1. Ultimate God: The uncaused, single entity that created the universe. (Like to god of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.)
2. Strong God: A single entity that created the universe, who is a descendant of an uncaused entity. (Many ancient religions had this view, like the ancient Mesopotamians or ancient Greeks.)
3. Weak God: A single entity who found our universe and has god-like powers. (Also, consider that deists believe our universe was created and then abandoned by a god.)
4. Pseudo God: An entity (or race) who evolved in this universe who have god-like powers. (Arthur C. Clarke said it best: Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable form magic.)

The idea of justice, for me, has become something else. My ‘justice’ ends when the threat is removed. I believe that it is just to kill someone who is or will kill hostages. But I don’t believe it’s just to kill someone who has killed hostages. The difference, here, is that one is a current threat, and the other is not.

In terms of ethics, I believe that killing is unethical, or wrong. However, I do believe that just killing can sometimes be the most ethical solution to a problem. For this reason I am against capital punishment and war, but I’m not a pacifist. I’m better described as a supporter of non-violence.

Since I don’t believe in payback, my view of justice ends when the threat is removed. I do believe in our justice system, or the aims of it. But I don’t think that it makes justice, and I don’t think that it should try. The criminal justice system should be used to determine who is a threat to society and remove them from our society (like jailing mass murderers) and rehabilitating, where possible.

I support parole. But not set jail sentences of a specific length. I think threats to society should be removed until they aren’t threats (if that ever happens). The idea of jail sentences is two ply. First, some believe that jail time is revenge, or retribution. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. That it’s a just payment for the crime, but when you wrong someone you can’t pay them back. Others believe it’s removing a threat to society, but the idea that you know how long in takes in Parliament rather than talking to the individual is silly. In Canada, Corrections Services isn’t given the laws, policy, or resources to do what it’s name implies. Really, they are just a holding pen.

I believe in being just, but I don’t believe in the classical ideas of Justice.

I think that Queen Elizabeth II has been a very hands off monarch. She has essentially not interfered at all in Canadian politics. Although she is technically the ruler of Canada, in practice Canada functions pretty much as a republic right now. Although I don’t agree that “a government that governs least governs best”, I do agree that a monarch who rules least rules the best. A monarchist might say “you said it yourself, you already live in a republic. Leave the Queen for those of us who enjoy the monarchy.” But that’s the problem. That very sentence makes an assumption. (That future monarchs, a kind or queen, will be the same). And that is what this post is about: assumptions.

Assumption about future monarchs

The Sovereign, however, is a force of unity who embodies all Canada and all Canadians as Head of State. The Monarchy protects and exemplifies the things Canadians agree about, and do not wish to see changed regardless of an election: community, tolerance, nationhood, the rule of law. And by presiding at events such as the Montreal Olympics and Canada 125, The Queen emphasizes the non-partisan, unifying nature of great national events.

I’m going to ignore the fact that I do not see how the monarchy has protected community, tolerance, nationhood, or the rule of law. These things are the values that Canadians agree about, according to the quote. But assuming that Queen Elizabeth II has done this or has remained neutral on this matter, the monarchists here assume that every monarch in the future would protect these things or remain neutral on them. This is a strange assumption to make. History says this is not always true. Just because we currently have a good monarch (as in, rules least) doesn’t mean that we should continue to give every future monarch the same level of control. Just because the current monarch hasn’t abused her power in a way that’s against Canadian values doesn’t mean we should give all of her heirs the same powers.

Some future King or Queen of Canada may decide to be very outspoken against multiculturalism, against community, against tolerance, or against the rule of law. There is no test to be a monarch. The monarchists assume that every future monarch will be just like the one we have now. Or that even the current monarch can’t change. This is a common assumption that monarchists have. An assumption that I don’t believe is justified to have. We can always hope it will be true, however.

