Hail to the Dear Leader!

Surely this dick-licking drivel from “Chucker Canuck” must be satirical in nature… right?

International media, perhaps freed from the pettiness of proximity, quickly recognizes what a dazzling figure Stephen Harper is. That he is smart, articulate, focused and – most importantly – the change the world has been looking for.

I first thought this just had to be thinly disguised sarcasm, but then along comes the usual flock of puerile Bloggin’ Tory cheerleaders like “Joanne” to proclaim what an absolutely super-terrific, scrumdilicious post “Chucker” has penned! So, presumably the praise for Kim Il Harper (“The Great Media Man”) is in earnest. How delusional.

Update: For shame! My vulgar crack about Chucker’s “dick-licking drivel” has attracted the sort of puritanical opprobrium and moral pretentiousness one has come to expect from the Bloggin’ Tories in lieu of intelligence. What can I say? Aside from being preoccupied otherwise with tedious errands today, the original “knob-polishing piffle” seemed hardly deserving of a more artfully contrived riposte… Oh well. If nothing else, if will give the wingnut punters some much needed grist for their ever-so-tiny mill.

48 Replies to “Hail to the Dear Leader!”

  1. So they way they think Harper should run the country is as an expat? That’s a novel way to dodge accountability.

    I wonder if there’s a business out there for Harper deprogramming?

  2. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating…ChuckerCanuck sounds like a lunatic whenever he’s being serioius.

  3. “So they way they think Harper should run the country is as an expat?”

    Sure Gene why not? Hey, the longer Harper stays away from Canada, the better I feel.

  4. TofKW – Maybe we could lock the doors and change the keys when he’s away. Give him a Burger King crown and phone him once a month to reassure him he’s “still in charge”

  5. The guy had a few cream-puff interviews (Kudlow, Fox Business and Zakaria) on cable and a meeting with the editors of Rupe’s WSJ and “Chucker” thinks that’s some kind of media triumph. Wow. Talk about low expectations.

  6. Red:

    I’ll see your “dick-licking drivel” and raise you a “knob-polishing piffle”…

    But it’s not all Chucker’s fault. Irving Gerstein, greaseball CPC bag-man and chair of the Conservative Fund, sent a fresh batch of fund-raising e-mails to party faithful yesterday. I’m still on their e- and snail-mail lists, as a Gladio-like “stay-behind” from my PC days.
    The e-mail’s subject line reads, “A Prime Minister We Can Be Proud Of”. Here are the first sentences of the first and third paragraphs:

    I’d like to share with you an article I read in this past Saturday’s _Wall_Street_Journal_ about our Prime Minister…[blah, blah, blah]…We clearly have a Prime Minister we can be proud of. And a Government that is restoring Canada’s reputation on the world stage.

    Chucker’s post is merely a Pavlovian response to CPC intra-party panhandling, as well as being his little contribution to the CPC spin that Harper’s little-noticed U.S. day-trip has been some kind of triumph. Poltroons, to a man.

  7. How about embarrassing – Harper in the US saying look at me, look at me selling his latest new and improved soap suds – all the while Gordon Brown visiting the White House and addressing the Joint Members of Congress…..hmmmm.

    And, Sarkozy was at the White House and addressed the Joint Members of Congress last year.

    Yup, Harper, you sure make an impression.

  8. Um….let’s not forget that Chucker was Mario Dumont’s super fan club groupie. And where is Super Mario now? The same place Harper will be a year or so from now…

  9. Is it a prerequisite that they…I’m not even sure what to call them anymore… have lobotomys prior to joining the Conbot party?

  10. man, there’s somnething oddly familiar about generayburn.

    I know nothing, but it’s my favourite pseudonym. Gene Rayburn captures a lot of what I remember about my formative years.

  11. huh. i’d have thought match game was before your time.

    dick gautier, charles nelson reilly, dickie dawson, elaine joyce…. you know, the only thing i ever saw her in, other than on game shows and the occassional cameo on the love boat, was motel hell.

    KEvron

  12. huh. i’d have thought match game was before your time.

    We got cable in ’75 when I was 13 years old. My parents liked it because the kids didn’t always get the adult humour, which, while noticeably ribald, was nuanced. Family viewing, as it used to be called, in other words…fun for the kids, fun for the adults.

  13. My thoughts exactly RuralSandi. He’s the blinkin’ leader of a G8 nation not one of the feckin’ Beckhams. What’s next, Dr. Phil?

  14. Sounds a lot like what we heard from blogging Liberals (Liblogs, LibsOnline, or the next faction) about Dion, until the day they dumped him. Not sure what your point is…Ignatieff is the latest messiah for them, and they seem positively enlivened by it.

