Does this look like a plan?

For a better solution, see a post on Slaw, and the companion paper on SSRN, A Trial to End All Terrorism: How the United States Could have Won the War on Terrorism Before it Even Began With the Trial of Only One Man.

Even Santa thinks we’ve been bad:

From Time Magazine

The most important thing that Barack Obama brings to the presidency is his willingness to reason. He won his presidency not as a black American but as a reasoning American who happens to be black. America needs a change from the reign of “obtruding false rules pranked in reason’s garb” — to use John Milton’s words. Attacking Iraq for an imagined link with 9/11 was daft. Having unaffordable health care is not a reasonable way to run a rich society. Destroying the environment is not smart. Spreading the wealth a bit in a deeply unequal society is not as offensive to reason as it appeared to Joe the noncertified Plumber.

The economic crisis has been caused by doctrinaire economic policies, and the solution calls for remedial actions that are reasoned — and seen to be reasoned, to generate confidence. In politics, the alienation of the world is not only because the U.S. has been so unilateral but also because the unilateral choices often have been so dumb.

Reasoning also demands re-examination. Obama has to reassess whether he has got the right balance in policies on trade. On Afghanistan, he must examine how to balance his military toughness with the building of social infrastructure there and finding ways and means of getting Pakistan’s energetic — and largely secular — civil society on his side, not against him. Obama may have to reassess some of his campaign rhetoric while firmly retaining his largehearted reasonableness.

Hon. Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, spoke at the University of Western Ontario law school today.  Paul Mayne of Western News covered the event.

Omar Ha-Redeye was interviewed by CBC Radio over the students’ reactions to Min. Flaherty’s speech.

Omar responded to Min. Flaherty’s comments on his dialogue with Premier McGuinty over taxes in the manufacturing sector.  Flaherty was quoted and highly criticized for his remarks about the economy in Ontario in March 2008,

It discourages investment in the province of Ontario.  If you’re going to make a new business investment in Canada, and you’re concerned about taxes, the last place you will go is the province of Ontario.

When Omar asked him personally about how this could potentially be interpreted internationally and affect investment in Ontario, Min. Flaherty said the statements were taken out of context.  Omar did not think a public statement to this effect would address or resolve the issues that Min. Flaherty raised.

Min. Flaherty also spoke at great length about the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and the state of the Canadian economy.  He claimed Canada was highly respected among G7 countries for its economic stability.

Omar told the CBC that the 2007 The Conference Board of Canada report, Mission Possible: Sustainable Prosperity for Canada, predicted the current volatility in American markets.  They recommended Canada strengthen its economy by diversifying its trade partners.  Omar felt that Canada was not doing enough to strengthen trade ties with the EU, China and India.

Finally, Omar raised the issue of the Afghan mission.  The Harper government initially refused to release information about the cost of Canada’s role in Afghanistan, only recently succumbing to pressure and agreeing to provide the figures.

Some analysts have previously estimated that by March 2008 the mission has cost Canadians $7.2 billion, or $100 million every month.  This has reflected a 26% increase in our military budget, bringing us from 16th to the 13th in the world in military spending, and 6th in NATO.  The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives suggests that Canada spends more on the military today than it did during the Cold War.

Most Canadians believe that the Afghan mission, which has proven that military solutions are ineffective, is a failure and is costing our nation too much.

Omar said that the financial and political cost of an expensive commitment that fails to have clear goals, objectives, or definitive end date, should be evaluated in context of our fragile economic times.  This would be an especially important consideration in light of the Federal election, and he hoped that the information would be made public so that Canadians could be better informed regarding the manner in which their government spends their taxes.

Omar Ha-Redeye has accepted an invitation to serve on the Advisory Council for the Centre for Public Theology (CPT).

The mission of the CPT, which is housed at Huron College at the University of Western Ontario, is listed on their new site:

Our goal is not advocacy so much as intelligence – in a better informed academy, in a more discerning church and other religious institutions, and finally, in a public that is better educated in the religious and ethical dimensions of societal issues, in full view of a world in which religious conviction is of massive and increasing public importance.

The Centre’s intention is thus to promote critical theological research and publication on issues of concern facing our society in an increasingly globalized world. A cycle of topics relating to politics and justice, human life, and the environment will be examined. Over the next three years, these topics will come to focus in the following: Canada’s role in Afghanistan; HIV infection and AIDS; and finally, the threat of climate change and the question of energy policy.

The CPT is connected to the Global Network for Public Theology (GNPT), which is chaired by Prof. Nico Koopman of South Africa.  The administrative centre for the GNPT is the Centre for Theological Inquiry at the Princeton Theological Seminary.

The purpose of the CPT can be further explained,

The CPT was established through a SSHRC major grant to promote research, reflection and disseminate constructive theological interaction concerning Canadian public life between the academy and other non-traditional University stakeholders include NGOs, Faith-Based Groups (FBOs), Politicians, Media and interested persons in the general public. The Centre, however, is NOT an advocacy group for a religious or theological tradition but a nexus from which Canadian based and international theologians, social scientists and other scholars, together with religious leaders, policy makers, NGO/FBOs, media and the public can engage in constructive dialogue on theological, moral and cultural issues that frame current and historic Canadian context in the area of public life, policy and service.