When did "pardon?" turn into "huh?"

So, when did it become acceptable for people to say "huh?" instead of "pardon?", "sorry", "excuse me?", "I didn't catch that?",  or any one of a whole host of different polite options available to express poor hearimg or understanding?

Actually, I'm not sure if it's spelled "huh? It's usually more of a percussive "ah?" Or maybe a grunt-like "unhh?"

I suppose it might be a contraction of "what?" - which is bad enough! - although there also seem to be equivalents of it in most immigrant languages. In fact, maybe that's where the trend came from... But there are perfectly good options available in all other languages that I am aware of, without havimg to resort to grunting.

Yes, I know I'm just a curmudgeonly old fart. I'm quite aware of that. But am I the only person left in North America that still says "pardon?"

Some ancient civilizations you may never have heard of

You've probably heard of ancient civilizations like the Sumerians, the Maya, the Minoans, etc, but are you familiar with these lesser-known ancient civilizations?

• Sanliurfa (9000-1800BCE): Sanliurfa (or Urfa) is still a city today in southern Turkey, near the Euphrates River, and it (and surrounding hilltop villages) was probably one of the first areas where agriculture began. The statue of "Urfa Man" (the oldest naturalistic life-size sculpture of a human) was found nearby, as were the megalithic carved stones of Gobekli Tepe.
• Mehrgarh (7000-2500BCE): There was a highly-developed trading society around Mehrgarh (in modern-day Pakistan) long before the Indus Valley Civilization arrived, including cemeteries and even rudimentary dental surgery. Remains are buried deep in the earth, and tribal troubles in the area make further excavations difficult.
• Ninevah (6000-622 BCE): Ninevah was established on the site of modern-day Mosul in Iraq, and, despite earthquakes, became a centre for the arts, sciences and architecture, including a huge library and possibly the Hanging Gardens of Babylon  It layer became the capital of the Assyrian Empire under King Sennacherib, and was ultimately burned to the ground by invaders in 612 BCE.
• Vinca Civilization (5000-3500BCE): Located in the Danube Valley near Belgrade, Serbia, Vinca may have predated Sumeria and Egypt. They kept animals and grew crops, used copper and gold well before they came into general use, and had a very early writing system of over 700 characters.
• Konar-Sandal (4500-3000BCE): Located in southern Iran, around the lost city of Jiroft, it boasted one of the largest and oldest ziggurats in the world, and possibly the world's oldest written language, although excavation and research are still ongoing, and many of the sites have been badly looted and damaged.
• Norte Chico Culture (3500-1800BCE): This pre-Columbian society in northern Peru is probably the earliest known civilization in the Americas, pre-dating the Mayan and Incan empires of the region, and evidence of huge constructions, pyramids and complex irrigation systems has been found (although, interestingly, no pottery and little art of any kind).
• Indus Valley Civilization (3300-1300BCE): Small farming communities and substantial cities like Haruppa and Mohenjo-Daro onc3 dotted the valley of the Indus River, in modern-day Pakistan, India snd Afghanistan. They had their own writing system, sophisticated underground drainage techniques, and traded with Sumeria, among others.
• Aryan Kingdom (1500-500BCE): Long before the Nazis latched onto the Aryan Race concept, the nomadic Indo-Aryan people moved into northern India and established their own language and settled agricultural civilization, although here is little remaining on which to piece together their lives. Over time, they gradually became assimilated into other north Indian cultures.
• Nubia/Kush (744-656 BCE): In Sudan, to the south of Egypt, lay a civilization that once ruled Egypt, as it conquered Egypt and ruled it as its 25th Dynasty. It had its own pyramids (223 of them!), its own written language, culture and art, and presided over a period of great prosperity and stability. Much earlier, from 2500-1500BCE, the Keema culture ruled there, until they were conquererd by the Egyptians.
• Kingdom of Aksum (100-940CE): Based in northern Ethiopia, the kingdom stretched at one time from the edge of the Sahara as far as the Arabian desert. They had their own written script, and traded with other powers in the eastern Mediterranean, although its kings and nobles later embraced Christianity.

I'vr heard of a few of them in passing, but some I had no idea of. History is way more complicated than we think.

Cadillac Fairview's mall cameras are way less intrusive than many other marketing practices

Mall owner Cadillac Fairview has been slapped on the wrist for using facial recognition software and extracting "sensitive biometric information" from 5 million individuals at 12 malls across Canada in 2018.

Cadillac Fairview argued that the cameras, which were embedded in the malls' digital information kiosks, were merely used to analyze the approximate age and gender of shoppers for marketing purposes, and were not capable of identifying individuals' names. They thought that the images were then being completely deleted (although it turned out that a copy was actually being retained, unknown to the company, on a remote third party server). Furthermore, they argued that stickers on the mall doors were enough to notify shoppers that there may be cameras inside.

