people with differing opinions, differing ideologies, if you will, come from different parts of the country. And we debate and discuss and argue what's important, what should be on the news. The sense that there's just a bunch of like-minded people sitting in one room who all agree that this is the agenda.

It's just not the case. It just isn't. But mainly my point is, if you're going to criticize, go for it. You should criticize. But to criticize, you've got to know what you're talking about in terms of having seen and be ready to list examples of here's why I say this. Derek Dillabo writes from Ottawa. The recent municipal elections across Ontario

showed a dismal 36% average across the province in terms of turnout. In Ottawa, we had a supposedly good turnout at 44 percent elections in all levels of government struggle to get the majority of the population to show up and vote and this is very discouraging to me i know that a hundred percent of eligible voters constantly complain about all levels of government and seem to have strong opinions about various policies and politicians. However, for some reason, many don't bother voting, let alone studying the various platforms and policies being offered that will directly

affect them and their families for years to come. My message, especially for young voters, is to closely follow all levels of political discourse and the many issues being debated. The power of voting can change the future of your lives and the world. It is vitally important. Show up and vote. Those are all good words. Those are all good thoughts to keep in mind.

Good advice. And you know what, Derek? You know who else was thinking about this very same topic today? You guessed it. You guessed it. It's time for The Random Renter. We just finished up a round of elections across much of the country, and I'm happy to say I voted, and I'm hoping you did too, because not a lot of people did. The media likes to point to voter apathy as the culprit,

but can you really call it apathy if the person never even considered voting? And that's what I think the problem is. A large portion of our population have no interest in participating in democracy at all. They're just going with the flow, letting other people vote and decide things. They've totally checked out, and if we're being honest, maybe they never even checked in. I'm sure some of you are saying, that's fine, leave the elections to people who care. But it's not that simple, because the lack of participation is reaching a critical level. With 20 or 30% of eligible voters showing up, it doesn't take much to tilt the scales.

We already have officials winning with the support of just 10% of eligible voters. Just think about that number. 10%. That's a terrifyingly low bar. At 10%, we're wide open for mischief and mayhem, not just from special interest groups like the anti-vaxxers, but from foreign actors like China or Russia. I've got no shortage of opinions, and I'm not shy about expressing them, but I'm at a loss on this one. I don't know what causes this, and I have no idea how to fix it. Because it's not that voters are at the park taking their ball and going home. It's that they never had a ball and they can't spell park. It makes no sense. And frankly, it scares me a bit.

Because what's it going to take to get people voting again? My fear is that it'll be some kind of cataclysmic event that clearly puts democracy in jeopardy. But that's not usually how it works. Because when democracy dies, it tends to shut down one organ at a time. Just look south of the border for a prime example. Abortion rights, gone. Armed militia at ballot boxes. Daily mass shootings. Climate change deniers. Full-on racist elected officials. The list goes on and on, and while you'd think those would all be things to motivate people to vote, their participation rates head steadily downward. This is a global issue. Democracy is under attack everywhere and at every level, both externally and from within. I feel like everyone is getting gaslit.

Ask the Freedom Convoy people and they say they were defending democracy or worse, listen to Trump. He talks like he's the very stalwart of freedom. You know, they say bullshit baffles brains. And honestly, I don't know how we can compete with all the bullshit right now. It's sickening. But I'm engaged. I care to process this. I see through it. And I'm sure if you're listening to this podcast, you do too. But what about everybody else? You know, the actual majority of people. How do we convince them that informed voting is important when we lose them at the word

informed? All I know is we can't afford to take the freedom democracy grants us lightly. So let me be the first one to fight fire with fire and cry it out loud. All I know is we can't afford to take the freedom democracy grants us lightly. So let me be the first one to fight fire with fire and cry it out loud. Freedom! Now, if only I had a horn to honk. There he is. The random Ranter. And if you're wondering, we've always chosen to protect his anonymity.

To actually, you know, in a way to raise the expectation level around this character who appears with us every Thursday and has now for a couple of months. It has become a very, very popular segment. We get a lot of mail about the ranter. Not everybody agrees with him, but everybody likes the idea of having, or I should say everybody. You know, I had one letter once a couple of weeks ago saying that as soon as the ranter

comes on, that person turns off the podcast. But that's the only letter I've received like that. I've received dozens and dozens and dozens of letters of people thanking the bridge for the ranter, even on times when they don't agree with them. Remember, there was a lot of action around the electric vehicles commentary by the ranter. If you didn't hear that one, go back a month or so to listen to that commentary because it lasted a couple of weeks as it turned out. And it was lots of fun. But anyway, the ranter does his thing each Thursday on your turn, and we're glad he

does. Okay, we're going to take a quick break, and we're glad he does. Okay, we're going to take a quick break, and then we'll come back with more of your letters, your thoughts and questions, and some of your ideas on the issues of the day. But first, this. and welcome back you're listening to your turn today's episode of the bridge on sirius xm channel 167 canada talks or on your favorite podcast platform and we're happy to have you join us no matter which vehicle you're using. And once again, twice a week, Wednesdays and Fridays,

you can also go to my YouTube channel. You can access that by going to my bio on Twitter or on Instagram and connect straight through to a video copy of the Wednesday edition of Smoke Mirrors and the Truth or the Friday edition of Good Talk with Chantel Hébert and Bruce Anderson. Those two are available in their video format as well as being available as an audio podcast and on SiriusXM every day at 12 noon Eastern. Don't expect a high-end television production because that is not what it is.

