The "B-HAG," or so-called "Big Hairy Audacious Goal" is a particularly fascinating one to me right now because it has gained currency among a relatively small, but definitely significant group that I am close to. A couple years after Tom made it part of the corporate zeitgeist, these folks have discovered it, and are putting it to work. They've undertaken to identify some B-HAGS, and set about getting busy to achieve them. This, I find curious.

In suburban homes and in rural communities, clusters of ‘seekers’ have resurrected the religion of the Ancient Maya. I stumbled upon them by accident and -- perhaps because of my ambivalence -- have been given access to their story. They have chosen me to raise their pleas to stop the persecution by the people they work with and by the government they elected. The Maya demand equal right to come out of the shadows and live in the open with every other citizen.

The Mayan civilization was very successful for generations a millennium before Europeans found the ‘New World.’ Given their advanced development of writing, mathematics, and astronomy, one could hardly argue that the Maya were not a superior race and maybe if not for a surprise, instantly eradicating cataclysm, their civilization could easily have dominated the Americas. With so much to admire in the Mayan civilization, fin de siecle North Americans chose to emulate them vigorously. Abuses during the last century, however, forced them into hiding. Today, seeing the American Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms liberating minorities of every kind, they’ve decided to now shine a light on their beliefs, to demand fairness and equality. Moreover, they are confident that once we see the beauty and power of the Mayan option, we will embrace it ourselves.

Download the PDF version here

Please, if you have that personal experience or know somebody who's suffered that trauma, I would love to hear from you.

Thanks

It's all about choices and survival. Of course those things are not always consistent with social mores or particular moralities. Off the top of my head, I can think of about seven vectors (note how I got the virology reference in?) for an argument to substantiate the position that those with the highest probability of survival and most value to provide in the future should be protected in priority to others. But, I am also abundantly aware that H5N1 has peculiarities with regard to what conditions are best to incubate it (i.e., health, etc.) such as the apparent fact that people already sick with lowered immune systems are more likely to survive this flu than those who are robust and healthy. Look it up.

In short, it's guaranteed to be complicated. And, the science-based prevention and treatment courses should be determined on scientific bases, not on the basis of morals and social mores.

What a place to restart (!) this thing.

First, his assessment comes in the wake of a meeting with the US Homeland Security Secretary. The context of that meeting, it should be understood, is wound licking. Don't mean to be off-putting, but the newly elected Conservatives want to kiss and make up with the States, and will do it by acquiescence by and large. So be it. Just understand that international politics are at work as much or more than any safety considerations. Moreover, it hasn't gone through the gauntlet of opposition from civic rights activists, predominantly led by privacy zealots.

Second, look at this quotation:

"I don't know if we'll call it that, but we want good, law-abiding people to have smooth and quick access at all border points - not just North American, but international."

Unless, of course, it's not just about getting across borders faster and easier . . .

SAN JOSE, CA, United States (UPI) -- A Louisiana man is suing computer giant Apple, charging the popular iPod music player can cause hearing loss from prolonged use.

The suit, brought by the same law firm that sued over iPods scratching, charges the digital music player can produce volume up to 115 decibels, loud enough to cause hearing damage over time.

Stricter requirements will help "ensure the identity of individuals applying for a driver's licence," Transportation Minister Harinder Takhar said in a release yesterday.

The new measures, which come into effect Jan. 23, mean drivers will need two pieces of identification to get a licence. Acceptable identification includes passports, immigration documents, Ontario Heath Cards and Canadian and U.S. birth certificates and driver's licences.

"This ruling sets a new standard, CIS owner Robert W. Kramer was reported by press agencies as saying. "Gross abusers of e-mail risk exposure to public ridicule as well as the economic death penalty."

"It's a victory for every e-mail user and every responsible ISP. It's proof our courts and Congress are committed to protecting the public."