However, the Privacy Commissioners of Canada ruled that none of that was the case, and that Cadillac Fairview was guilty of using facial-recognition software to gather "personal information" about individuals, and that there was a "lack of meaningful consent" on the part of shoppers. "Pictures of individuals were taken and analyzed in a manner that required notice and consent", they concluded.

Cadillac Fairview has now taken out all the cameras in question, and undertaken not to attempt such a marketing exercise in the future without obtaining specific consent. 

I don't really use malls, but the ruling seems harsh to me. If I walk into a mall, I would just assume that there are security cameras in operation, and how is that any different from what Cadillac Fairview were doing? How is a photo of someone "sensitive personal information" if it is not linked to the person's name, credit card record, etc? It seems to me that other marketing companies are obtaining much more sensitive personal information with complete impunity (just watch documetaries like The Great Hack and In Data We Trust, among many others).

An election horror story for Halloween

With Halloween just around the corner, and the US election just a few days later, here's a horror story to keep you up at night. It' s a TED Talk by Van Jones (lawyer, politcal commentator and one-time White House official) about what could happen if a presidential candidate - any presidential candidate - should refuse to concede after an election.

It goes into some of the little-known legalities, loopholes and glitches that make up the US constitution, the fine print so to speak, insofar as it relates to presidential elections. It turns out that the concession speech that is traditionally given by the loser on election night is actually just that, a tradition, a voluntary acceptance of defeat that can allow the machinery of the transfer of power - the meeting of the electoral college, the ratification by Congress, the inauguration, all that - to continue in an orderly manner.

In the absence of a concession speech, though, there are a whole load of legal machinations a recalcitrant candidate - any recalcitrant candidate - could go through to hold onto power, including court cases alleging fraud or international interference, etc. Ultimately, if nothing is resolved, it would have to end up in front of the House of Representatives for resolution. This would make a mockery of the whole democratic election that preceded it, of course, but that's what the Constitution says. 

Even worse, a vote in the House of Representatives would not be based on the number of individual delegates or members (i.e. more or less based on the relative populations of states), as House votes normally are, but simply by state. Bizarre, but apparently true. So, even if the Democrats have a majority of individual  members in the House and in the Electoral College, the Republicans might hold a majority of states overall (you know all those little rural states in the middle with tiny populations?) This kind of "contingent election" hasn't happened since 1825, but it could happen this year. Scary, right?

And a certain Donald Trump has already done the ground work for all this, alleging that he can't possibly lose unless the election is rigged, that postal voting is a recipe for fraud, etc, etc. So, it could happen. And if it does happen, then all bets are off as to how it will develop; a civil war is not completely off the table.

So, now I have told you all that, you can choose whether or not to listen to Van Jones on Halloween night.

Why isn't Canada a signatory to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons?

The United Nations' 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) makes it illegally for signatory countries to "develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices". It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Just this week, Honduras became the 50th country to ratify the pact and thereby make the treaty legally binding on signatory countries. Countries like Austria, Ireland, New Zealand and Mexico have also already ratified it, although most of the other signatories are admittedly small Pacific, South/Central American and Asian nations. The nuclear powers themselves (USA, Russia, China, UK, France, lsrael, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) have not even signed up to the treaty, of course, because ratifying it would require them to destroy their own existing nuclear weapons. There are an estimated 13,000 nuclear weapons in the world, any one of which is capable of killing millions and making vast tracts of the world uninhabitable.

Canada, though, has no nuclear bombs, and there is very little likelihood of it ever doing so. So, you might think that this is just the kind of aspirational internationalist pact that a Liberal-led Canada would be up for joining. And nobody really likes nuclear weapons, do they? But Canada is not a signatory, and indeed was one of just 38 countries that opposed against even holding the conference that led to the establishment of the treaty in the first place, and did not attend the original conference. So, why is Canada against prohibiting nuclear weapons?

Justin Trudeau's usual answer is essentially dismissive and unhelpful: that, if we do not have nuclear weapons, then there is no point in even talking about not having them. Which is a reasonable position at first blush, but there is such a thing as making a point. None of the other 84 signatories and 50 ratifiers have nuclear weapons either, but it didn't stop them from vowing never to acquire them.

When pressed further, the Liberal government claims it just can't join the treaty because it is a member of NATO, and NATO states that "nuclear weapons are a core component of the Alliance's overall capabilities". Most NATO countries, including Canada apparently, seem to believe that US nuclear weapons actually enhance their security, and they have issued a joint statement claiming that the TPNW treaty would be "ineffective in eliminating nuclear weapons", and arguing that full implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would be a more effective route (that way, the haves would continue to have, and the have-nots would not be able to have, i.e. ensuring the status quo).