Assumption about playing by the rules

However, the Crown’s role (“the Royal Prerogative”) remains part of our Constitution to ensure that ‘the rules of the game’ are always followed, and to provide a non-partisan, non-violent safeguard – “a constitutional fire extinguisher” as columnist Michael Valpy has put it – should normal democratic processes ever be threatened or break down. For example, even a popular government cannot simply dispense with holding an election. Nor can a government spend public money without parliamentary approval.

Sometimes people don’t follow the law. Here, the monarchists are correctly pointing out that sometimes, in some countries, the elected government does things they shouldn’t. The term “checks and balances” applies here. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada is a check against Parliament, and makes sure the Parliament doesn’t pass laws that are illegal. The monarchists are saying that the Queen is another check and balance to make sure that things are running smoothly.

This actually has several several assumptions in it. The first is that the monarch of the day will not step out of line. There are rules, conventions, and now laws guarding what the monarch can and cannot do. The monarchists assume that every future monarch will abide by our wishes and the rule of law. I have seen it said that monarchs are ‘breed’ for the purpose. So we have nothing to fear, they say. I disagree. I think that anyone can be bad, yes, even a monarch. Why they believe a politician can break the law but anyone who ascends to the throne won’t, I don’t understand. The fact is the queen is just another person we need a check against.

Assumption about enforcing the rules

The second is the assumption that the monarch will care if a politician steps out of line. Monarchists claim that the monarch is non-partisan, neutral, and not affiliated with a particular political party. The thing is, the monarchist is human. The monarchist does have their own opinion. Of a politician steps out of line and the monarchist agrees with it or doesn’t see the issue they may not interfere at all.

Further, what can the monarch do if the government refuses to acknowledge the orders? What if some Prime Minister decides to dispense with elections, like the monarchist said in the above quote? Will the army follow the orders of the monarch and remove the Prime Minister from office? Or would the army listen to the Prime Minister and remove the monarch? What real powers does the monarch have that 30 million Canadians don’t?

Assumption that the symbol matters more than the law

The Premiers, including the separatist Rene Levesque, underlined the importance of the Crown in their 1978 statement, above, since the Monarchy gives each law-making authority its authority, making them of equal legal significance. It also guarantees that the rule of law will be followed in dealing with any of the many disputes that arise between Ottawa and the provinces.

These facts explain the strong support by the provinces for the institution of Monarchy, which reconciles regional authority with national unity.

Each province as well as the country all have the Queen as the head of state, as executed by her representative. This, the monarchists claim, allow the provinces to be not subservient to the federal government, but equal to it. This is exactly how Canada was set up. The provinces have full authority in the things that provinces as given power over, like education, and the federal government has full authority in the things that it has power over, like criminal law.

The monarchists believe that legitimate authority flows from the crown. And that since the authority of the crown flows equally to all provinces, that no one province or country has any power over the others. The assumption that monarchists make here is that there is no other way for this to happen. However, in a republican model the power flows from all Canadians. And from Canadians to the provinces and the country. Further, in my personal view, this is not power to govern or rule over the people or even other provinces, but the power to run the day to day tasks that the rest of us are too busy to do.

In reality, the crown being ahead of all the provinces as well as the federal government is merely a symbol. It’s also enforced by laws as discussed earlier. There is no reason to give such power to one person when the same thing can be accomplished without anyone having such power. The crown is merely superfluous in this case. The law stands on its own.

Often these days gamers don’t seem to understand who the core gamers are. I’ve noticed that in the last half a year people have slowly stopped using the term hardcore, and started using the term core to mean the same thing. It’s not. People also use the term casual gamer these days to mean non-gamer, which seems like a silly contradiction to me. Nintendo recently came under fire for saying that Animal Crossing: City Folk was a core game for core gamers. The hardcore said that it was ridiculous to say that this game was for them. And they were right about that. What they were wrong about is that they are the core gamers.

I am a casual gamer. Not what the term means today. Today, it means a non-gamer. I have been a gamer since I first got my NES for Christmas and played Super Mario Brothers until 2 AM. Which, for a 7 year old, was pretty late back then. I’ve own a video game console for every generation since then, including the current one, and bought and played games for every generation, including this one. However, sometimes months go by and I don’t play games at all. Other times, not a day goes by when I don’t pick up a controller. I’m a casual gamer.