It's basically a copy of the Zoom video. But many of you had asked for it over the last while to do something like that, so there it is. You can watch it. And it's basically watching a show in production with all its various problems that occur at times when you're trying to put something together. So enjoy that one if you wish. Okay, back to your letters. Mark Moldawan in Sooke, B.C. Love that town.

On Friday's Good Talk, this will be last Friday, we had a discussion about members of parliament opposed to swearing an oath of allegiance to the king. Many Canadians are probably unaware that of the top 18 countries in the 2021 Econom Economic Democracy Index, sorry, Economist Democracy Index, that's the magazine Economist, 10 are constitutional monarchies, including Canada. No system of government works perfectly, but our constitutional monarchy has served us well.

Despite its imperfections, we should be proud of it. In a constitutional monarchy, the monarch is the personification of the country. When one swears allegiance to the monarch, one is swearing allegiance to more than just a person. One is swearing allegiance to a set of values and a model of governance that has evolved over a thousand years and is represented by the king in a similar way americans who swear allegiance to their flag are not swearing allegiance to a piece of cotton cloth but to the values and the system of governance that it represents all right mark it you know it's a it's a discussion that we've all taken part in at different times in our lives,

and especially so in the last, you know, month, six weeks after the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, whether we want to continue in the system that we have or whether we want to move on. And there are strong feelings on both sides, and Mark, it's good to hear yours. Deborah Mills writes from Ottawa. I'm an avid listener to your podcast.

Of course, my favorites are Wednesday's SMT, Smoke Mirrors and the Truth, and Friday's Good Talk. My usual routine is listening the next morning while walking the dogs. However, my new favorite is Brian Stewart on Tuesdays. Brian's got quite the fan following. It's wonderful to see. My new favorite is Brian Stewart on Tuesdays.

Brian's commentary on Ukraine does not wait until the next morning. It drops, I listen. And listen again, as there is so much information. It is something overwhelming. Sometimes overwhelming. The reason for my email, my dear friend and co-worker in Ukraine, Tatyiana, she has been working at a feverish pace to ensure her family's safety back home, raise awareness and funds to secure safe passage for friends and their children. So far, she and her family opened her home to a friend's child and recently her cousin and her daughters. They are safe in Canada and their hearts in Ukraine with family members left behind. That, you know, is a story that is shared by a lot of people across the country. Refugees from Ukraine, people whose family passed involves Ukraine,

and they're right across the country. There are heavy pockets in certain parts of the country, but literally they are across the country, and the kind of things that Tatiana is doing, and Deborah goes on to mention a number of other things, but those are the kind of things that are being done in many parts of the country by many people who are involved indirectly and sometimes directly in the Ukraine story. Vern Classen writes, I'm from Manitoba, live just outside Winnipeg on a rural farm in the Oak Bluff Sanford area.

That's not far from Winnipeg on a rural farm in the Oak Bluff Sanford area. That's not far from Winnipeg. I was farming, and I had always thought that Churchill was a very expensive port for grain exports, but the idea of oil exports from Churchill is even more questionable. What is Alberta's desperation for their oil industry to export going to do to fragile areas like the North? And he attaches an article that was in the Winnipeg Free Press, and the comments from the Manitoba Premier about that as well.

By the way, we really enjoy your podcast. It sure is needed for our country to have a Canadian perspective with good opinions. And listen, there's lots of places to find good opinions and a Canadian perspective, but I'm glad Vern that you're enjoying listening to the bridge as part of that. You know, many of you know that I have a direct connection to Churchill and that was because that's where I started my career. Started in Churchill, Manitoba. 19, 20 years old. Started my career in broadcasting. Somebody heard me at the airport announcing a flight,

and the next thing you knew, I was doing the late night show on CHFC for Churchill, Manitoba. And everything went forward from there. But Churchill has a place in my heart. I care about Churchill, and I've always cared about the port because of the harsh winters. That port is locked in for nine, ten months a year,

and any way to get it open with more business would help the economy of northern Manitoba and the economy of the town of Churchill. With climate change and rising temperatures and melting ice, those possibilities exist for a longer season. But is there going to be more than grain shipped out of Churchill? Could it be an alternative for oil? And if it's considered that it could be, what are they going to do to protect the environment?