It's notable that none of rhe other NATO countries have signed the nuclear ban treaty either, but there is probably nothing legally preventing them. And what a message that would send.

(Very few) world leaders voice support for Donald Trump

A very few world leaders are bucking the trend and voicing their support for Donald Trump in the upcoming US election. Just who these people are is illuminating, although why they think that voicing their support might help his chances, I have no idea.

• Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orbán - far-right nationalist with dictator ambitions.
• Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro - far-right populist.
• Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte - strongman. loose cannon and human rights abuser.
• Serbian President Aleksander Vucic - ultra-nationalist who hopes that Trump will help him de-recognize Kosovo.
• Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa - rising populist, wouldn't be anything to do with Melania, would it?

And, er, that's about it. Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un send their love.

Nxivn cult grinds to a hold

While I am in the process of explaining cults and conspiracies (like QAnon), here's another head-scratching phenomenon that has been way more successful than it has any right to be.

Nxivm (pronounced "nexium") is a good old-fashioned personality cult that has recently heen taken down, although not before ensnaring some rich and influentual (but apparently not bright) individuals and ruining the lives of several. Its leader, Keith Raniere, was sentenced to 120 years in prison by a New York judge yesterday.

Nxivm was, at least ostensibly, a self-help organization run by a charismatic leader (sound familiar?), featuring five-day personal development and self-improvement courses by Raniere for a well-to-do (and largely female) clientele. Actress Allison Macknwas sucked into it and became involved in its operations, and Canadian Seagrams alchohol empire heiresss Claire Bronfman sank more than $100 million of her money into it (and received a 6 year jail sentence for her pains).

In the meantime, Raniere was treating adherents as sex slaves, even branding some with his initials (the guy had obviously read up on Charles Manson and Jim Jones), and forced, forsome reason, to follow a restrictive "Vanguard" diet. Raniere was convicted of racketeering, sex trafficking, extortion, criminal conspiracy, and the sexual exploitation of a 15 year old girl, among other charges.

I have never really understood cults and their psychological basis. You would think that as soon as someone sees something even vaguely suspect, they would be out of there like a bat out of hell. But I guess that is the nature of charismatic leaders: they can hook people and reel them in before they know what is happening. Well, Raniere has had his rod well and truly snapped. As for his victims, I guess they have to pick up the pieces of their lives as well as they can.

Mi'kmaq out-of-season lobster fishery not a conservation risk - yet

I have been trying understand the two sides in the lobster fishing dispute that has been raging for some time now in southwestern Nova Scotia.

At first blush, it's pretty straightforward. Members of the Sipekne'katik Mi'kmaq nation have set up a self-regulated Indigenous-owned lobster fishery off the coast of St. Mary's Bay to take advantage of treaty rights that allow them to fish for a "moderate living" even outside of the season rules that constrain commercial non-Indigenous fishermen.

Those commercial fishermen - having already seen the cod industry in the region decimated - see the move as a threat to their own pretty moderate livings, arguing that the rules on when lobster can be caught were put in place to protect the sustainability of lobster stocks, and that by flouting those rules, the Mi'kmaq are putting the whole industry in the area at risk. There have also been claims that the new operation has been flouting the rules over the minimum size of lobsters that can be harvested, and that pregnant females with eggs are being taken, although I am not sure if this has ever been proven. This has led to some heated, occasionally violent, confrontations, and even vandalized equipment and arson.

I don't think anyone condones the violence, and I don't think the commercial fishermen are necessarily guilty of racism, as they are often accused (I think they would have the same reaction to any group that threatens their turf and their own precarious livelihoods). But do they have a point?

Well, at least two credible sources I have found (a professor at Dalhousie University's Marine Affairs program, and the director of the School of the Environment at St. Mary's University) suggest not. The Mi'kmaq group has been granted 7 licences of 350 traps, while the commercial fleet numbers nearly a thousand licenses of 350 traps (yes, this is big business!). So, it can be argued that, at the moment at any rate, the Mi'kmaq operation, representing less than 1% of the total, is very unlikely to have an appreciable impact on the industry as a whole. And the really big players in the industry are the offshore commercial fisheries that, thus far, the Indigenous operators have not even touched (it requires a much bigger investment in ships and equipment for one thing).

At least that's the situation at the moment. If more Indigenous fisheries start to catch lobsters out of season - and at least one other First Nations group has already announced plans to launch its own self-regulated lobster fishery - then more regulation may well need needed.