Despite the huge size of the award, Kramer is reported as being doubtful that he will receive any of the money. This raises questions as to whether this case is really much of a blow against these spammers, or US-based spammers in general.

If there were one thing I would ask for as a Christmas present, it would be this:

If you like what you read, please tell a few others and/or post a link to something here. If you are registered on LinkedIn, find me and connect, and, if we happen to have worked together in some way and you can find it in yourself to say something nice, I wouldn't complain about an endorsement or two.

So long for now.

Am I the only one who sees the Canadian election issues and leader badgering in an entirely new light today?

With the full official results not due for some days, it became apparent early on that Evo Morales had won a convincing victory and will next month become Bolivia's first indigenous president.

JERUSALEM -- Israel called yesterday for the international community to wake up to the threat posed by Iran after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust was a "myth" and suggested the Jewish state be relocated outside the Middle East.

The outlandish statements come amidst growing debate in Israel over the need to prepare for a pre-emptive strike to ensure Tehran doesn't develop nuclear-weapons capability.

Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservatives, has been making a lot of noise on two fronts. To begin, he is pandering in the typical Conservative way: tax cuts. Leave money in people's pockets. Which is, in no uncertain terms and at first blush, the political high ground. Who would rationally argue for or elect to have more taxes? After all, the government is not only incompetent, it's wasteful with our money. Remember it is OUR money until it's taxed away. Everybody knows that we, the people, know best what to do with our money.

Let's not quibble on the need for and broad appreciation of infrastructure (defence, roads, communications, international trade and relations, etc.) and government services (health care minimums, employment insurance, welfare, development subsidies, education, etc., etc.). Let's stop short of everyone's -- even The Fraser Institute's Michael Walker, I'm sure, in his less indulgent moments -- ultimate admission that in this day and age (or any day and age, actually), government is essential. It is not feasible to have any sort of nation without governance. So everyone grudgingly admits that taxation is required. What we disagree over is the level and how it should be administered. [Reminds me of a joke: Guy walks up to a lovely young lady in a bar and asks, "Would you sleep with me for $1-million?" She looks him up and down, and despite his rumpled appearance and odor, says, "A million dollars? Absolutely." He immediately responds with, "Well how about $25?" She, infuriated, retorts, "What do you think I am, a whore?" "We've established that," says the man, "We're haggling price now."]

But, reducing taxes is only one half of Harper's equation. He's also committing to another political point-getter (among so many others): he'll spend more on defense. If you're getting an 80s flashback to The Gipper, it makes perfect sense. Next, I'm sure we'll hear about trickle-down economics as the answer to it all. But, I get ahead of myself. In any event, the sum is that Harper's going to spend more on the important stuff like defense because it's essential to our national sovereignty. [He has gone to great pains to point out that he would not have supported Canadian military contribution to the American Iraq war . . . because we were incapable of fielding a team.] So this is another hard to beat position. Everybody knows that our defensive capabilities are abyssmal; that our military men and women are under-equipped for today's conflicts; that we've got three submarines that can't sub-marine and helicopters that do their best work on the ground.

Here's the point. As the title says, SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE. At least the name-calling of the Liberals ("Tax and spend Liberals") makes logical sense. "Don't tax and still spend" is simply idiotic or magic. But what I know about magic by religiously watching and reading Penn & Teller is that it's all an illusion: the product of decidedly ugly mechanics. That's what we're working against.

The arguments will continue about whether the Reagan years were good or bad. What we really know is that they changed the American nation -- its psyche and tilt -- profoundly. It also left behind a massively larger financial hole in the form of a debt that may very well be unrepayable ever. In short, it did not achieve the bedrock philosophical objective of self-sustenance and living within your means while saving/investing and creating weath that is espoused by the most ardent of Republican conservatives. It was, in that respect at least, a failure IMHO.

Suffice it to say that recycling this magic for a new audience appears to be the campaign strategy of the Harper machine. Let's all think about this twice and ask for just a little integrity. What's going to give Stephen?