But more than that, I’m a core gamer. This includes more than just the casuals. Core gamers typically have been around for more than one hardware generation, and play video game for fun, or excitement, the challenge, or the story. They play to live. This is different from the hardcore gamer, who lives to play.

Some of the really far gone hardcore gamers think that their games are the only real kind of video games. Not only do they play a lot, but they tend to play many of the same type of games. For example, a hardcore gamer may play first person shooter after first person shooter without tiring. Another may play nothing but various types of RPG games. Some play all types, but again, many of the same type of game over and over again. This would typically boar a core gamer. And there in lies the difference. Although a core gamer my like the challenge, a hardcore gamer sees challenge as the main part of gaming. For them, the challenge is the entertainment.

Since the NES came out, the hardcore spoke for the core. What was good for the hardcore was good for the core. With superior technology came better graphics, better sound and made game play better with new types of games and new types of game play. But this is no longer the case. Graphics and sound have gotten good enough. And while modest improvement of hardware in the past meant major game changes at the time, like going form 2D words to 3D worlds, that is no longer the case.

Now, technology no longer is that important. The technology is at the point where instead of freeing game developers, it is confining them to worry about the art, the sound, and not the game. Here is where the core start to splinter from the hardcore. The core gamers want new, fun, and entertaining game play. In the past, new technology freed developers to do this. The hardcore like the old games, and want games just like that, only more so: more graphics, more sound. Where the core gets bored, the hardcore thrives.

The result is gamer drift. The gamers stop caring about gaming and move on to other things, and the industry contracts. The video game industry hasn’t grown much since the original NES. Revenue is up, but gamers and profits are down. And profits are what matter to investors.

The most profitable games are core games. These are games that are friendly to the core or casual gamer, and typically even the new gamer. These are also the games that make the new hardcore gamers. Games like StarCraft, GTA, and Zelda are core games that are casual friendly. Sometimes people laugh that GTA could be on that list, but it’s true. GTA allows the gamer to do anything. Someone I know puts their nephew, a young kid, in front of GTA and he goes parasailing over the lake. It doesn’t matter that you can kill prostitutes. The fact is that the game is entertaining in a number of ways. It keeps the interest of the core, is accessible, and open ended.

Games like StarCraft and Zelda are not as open ended. But they are accessible. They start of simple enough that anyone can learn how to use them. In fact, the game teaches them as they play without tutorials or instruction manuals. The game simply tells them what they need to know when they need to know it. This allows all the core gamers to play the game by lowering the barrier of entry. It’s not the challenge for challenge sake they want. So the game has to ease them in, and play with them at their own level. The hardcore, on the other hand, love the challenge for it’s own sake, and they love these game games because they become difficult as you play them.

The non-gamer is someone who doesn’t buy games, or has no interest in them. They may become new gamers who may become core gamers. Some might one day become hardcore gamers. People think Nintendo’s strategy is the new gamer and non-gamer. But this is not true. Their strategy is two part. Get non-gamers to become new gamers with games like Wii Sports and Brain Age. The second is to get those new gamers to become core gamers by giving them more complicated games like Mario Kart, The New Super Mario Brothers, and Animal Crossing, which are all core games. Hoe do we know they are core games? Because core gamers buy them. And then they buy the sequel, even if they have to buy the next generation console to play it.

But the hardcore are not the core. The hardcore are a minority. Games that sell don’t sell to the hardcore only. They have to sell to the entire core. The PS2 wouldn’t have sold over a hundred million consoles if only the hardcore bought it. Instead, the core bought it to play core games like GTA, Final Fantasy, and just as important, other random games in the incredible deep and broad game library. You see, they need a diverse library, because they need to be entertained.