    I try not to get too attached to any political leader, on the grounds that, when they fuck up, I hate them all.

  15. Here’s the IMDB page for Gene Rayburn. Match Game ran till 1982. I rediscovered it through a digital cable promo deal with my cable company.

    The internet has helped me discover (and download) a lot of shows I hazily remember from the past: Fernwood 2Nite and Seeing Things to start. It’s also helped me to watch current British TV (which if Chek TV is one of your options, is a godsend).

  16. That guy’s layering on a bit thick. And everything he says about Harper, later seems to be contradicted by something else he says about the guy. It’s as though he’s trying to praise him so hard that he’s stumbling over himself.

    For example, he call Harper “the change the world has been looking for” and yet — “Messianic complex? Never.” (Well, Harper might not have one, but this isn’t going to stop Chucker from worshipping at Harper’s image.)

  17. Sounds a lot like what we heard from blogging Liberals (Liblogs, LibsOnline, or the next faction) about Dion, until the day they dumped him.

    How so, Moe? Be specific.

  18. Just wanted to point out that the article Chucker links to has Harper lying in it.

    Harper: “Well, it is true. We have, I think, the only banks in the Western world where we’re not looking at bailouts.”

    What was the $75 billion the government gave to banks then?

    (Yes, they got mortgages for their money, but this is the same as the suggestion made that TARP funds should be used to buy “toxic assests” from banks.)

    As the old story goes, the deal wasn’t because our banks were in trouble, but to free up credit so that people could get loans.

    And yet credit is drying up.

    Some straight talk.

  19. As the old story goes, the deal wasn’t because our banks were in trouble, but to free up credit so that people could get loans.

    I think that was true at the time. I don’t believe the CMHC bought up toxic mortgages, just bought up mortgages to free up the banks from worrying about them with the prospect of falling real estate prices.

    It may have been futile, but Canada really does have a stable banking system. And we pay for it, of course…

  20. At the end of the day if the banks need bailouts because the People are not paying back their loans, mortgages, and so on, who is really to blame? I don’t care if Canadian banks offered me a load of cash every day, it’s ME that has the soul responsibility of paying it back and deciding if it is a risk I should take, and figuring out if I am going to be able to make the payments for the agreed amount of time. I am so tired of people blaming the govt and banks for their own stupid decisions. Just because a bank offers more lax money-lending policies does not mean I have to drop my brain on the curb and dash in to sign the dotted line. If Harper’s words bite him on the ass in the near future, it is on the people’s heads for not acting responsibly in their own lives and being made accountable for their own decisions. Pass the buck if you want, but perhaps angst should be turned towards the neighbour who bought a home, car, boat and trailer he could not actually afford. Who cares if the bank said he could have it, HE should be the one to sit down and whip out a handy-dandy calculator and see if he can actually afford those luxuries realistically.

  21. It may have been futile, but Canada really does have a stable banking system. And we pay for it, of course…

    Canadian banks are more stable than anywhere else in the world — far lower leverage ratio.

    I quibble over Harper’s point that Canadian banks didn’t receive a bailout. They got government money. It just happened so quickly that no one had time to question it.

  22. At the end of the day if the banks need bailouts because the People are not paying back their loans, mortgages, and so on, who is really to blame?

    And the people employed in banks? What’s their responsibility in generating loans? No one’s holding a gun up to their heads to give out the money. Where’s their personal responsibility in all of this?

    I know people who got in trouble with credit cards in university… at the sametime, what the hell were banks thinking when they gave these people, who were already in debt via student loans, and working part time credit? Well, banks simply make more money from people who are unable to pay their balance on time. People who do pay their balances off are freeloaders. Bad credit rating… higher mortgages later on. It’s a bit of a trap that quite a few people fall into.

    As I noted earlier

    Who cares if the bank said he could have it, HE should be the one to sit down and whip out a handy-dandy calculator and see if he can actually afford those luxuries realistically.

    Taking some numbers from down South…

    A generation ago people spent 54% of their income on the basics. Now it’s 75%.

    Maybe it’s not the luxuries that are killing us, but the essentials. That’s the scary part.

  23. I believe there is responsibility at every level but the final say, the final signature, belongs to the general public. Even if the banks and mortgage lenders acted like skanky loan sharks, the people are the ones responsible for themselves – or should be. It took me about 10 mins with an online mortgage calculator and fiddling with the interest rates to figure out that buying a home in the past few years with no money down and 40-50 yr mortgage was a suicide mission. So I didn’t do it. The home prices in my city took about 20 years to double the first time, then only 5 years to double again. Anyone buying at that time better not come to me crying soon because I will not give them the time of day.

