How I dread the idea of covering local politics

First published in The Daily News on Jan. 23, 2008.

I have an admission to make that may shock some, offend others and cause a handful of people to agree with me.

Canadian politics is boring. There, I said it.

I'm one of the few reporters out there who doesn't aspire to write for the political beat. I dread the thought of a spring election because I really hate covering elections. Elections are deathly dull affairs full of grandstanding and barnstorming and a bunch of other buzzwords that attempt to make everything more exciting than it really is.

We're on the verge of another election. If opposition Liberals and New Democrats vote against the Conservatives' 2008 budget then we're likely going to see an election as early as April or maybe May.

As a reporter, I should bone up (another exciting buzzword, far more interesting than research) on the issues in anticipation of the work ahead.

Instead, my attention is focused south of the border, where politics, at least for the moment, is interesting.

The United States.

George W. Bush and his Republican cronies, who did a wonderful job of screwing up a country that gets a worse rap than it deserves, is on his way out. He'll likely be taking his party with him come November.

Now there is an interesting battle brewing among Democrats about who will be the 44th president of the United States -- the battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

People more knowledgeable than I can weigh in on the merits of these two candidates. Me? I just want to point out how interesting they are compared to our party leaders at play here in Canada.

Clinton is a U.S. senator and the wife of Bill Clinton, who should need no introduction. She's also the first female senator for the state of New York.

In fact, her life has been about firsts. She was the first student to speak at commencement exercises for Wellesley College, the first female partner at Rose Law Firm, is the only First Lady to be subpoenaed, testifying before a federal grand jury as a consequence of the Whitewater scandal in 1996, and has a good shot at being the first female president.

That is if Obama doesn't beat her. Since announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama has emphasized ending the Iraq War, increasing energy independence, and providing universal health care as major priorities that have scored big with young American voters.

Since being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 he's pushed for legislation on lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel. These points alone earn him my vote, provided I could cast a ballot.

Clinton is winning the race, having recently bested Obama in the Nevada primaries. Obama scored 80 per cent with black voters, but Clinton appealed to female voters and Hispanics. The simple fact that I know this says something.

What does that say about our brewing election here? For one thing we lack a dynamic candidate. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is anything but dynamic. I'll go on the record and say the only reason he won the 2006 federal election is because people had enough of the Liberals after more than a decade of rule.

I've met Stephane Dion. He's a nice guy. Very intelligent and well read. He's the kind of guy you want to have a glass of wine with but not the sort of man you'd follow into battle. He's not leadership material.

Jack Layton? Anybody know who Jack Layton is? He's the leader of the NDP and it's going to be a long time before that party has a shot at running the country. The only purpose he serves is taking votes away from either the Conservatives or Liberals.

I understand the U.S. has a fixed election date. The candidates have to campaign now. We have a fixed federal date, too, but there is no reason for the country to plow into an election at this point except to get the Conservatives out of power.

While I applaud the reasoning, I don't think this is the time to do it, nor are these the people I want running the country. I doubt we'll have a Clinton or an Obama to cheer for when the clock ticks down to October 2009, but then we'll have to vote for someone. And having to is better than being forced to.

© 2008 The Daily News (Kamloops)

This time for sure the family will keep

First published in The Daily News on Jan. 9, 2008.

Some families are tight-knit. Sons, daughter, mothers, fathers, aunts and uncles get together on an almost weekly basis for dinner, coffee, nights at the movie or just to talk. Every event is an outing that inspires relatives to attend.

Not so with the Hewlett clan. For as long as I can remember Hewletts and their spouses have only gathered for Christmas, weddings and funerals. Occasionally one of us turns 50 or 70 and we'll all gather at a predetermined location, like elephants called to their legendary graveyard, and celebrate and/or mourn.

Whenever Hewletts meet, there are promises made between cousins and uncles and aunts to get together for lunch, coffee or a movie. To keep in touch between these milestones and behave, well, like family.

Then Christmas rolls around again and the same promises are made. No one has died recently. Ditto married. We're working on that.

It was the same story this past Christmas. My cousin Peter and I made plans to get together last Thursday for his birthday, but he wasn't turning 50 or 70, so the party didn't happen.

But colour me surprised when I was doing a story at Harper Mountain on Sunday and who should cross my path but cousin Peter.

"Sorry I didn't call you, cuz. We didn't end up doing anything," Peter said.

"Don't worry about it," was my response.