Monarchists generally believe that the Queen has several important roles in our country. One of them is an embodiment of the country itself. And they believe that this is better then many of the alternatives. Consider the US Pledge of Allegiance. You pledge “to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands.” The monarchist critic of this position is, I think, dead on:

[Thus] for Canada, the Constitutional Monarchy is of particular import… Its focus of loyalty and allegiance to a respected monarch rather than to a politician, an ideology or a symbol underlies the notably tolerant, mature society[.]

The Queen, they argue, makes more sense as the recipient of an oath. Why swear to someone who has been recently elected and will eventually step down or loose a future election, why swear to a set way of thinking or a particular vision, or to some symbol or inanimate thing like a flag. Swearing to a person that is the embodiment of Canada and all Canadians makes more sense.

They say that the monarchy is better than a symbol, such as a flag. And I could agree with this to a point: it does make more sense to swear to all Canadians and Canada. However, while continuing to read through the document, I noticed something that seems to go against this very idea. And it really does come back to the idea of the Queen being just the embodiment of Canada:

The Sovereign, however, is a force of unity who embodies all Canada and all Canadians as Head of State.

And,

Oaths taken… are all oaths to The Queen.

By making this promise to the Sovereign rather than a politician… [they] show their ultimate loyalty is not to the elected figures… but to all Canadians and to the laws which make up the fabric of any civilized society.

I have to say, I really appreciate the sentiment. That is exactly what should be happening. New citizens and public officials should be swearing to all Canadians. I think that this is exactly what makes up a tolerant, mature, and civilized society.

But do you see what they just did? They are using the Queen (or even, the crown) as a symbol of Canada and all Canadians. In fact, I have many times seen monarchists say that the Queen is Canada. The Queen is a symbol, or an embodiment of Canada. I understand why they think the way they do. I don’t want people swearing to a flag or any symbol any more than a monarchist. I want people to swear to the people of Canada. Just like the monarchists. The difference is that I don’t believe that Queen Elizabeth is Canada, or is all Canadians.

By making a promise to all Canadians and to Canada rather than to a monarch, they show their loyalty is not to one born to a particular family, but to all Canadians and to the laws of Canada. It is not the same things as swearing to a particular monarch who can have a very different idea of what they want for Canada than Canadians do.

As far as being an argument to keep the crown, this falls flat. If swearing to the Canadian monarch is the same as swearing to all Canadians, why not simply affirm your intent to all Canadians and to Canada, rather than the Queen. The Queen is not needed to accomplish they very same thing. This is not a good argument to keep a monarchy.

We need no symbol. Canada (which is the geography and laws of our society) and Canadians (the people who live there in common cause) actually do exist, and those four words “all Canadians and Canada” literally embodies exactly what we are talking about. It’s not a convincing reason to remove the monarchy. At best, it makes the entire thing a non-issue.

Although, I’d certainly prefer public officials and new citizens to swear to all Canadians. That is the mature country I want to live in. A country where we swear to each other, not a symbol. A monarch is at best just another symbol. I want a country where we affirm to each other.

The interesting thing about conspiracy theories is that they are very much based on a lack of critical thinking. They may be critical of the official story, they may be critical of the evidence, but they aren’t thinking critically. I think one of the aspects of critical thinking is that one lots of people who think critically come together, they rule things out, rather than consistently come up with new ideas.

Consider the difference between religious scholarship and theology. Theology fragments. Christianity got divided during the protestant reformation. The protestant reformation further divided itself to different sects. The different sects latter reform and split off again. All because someone gets a new idea, but no one can rule out the old one. This leads to some unique jokes. But the fact is that Christian theology keeps splitting, and each division goes on it’s merry way.

Professors of religious studies, however, look at the evidence and rule things out until they get closer and close to the truth. The amazing fact it that the belief of the person is irrelevant. Some may be Catholic, some Protestant, others atheists, but they agree on the facts and reconstruct history from there. What’s telling is that this doesn’t seem to disrupt their faith, and they may not argue theology with their pastor.

