The other day I described the Albany Waterfront Park as "uncontrolled" and "undefended". There's a certain innocence in uncontrolled and undefended things, but in light of General MacArthur's maxim that "undefended wealth" is the most frequent cause of war, I'm now wondering about the relationship between control and defense.

In one sense, to defend is to control, for how can one defend anything unless one exerts control over it? Especially considering that an attack on a thing (or a person) is a more odious form of control than its defense, an attack -- by provoking a defense -- tends to necessarily render whatever is attacked subject to more controls than before the attack. This is true regardless of whether the attack is successful, for if the defense succeeds, the defender has exerted control which is likely to stay in place, if for no other reason to prevent more attacks.

Thus, I see a certain innocence in something which has never been defended, as the defense defines and limits it.

Returning to the example of anarchic art in the Albany park, people are now organizing to get rid of it -- because it's not "official" art, and it's made by freelance artists from discarded construction rubble and other contents of the landfill. These attackers (mostly government bureaucrats) want what they call "art" (always in quotations) removed.

Obviously, this leads people on the other side to defend the art (or whatever you might call it). But to defend it is to define it, and to define it is to limit it. Which is why I'd prefer it not be defended, nor attacked. I wish they'd just let it live in its anarchic, naturally broken state. Otherwise, some committee of bureaucrats will be formed, rules for protection and creation of art established, and the whole thing turned into a politically correct mess.

What this has to do with blogging I am not sure. I am sure that I don't like rules. No one can make me follow rules here. And there are no enforceable rules that I know of.

Not so far, at least!

Sure, MSM types are quick to claim bloggers are "biased," but there aren't any rules against bias. I guess some have argued that bias should be disclosed, but I think that bias is disclosed by the writer by his own arguments and opinions.

Art (and writing is a form of art) is inherently biased. And so what? It has a point of view. People who don't like it can ignore it, criticize it, or create their own. They can even attack it or try to smash it. (In the case of the blogosphere, this can take the form of DDOS attacks.) But they can't sic the government on blogs; not in this country.

Nor can they take away the raw materials, like old news.

Bloggers weren't around in 1997 when Eason Jordan's predecessor Richard Kaplan presided over CNN's disgraceful "Operation Tailwind" anti-military smear. This enabled Kaplan to be "fired," replaced by Jordan, and kicked upstairs to the presidency of MSNBC without much reaction in the infant blogosphere. CNN can't do that now, and their pattern of attacks on the U.S.military is being exposed as it never could have before.

All they can do is stonewall and I guess if that fails, attack the bloggers. But there are too many bloggers, and the attacks strengthen them.

Can the blogosphere possibly be seen as a form of undefended wealth? Possibly, but I think it's too spread out.

Art on landfill junk is more vulnerable than the blogosphere because the land and the junk are owned by the government. The blogosphere is owned by no one, and the junk supplying their media is free and largely incapable of regulation.

Blogging about junk is giving me the junk blues. . .

Try regulating this!

And if that doesn't work, at least force somebody to defend it!