Peter, Cindy and the kids were skiing and tubing as part of a birthday party. We made plans to meet later this week for coffee or a drink. I even wrote down his cellphone number on my handy-dandy reporter's notebook. Can't say I have that luxury at Christmas.

Not three minutes went by before I ran into Samantha, another cousin, and her children and boyfriend. We hadn't seen each other for at least two Christmases. It's a long story.

"It's so good to see you," she said, and gave me a hug. Given that I hadn't dressed for the mountain, the hug was doubly appreciated.

This conversation lasted a little longer than the one with Peter. We talked about work and respective spouses and made plans to meet for a coffee soon.

"We have to keep in touch, Jay," she said. I agreed, and promised to Facebook her. That's how hip people keep in touch these days.

I went into the lodge to get warm and bumped into Neal Aronowski and his wife Shelly. Neal is my mom's best friend's son, which in Hewlett speak makes him a member of my extended family.

Neal and I used to be close, but we don't see each other as much as I'd like these days. We had a conversation similar to the other two. More promises were made to get together.

I reunited with Daily News photographer Keith Anderson and we decided to head back to town, our story complete.

"How'd it go?" Anderson asked about the interviews.

"Good," I replied. "And I pretty much ran into half my family up here. That doesn't happen very often."

"Good," he said. He sounded genuinely pleased. "Family is important."

He's a wise man, that Keith Anderson.

So Pete: if I haven't phoned you by the time you read this, don't worry. I'll call you by tomorrow at the latest. Samantha: ditto the Facebook thing. Neal . . . I don't have your number. Call me when you get the chance.

© 2008 The Daily News (Kamloops)

The true spirit of Christmas gets lost in hectic shopping malls

First published in The Kamloops Daily News on Dec. 19, 2007.

Christmas time is here, happiness and cheer, fun for all that children call their favourite time of year.

I'm sure songwriters Vince Guaraldi and Lee Mendelson didn't have Christmas shopping in mind when they penned the lyrics to Christmas Time is Here for A Charlie Brown Christmas back in 1965.

For the uninitiated, the award-winning cartoon is about Christmas not being about rampant consumerism, but a celebration of peace on earth and goodwill toward others.

Anyone who visited a shopping mall these last few weeks would think Charles M. Schultz's seasonal message has been long forgotten. Some stores had Christmas decorations up long before Halloween.

My girlfriend Jessica loves Christmas and Christmas shopping. Nothing fills her with tidings of joy more than buying that special something for a special someone. Being one who rarely says a discouraging word to anyone, she also enjoys the holiday's spiritual side.

Her attitude changed toward Christmas shopping this year. It took just one Saturday fighting through the crowds at the malls to do it. I'm sure the added expense of shopping for a whole other family didn't help. The bills added up quickly.

That night, while sitting at the dinner table with pizza and beer, Jessica announced we're toning down the holiday spending next year.

"It's just not worth it," she said.

From now on we're limiting our spending to no more than $50 per person and only shopping for immediate family. We're also avoiding shopping in December. If we find someone that special something in August, we buy it, she said.

Jessica's epiphany got me wondering how other people view Christmas shopping. So I ventured into the packed malls again this past weekend and found more than a few bags tucked under peoples' armpits or slung over shoulders.

"I'm done!" Darryl Klassen said. He was barely able to contain the joy in his voice.

He had just purchased a gift for his mother. I promised him I would not reveal what it is in this column.

He spent between $450 and $500 for the four people on his Christmas list. "That's about $100 a head. That's not bad," Klassen said.

"I had a plan, but I did have to change it about half way through. There was something I wanted to buy, but it ended up costing about three times what I thought it would."

Then there were Karen and Terry. Karen said the couple had just started shopping. For her, it's all about finding her Christmas-shopping mojo.

"I was waiting to get that feeling. I got that feeling a couple of days ago," she said.

Karen and Terry toned down their spending this year. Terry said the couple capped their budget to $150 to $200 per person.

I'm not allowed to use the name of the last woman with whom I spoke. "I'd rather not give it," she said.

She is an inspiration to those who do not want to spend a lot of money at Christmas. She's not cheap. She just doesn't see the point.

"I spend no more than $30 per person. I feel gifts should be simple and special. I don't buy cellphones or electronics," she said.

"Christmas is more about family and being together, whether by birth, by choice or by acquisition."

Or, as Linus says to Charlie Brown at the end of A Charlie Brown Christmas: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men. That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown."

Amen Linus.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

© 2007 The Daily News (Kamloops)