Articles about Conspiracy Theory conventions are interesting because they highlight how everyone goes there and talks about their own pet theory. Rarely do they argue to rule out each other’s explanation, like in science or any other academic field of study. It’s as though they will believe anything and are united in their rejection of the official story.

So long as this lack of critical thinking prevails, and the conspiracy theories diverge and separate as to who did it, why, and how, I think they lack any credibility at all. Meanwhile science converges on the truth. We don’t have it yet, but we get close and more refined all the time. Scientists will go through brief periods coming up with new hypothesis and proposing new theories, but then they get to work to try to disprove their own and other’s ideas. Only then do we move towards what is the reality of the situation.

This second part, this trimming away of bad ideas, is fundamental to critical thinking, and something that is lacking in the conspiracy theory communities.

Culture used to be defined by a shared history, a shared identity, and shared set of values or beliefs. But I think that modern culture is changing, and not only in Canada. I think that the future of Canadian culture is still about values and beliefs, or, more specifically, about a shared attitude. (Thank Iain M. Banks.)

An attitude of of working and living together in a free and just society. A goal to work towards, not one that can be achieved. (They say that all fall short of the glory of God. Perfection may be unattainable. But we can always move forwards.)

I hope we will continue to move away from the concrete ideas of culture. For example, we are together because we are the same. Same thoughts, same history, same lifestyle. Culture used to be defined by the fact that everyone watched I Love Lucy. Culture was about loving the monarch. Culture was about how we are us, and they being them.

Instead, I would like to move towards a more abstract idea of culture. We want freedom, equality, justice. We are together because we are working for a better world that meets everyone’s need. Rather than a great systems that serves the needs of a bunch of the people who are exactly the same, a vibrant culture where people of different musical tastes, food tastes, and so on can live together in free exchange of ideas, products, and services. It’s not about wanting the same thing, like certain types of families, relationships, or cell phones. It about freedom, human dignity, and self-determinism.

Some people think that the golden rule means that you should treat others in the manner that you want to be treated. This is not so. The golden rule, I think, is more about treating others respectfully, the way you would want to be treated respectfully. What’s the difference? One is more concrete. One is about treating everyone the same. The other, however, is abstract. It’s about treating each other as the other wants to be treated. Just as you want to be treated the way you want. This means that you take off your shoes at my house, even if you wouldn’t at yours. It means being responsive to the other person, rather than assuming they want to be treated exactly like you. It was a good start two and half thousand years ago, but it’s lacking in sophistication now.

There is so much difference within a single culture like we had in the old days. I think that embracing those differences, rather than having one mainstream, one common experience would allow us to achieve our own happiness together. And there is no reason not to include culture so-called cultures in to this view of multiculturalism. And we can all achieve our own happiness.

Just not the same happiness.

This list is intentionally unordered.

Far from being non-existent, I think that instead the appearance of patriotism is changing. The United States is very good at the old style of patriotism. But I think there is a new style coming. A new context of looking at patriotism. Before, patriotism was about size, military, and money. I think that as Human civilization moves out of our adolescence and becomes a truly mature as a species—which we are far from, of course—that patriotism will be about something else all together different.

An example of how something changes over time is imperialism. Before, imperialism required you to control and use the lands that you conquered. However, by the time the British built their empire imperialism was more about taxation and buying cheap resources than outright control. The control had slowly shifted to more economic measures. These days such empires cannot happen. However, some accuse the US of a new type of imperialism that’s not based on governments or even weapons, but is ever more purely economic or business oriented. Instead of controlling the economy like the British did, they simply work within it to exploit others. The British took resources and sold it back as products, while the US use the people to build the products and then sell them elsewhere.

Another example is government. The British Government started as a system of control by the king, but has evolved in to a democracy for the people.

I think that patriotism is changing as well. Now I think it’s becoming more about the standard of living, equality, education, freedom, and increasingly is moving towards non-violence and the protection of the environment. Patriotism is moving more from the boys and their toys view of things to something that’s more about actually having a healthy, literate society.