Not only around Churchill, but the whole route to Churchill. We know the dangers and the uh the questionable nature of some rail traffic for oil although oil is going back and forth across this country by rail in lots of circumstances we've seen the outcome of one or two tragic trips um but that's i guess part of Vern's concern that anything like that happened in northern Manitoba it could ruin a huge area and have a severe impact so there are challenges

and you know we weigh these things all the time but the you know the challenges of economic development Scott Ziliotto from Minesing, Ontario. There's a place I've never heard of before. Scott wrote as a result of Monday's episode of The Bridge where we talked about the protection issue for public officials and whether there's enough protection to go around

for various public officials and whether there's enough protection to go around for various public officials. While Scott feels strongly about this, I believe that we do need to have more protection for our government officials, both federally and provincially. I believe that the PM, the Deputy PM, and the GG should have equal protection. What does the Deputy Prime Minister even receive? The fact she was verbally assaulted in the summer should have equal protection. What does the deputy prime minister even receive? The fact she was verbally assaulted in the summer should have never happened.

Does she travel via RCAF challengers too? She should, is what Scott argues. I'm not sure she does. I think she probably flies commercial unless she's traveling with the prime minister, who for a variety of reasons and past prime ministers had the same, for security reasons, travel by government aircraft. Anyway, Scott goes on to suggest that there are, you know, Supreme Court judges, senators, ministers should also have 24-7 protection.

That's a lot of protection, Scott. Let me tell you, you start adding the 100 or so senators, the 300 and whatever it is now, members of parliament, judges, cabinet ministers, you name it, you're talking a lot of protective detail. And at the moment, that doesn't exist in terms of protective personnel, whether it's in the RCMP or the armed forces in some cases. However, it's an interesting discussion,

and I'm glad to hear your opinions on that Greg Elder writes from Mississauga, Ontario And this is another one of those letters about the ranter, right? And they come in on a fairly frequent basis Greg writes, he's in Mississauga I just listened to the random ranter's rant from this week That's last week I'm sure you'll get multiple letters echoing my response to his opinions.

Here, here, is what Greg says. And actually, you're right, Greg, there were a lot of letters supportive of the ranter. Here's another one, Rob Yarnes from Carberry, Manitoba. I love the ranter. Great conversation catalyst. And that's the main point. You donitoba. I love the ranter. Great conversation catalyst. And that's the main point. You don't have to agree with the ranter.

What we're hoping to do is, like, engage you in a conversation about what it is the ranter is talking about. And that seems to be happening. Anyway, Rob is not writing about the ranter as such. He's writing about his own rant. When consuming the testimony coming out of the convoy commission, one has to remember to read between the lines of spin and self-interest. This is especially true with people representing the convoy who are still dealing with criminal charges from their involvement. They would have you

believe that past social media posts and videos are not an indication of how reasonable they really are. Their lawyers key in on statements that would show they were being very reasonable, but the police and other authorities were unreasonable and inept. I'm not buying much of their understated presentation. To me, they are disruptors and disgruntled narcissists who just want to kick up a stink in a free and democratic society. All right, Rob.

Here's your last letter for this week. It might recall last Friday on Good Talk, we had a little section that we chose to call The Short Snapper, after that old program, Reach for the Top. They weren't that short in our case. Chantel and Bruce know how to spread out their answers. Anyway, Chris Colson writes from Ottawa,

although he makes the point of saying I'm originally from Richmond, British Columbia, which is interesting. The paths usually go the other way, right? Go West, young man. Anyway, Chris writes, I trust this email finds you well. I greatly enjoyed your snappers segment last Friday on Good Talk. You may be pleased to know that although it is no longer televised,

Reach for the Top continues to this day with strong high school teams in many provinces. I myself played from 2009 to 2013, though I never had the fortune of attending a national championship. And Reach for the Top was on TV as recently as the 2000s, on TVO. Another fun fact, former Prime Ministers Kim Campbell and Stephen Harper are both Reach forfor-the-top players. At the time I played, my teammates and I found it very honorable and humorous, sorry, very humorous, that the then Prime Minister, Stephen Harper,

played and lost in the championships. Finally, these days, snappers are often known as chain snappers One-off quick questions where the answer is somehow related to the next question I did not know that Chris, you get the honor this week Of being the last letter In today's episode of Your Turn Alright then of being the last letter in today's episode of your turn.

All right, then. That's going to wrap it up for this Thursday. Tomorrow, it's Good Talk. Chantel and Bruce will be here, and we'll look at any number of different topics, and they keep coming. They keep coming up. There's never an episode of Good Talk where we say, well, you know what?

There's nothing to talk about this week. There's always something to talk about, and we love talking, and apparently you love listening, and we're glad you do. So that's on tomorrow's episode of The Bridge. And once again, Friday is one of the two days of the week, Wednesdays and Fridays, where we do an episode on YouTube, on our YouTube channel, both the SiriusXM YouTube channel and my own personal YouTube channel.

And if you want to see it, go to, if you know how to navigate YouTube, you'll find it. If you're unfamiliar with that, just go to my bio on either Twitter or on Instagram, and you'll see a connection. It'll take you straight to my YouTube channel and you can watch that day's episode the video version of it or past ones as well so that's something new for the bridge keep in mind all the

old ways of doing things like this your audio podcast or your Sirius XM 12 noon Eastern time edition of the bridge. They will not change. They're still there. All right. So if that's the way you like it, that's the way you can get it. That won't change. All right.

I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening on this day. You know what's next. I'll talk to you again in 24 hours.