'Morning, everyone!

Enjoy that extra cup of coffee today, OK?

It's so nice living here in Arizona

When did we move to Phoenix without my noticing?

Tomorrow it's supposed to be near 100 here. Good grief. What ever happened to "cooler near the lake"?

My Garden

Gorgeous day today. Time to shoot some pics of the perennial garden:





These are my "Chicago Fire" and "Chicago Princess" (I think) daylilies. Gorgeous, yes? Now, back outside to enjoy them in real life, instead of just on the screen.

The daily blog

Of course, my description of abandoned blogs was tongue-in-cheek.

But I do remember reading somewhere that the unwritten rule about blogging -- which, if I read it, would make it more like a written rule -- is that a blogger must post at least once a day to qualify as a real blogger.

A friend, who reads the NYT but refuses to read blogs, even said to me once, "Don't you have to post every day if you have a blog?"

I also read a blog post somewhere opining that if you only post once a week, you have a column, not a blog.

Another requirement seems to be that you must have links in your posts. I once replied to a newspaper reporter that yes, their new blog was OK, but it didn't really seem much like a blog because not one of their posts had a link to anything. It read more like a series of very short articles written by their reporters. Which it was. (And after checking it just now, I'd say it still is. I found only 2 links on the entire page.)

So there seems to be a consensus of sorts that if you're really truly a blogger, you must post at least daily, and you have to have some links. Comments make it even more bloggish.

But then there are bloggers like this one, who are worth the wait for that non-daily post.

And there are other bloggers, conversely, who post a million times a day, have bazillions of links -- and I just really don't even care to read them anymore. (I'm too nice to link to them. Or too chicken.)

Well, anyway, I've got today's post written.

Don't you hate abandoned blogs?

Yes, I do too. I hate going to a blog and seeing nothing, day after day, just a dull old post from days, weeks, months ago.

It's like seeing a boarded-up house in a nice, busy neighborhood. It's blight. It's a testament to human failure. It's dull.

That's a description of this blog since, oh, about March. Just the old "nothing to see here, folks, move along now" story.

I couldn't stand it anymore! So I'm back. I am determined to post one small thing every day, again, like any respectable blogger should do.

At least for today.

Oh, Canada!

What on earth is happening up there? Hat tip to the Anchoress for this jaw-dropping news:

OTTAWA, July 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Just as Senate approaches the final vote on the gay 'marriage' bill, C-38, Canada's national public radio CBC Radio has aired a commentary by a retired professor from the Royal Military College calling for state control over religion, specifically Catholicism. While parliamentarians dismissed warnings by numerous religious leaders and experts that such laws would lead to religious persecution, former professor Bob Ferguson has called for "legislation to regulate the practice of religion." [snip]

The former professor pitched his idea as a boon to religious freedom. "We could also help the general cause of religious freedom by introducing a code of moral practice for religions," he said. "They will never achieve unity so why not try for compatibility? Can't religious leaders agree to adjust doctrine so all religions can operate within the code?"

Ferguson, would see religion regulated by provinces in the same way professions are regulated. "I am an engineer so the model I am thinking about is rather like the provincial acts regulating the practice of engineering," he said. "For example, engineers must have an engineering degree from a recognized university or pass qualification exams. They must have a number of years of practical experience and pass an ethics exam. The different branches: mechanical, electrical, civil and the like have a code of practice that applies to everyone. Why can't religious groups do the same?"

Continuing his comparison Ferguson stated, "I envisage a congress meeting to hammer out a code that would form the basis of legislation to regulate the practice of religion. Like the professional engineers' P.Eng designation, there would then be RRPs (or registered religious practitioners). To carry the analogy to its conclusion, no one could be a religious practitioner without this qualification."

Ferguson is pitching this as a boon to freedom of religion, hmmm?

What complete and utter rot.

Oh, and yes, I'm still alive, and I remember how to blog, and when I read this article, I remembered why I wanted to blog in the first place.

(And by the way, thanks to my blog friends who emailed me with your encouragement to blog again. I was touched that you were still dropping by and looking for me here!)