    Of course there are always going to be families who are struggling even though they did everything right, but all you have to do is look around and think about how many have tried to live well beyond their means, to Keep Up With The Joneses, thinking they are entitled to a $300,000 large new home when they are 20 years old and only been in their field of work for a year or less, and taking out loans for new SUVs, 30foot trailers, and boats. I know FAR too many people exactly like that in my small city alone.

    What people term essentials isn’t always the same these days either so it’s hard to judge. I know many that bought 2000sq ft homes at almost $400,000 and then complain that their utility bill is over $600 a month. Or bought a new home and then within 6 months also bought a Durango, new camper, boat, and furniture all on credit. Personally I don’t care if the bank said they could have it (though they should be ashamed of themselves too) – but who in their right mind would sign up for all of those items when they make barely over $100,000 a year? I am not going to accept my tax money going to help people like that. My credit card company keeps trying to increase my credit line, keep trying to entice me to spend more with special promotions, but I don’t do it because I am not an idiot. I have the card for dire emergencies and for good credit ratings, I am not going to go berserk because I use my head and know every penny I put on the card takes food off my table. Why other people can’t figure that out, I don’t know, and I am not going to give them a shoulder to cry on. The bank said they could afford it.. Don’t they know how to do math and add up all their payments each month and see how much would be left over? Instead they use any spare credit cards to buy groceries or make payments on their other bills and wow – gee, surprise, they are knee-deep in debt in no time and blaming the bank. Where did accountability and responsibility go? Blame Harper and the banks though – that is much easier on the conscience (retch).

  24. If Harper’s words bite him on the ass in the near future, it is on the people’s heads for not acting responsibly in their own lives and being made accountable for their own decisions.

    So if Harper said the wrong thing, the fault is on other people who decided not to be responsible for their own actions. Okay….

  25. Meaning perhaps that a lot of the problems Canada is facing, in relation to mortgages and banks, could have been stopped at the most important level if they had just used their heads in the first place (aka The People Who Signed Themselves To Death). Perhaps Harper has a little too much faith in people, perhaps he is trying not to sound like a Doomsday Prophet like Obama (catastrophic, unprecedented debt, the worst economy, etc etc), or perhaps he knowingly painted roses when he knows it’s actually going to be a huge disaster in few years. In the end, no matter what he says, people should have been responsible for their own families and their own monetary situations. Barring a few who have had a seriously rough ride and could not help it, I would wager that most who are in need of help have only themselves to blame.

  26. I quibble over Harper’s point that Canadian banks didn’t receive a bailout. They got government money. It just happened so quickly that no one had time to question it.

    They didn’t get government money. The government bought up mortgages and sold bonds (which are IOU’s). That really isn’t the same thing as pouring money into the system. Whether it was a wise decision or will make a difference remains to be seen.

  27. Even if the banks and mortgage lenders acted like skanky loan sharks, the people are the ones responsible for themselves – or should be.

    The fault lies on both parts.

    People have access to mortgage calculators. So do banks. Part of getting a mortgage is noting your finances. The basic rule of thumb is that you should keep housing to 25% of one’s income. There’s no rule that a bank had to agree to a loan.

    I have the card for dire emergencies and for good credit ratings, I am not going to go berserk because I use my head and know every penny I put on the card takes food off my table. Why other people can’t figure that out, I don’t know, and I am not going to give them a shoulder to cry on.

    Sometimes it’s not a matter of budgeting. When you have 75% of your income on fixed expenses, then as the article notes, you have a very small leeway when it comes to disasters.

    I suppose that people could buy smaller houses, but as Warren notes in the article, housing costs increased 69%, out of line of inflation, while the average house only increased in size by 7%. In the area I live, the housing prices were insane and still continue to be for tiny little places.

  28. It really depends yet again on what is classed as essentials. I rent right now at half the cost of the new mortgages in my city, and my grocery bill for 2 adults and 3 children is less than my rent. My utility bill is half that of a large new home. What else is essential? That’s food, shelter, and I buy my clothing when we need it and do my best to make responsible purchases price-wise. On our particular essentials, it’s about 62% of our lowest monthly income. Now if you look at someone who bought even just a home that was not really within their price range, they would also have higher utilities. Going by a family member of mine that did this, their ‘essentials’ amount to about 72% of their monthly income. But their own choices led to a higher price on ‘essentials’. They had a home already and decided to buy-up which doubled their mortgage payment and increased their utility bill, and increased their monthly payment on property tax if you want to throw that in there too (which I don’t pay because I chose to rent during these high-priced times). So it’s all up to interpretation. If I still lived in my family home and took over the mortgage payments from my mom, I would be paying only 52% of my income to essentials (and that includes increasing my utility and property tax costs). That’s a big difference compared to those who bought homes in the past few years.

