Why does Elizabeth May Hate Saskatchewan?

Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau, Tom Mulcair –what do they all have in common? As far as they want you to know, nothing. Apart from the fact they’ve all been to Saskatchewan on their campaign trail this election. But one major leader has curiously left our exceptionally shaped province off of their foreseeable campaign list.

Everyone seems to agree Elizabeth May did very well in that first debate. She’s even gained some momentum for the Green Party and boosted her popularity. People who aren’t hipsters or stoners now know who she is! But then why has she stuck so close to the coasts and more importantly, not visited Saskatchewan. This province needs some Green but May is skipping over it. It makes you wonder, why does Elizabeth May hate Saskatchewan?

Could it be the province’s staunch leanings towards the Tories in the past number of years? Could it be Brad Wall and the provincial conservative (I mean the “completely different Saskatchewan Party”) government? Or could it be the fact that only half the province is full of the trees she likes to hug? It seems unfair. There are probably some people in Saskatchewan who like the environment and after that debate may want to give her a chance. It’s a chance for May to win over some reluctant NDP supporters who figure the Orange Haze is the only slightly environmental party that has a chance of forming government. It’s really not a good idea to skip out on Saskatchewan. Don’t underestimate us, we are a powerful province. We have FOURTEEN ridings! That’s some important real estate in federal politics!

Ms. May, if you’re not going to visit us once in a while how can we count on you to represent us when your leader of our country? It shows how out of touch you are with the common people if you won’t even acknowledge the existence of Saskatchewan with even a lame name-based pun about sasquatches. Even America has done that! You should give us the courtesy of a visit even if we’re not asking for it. That didn’t stop the other leaders. Please don’t snub Saskatchewan Ms. May! What do you think we are, New Brunswick??

Comments

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account) is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Reviews of the Bosch

Search This Blog