Five years, five ministers of the environment. Welcome Mr. Kent.

During Prime Minister Harper's reign as a minority/majority government, he has managed to shuffle four, one MP twice, different MP's into the position of environment minister.
Unfortunately for Canada,and the environment, none of them have actually done anything to protect the environment.

Our latest environment minister, Peter Kent, wasted no time in tackling the issue of the tar sands.

In fact it seemed to be the very first thing he did as the newly minted minister of the environment.

So just what did he do?

Well after just being appointed the previous day, he defiantly came to the aid of the tar sands and made it quite clear that emissions rules will not hamper oil production/environmental destruction in the tar sands.

"Labels such as "dirty oil" and claims that bitumen extraction is the most destructive industrial activity on the planet are overblown" , Mr. Kent said.

"There has been a lot of disinformation and outright misinformation," Kent told the Calgary Herald on January 5th.

"There has been a demonizing of a legitimate resource," he added. "It is ethical oil. It is regulated oil. And it's secure oil in a world where many of the free world's oil sources are somewhat less secure."

Find the full article here:http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/federal+environment+minister+calls+oilsands+ethical/4066115/story.html#ixzz1AHWiWK8R

The following day he reiterated his previous comments and added the following, “Our focus for the next several years is going to continue to be on maintaining the economic recovery and we will do nothing in the short term which would unnecessarily compromise or threaten to compromise that recovery.”

Find the full story here:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/minister-vows-not-to-let-emissions-rules-hamper-oil-sands-investment/article1860494/

Just which portfolio is he the minister of, the environment or the economy?

Is it any wonder that the DeSmog blog's Emma Pullman has referred to Peter Kent as the minister of Environmental Destruction.

New Canadian mortgage rules.

Once again our wonderful finance minister, Mr. Flaherty, has changed the mortgage rules in an attempt to further strengthen our economy by protecting us from ourselves.

He seems to be of the opinion that the reason we, Canadians, are so heavily in debt is because we have huge mortgages that have taken us to the brink of financial collapse.

Give me a break!

The reason we are over our heads in debt is very complex. However, a mortgage is only one of many possible reasons. Think about it, you have to live some where don't you?
So you either pay a mortgage or you pay rent. Either way you need a place to live and it's going to cost you something.

If you where to ask the average Canadian what he/she thought was the biggest reason they where in debt, I'm sure it would not be a mortgage. In fact I'm sure that there are a huge number of Canadians who do not have a mortgage and yet are way over their heads in debt.

If our finance minister wants to help us get out of debt, then perhaps he should "force" the banks to lower our credit card and loan interest rates.
Instead he decided to force them to tell us how long it would take us to pay our current balance if we only make the minimum payment. Is this an attempt to help us or simply piss us off?

The website, Canadian mortgage news has a very good article about the new rules.
Find it here: http://canadamortgagenews.ca/2011/01/17/new-mortgage-rules-lets-make-it-an-annual-event/

The only part I don't agree with is the idea of "rolling" your credit card, line of credit or any other unsecured loan into your mortgage. Even though your interest rate is lower in a mortgage then almost any other debt, you would be taking unsecured debt and turning it into secured debt against your house.

If you default on a loan the lender can at worst garnishee your wages.
If you default on a mortgage the lender can take your home.

Given a choice, I would prefer to live indoors with a little less to spend at the end of the week.

In the end all this really does is make the dream of home ownership even less likely for a majority of Canadians.

Atheism and the null hypothesis.

Atheism, and science for that matter, are based upon the null hypothesis.
The null hypothesis operates from the premise that for every question asked about a phenomenon, it should be assumed that the answer is in the negative and not the afermative.

For example, the question of whether or not something exists should be approached from the position that it does not, until proven,otherwise.

During a discussion it is always, logically, assumed that a claim made realative to the existance of a phenomenon must be proven as true by the person making the claim.

The burden of proof does not lie with the person questioning the claim.

You cannot prove the non existance of a phenomenon.

Nor do you have to.