    So what is an essential? What is used to figure that out? My family of 5 is the same size and same ages of the family I compared to but our choices directly affected the amount of money we put out each month.

    Re: Mortgage calculators – yes the banks have them too but people should always be aware, because I have been since I was a teenager, that banks can only make money on interest charges and fees. If they want to make more money, they might target you. That is morally wrong, I agree. It’s rather sickening what people are being approved for these days, but to blame the bank is pushing it. As mentioned above, no one is holding a gun to the bank’s head – but no one is holding a gun to the person signing the dotted line either. It’s their home, their lives, their childrens’ lives at risk whenever money is lent, so why can’t they be held at the highest responsibility?

  29. They didn’t get government money. The government bought up mortgages and sold bonds (which are IOU’s). That really isn’t the same thing as pouring money into the system

    And they’re using the interest from these mortgages to pay off these government bonds. If they default (read somewhere, don’t have the link, but I remember reading that you need about 11% of mortgages in a group need to for the whole thing to be worthless), the government will have to make up the difference (although Flaherty also said that we might make a profit from it. Fingers crossed)…. Without the government’s involvement, the banks wouldn’t have had gotten the cash raised from the bonds.

    An argument could be made if it was the frozen credit system, or a failure in the mortgages and investments the banks that lead to these bonds being sold. Unfortunately, the debate never really happened. We’ll never know.

    Whether it was a wise decision or will make a difference remains to be seen.

    Well, Canadian banks appear to be buying other banks. It’ll be interesting to see at the end of this trainwreck if the boring Canadian system ends up on top.

  30. And they’re using the interest from these mortgages to pay off these government bonds.

    Of course. That’s what banks do, among other things. They’re not public utilities. They should be, but they aren’t.

    If they default (read somewhere, don’t have the link, but I remember reading that you need about 11% of mortgages in a group need to for the whole thing to be worthless), the government will have to make up the difference (although Flaherty also said that we might make a profit from it. Fingers crossed)…. Without the government’s involvement, the banks wouldn’t have had gotten the cash raised from the bonds.

    An argument could be made if it was the frozen credit system, or a failure in the mortgages and investments the banks that lead to these bonds being sold. Unfortunately, the debate never really happened. We’ll never know.

    Eh, I don’t know what this means.

  31. I can no longer muster the effort needed to parse and reformulate the scatterbrained ramblings of others into a kind of sensibility intelligible to other humans.

  32. I can no longer muster the effort needed to parse the ramblings of others into sensibility.

    I’m sure it’s because there isn’t any sensibility there to begin with. Truly sensible know how to communicate.

    …Anyway, Chuckercanuck’s response to this post is in fact hilarious: “Warning: The Following is Not Suitable for Decent People.” He’s really just pulling your leg.

  33. Well, perhaps. If so, I was happy enough to play along and be the stereotypical “liberal villain” in this instance without much regard to reasonable moderation or thoughtfully considered opinion.

  34. Eh, I don’t know what this means.

    If 11% of the mortgages that the government bought default, the whole batch ends up going into the red meaning that the government/taxpayers has to cover the bonds.

    And another point… government bonds are sold to cover expenses. It’s PR saying that government money hasn’t gone into the bank by saying the mortgages will cover the bonds.

  35. How so, Moe? Be specific.

    Cherniak and the Dionistas.

    Green Shift/carbon tax…genius idea!….how brave….etc…..blah blah blah. New style of leadership…coalition with separatists…genius idea! His English…not so bad.

    Whoops, we now hate you so much we won’t have a leadership convention, just appoint a successor.

    Sorry, I had to reduce it to a few catch phrases.

  36. They’re not public utilities. They should be, but they aren’t.

    Not sure what you mean by this.

  37. Don’t be shocked. Explain.

    Capitalism depends on the availability of capital to entrepreneurs. That function, left to private enterprise, is not working. If banks functioned along the lines of public utilities (which are not prevented from making profits; their objective is however, not in maximising profits for shareholders) we’d have a more stable distribution and flow of capital.

    I’m actually proposing that the State would intervene less in the affairs of the real economy, if the financial system functioned the way it should.

  38. Well put. I would however note that it’s apparently the “non-bank” lending that seems to have dried up and maybe we should be giving more consideration to the nature of that particular stream of capital.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s