Running a website is a lot harder than it looks. The pros and cons of running your own website vs. going through Blogger or Typepad are similar to the choice of whether to rent or buy your own home. The freedom to host anything I want and hack the hell out of the software I’m running is nice, but every once in a while I encounter a problem that I can’t just complain to the landlord about. In this case, the comments table of my MovableType database got corrupted sometime yesterday and the only way I could fix it without losing my data was to ssh into the server, login to mysql, and issue a “REPAIR TABLE” command. I know my way around Linux somewhat, but my DBA skills are about on par with George Bush’s honesty. So it’s days like these when I’m eternally grateful to “the Google”. It’s a sysadmin’s best friend.

Interesting discussion happening at Wikipedia that started with this posting :

I would like to gather from the community some examples of works you would like to see made free, works that we are not doing a good job of generating free replacements for, works that could in theory be purchased and freed.

Dream big. Imagine there existed a budget of $100 million to purchase copyrights to be made available under a free license. What would you like to see purchased and released under a free license?

Photos libraries? textbooks? newspaper archives? Be bold, be specific, be general, brainstorm, have fun with it.

Lots of great ideas here. I’d vote for Lexis-Nexis, JSTOR, The Web of Science, or some other repository of knowledge locked behind a subscription wall. That is, assuming the money can only be used to buy out rights. I think a better use of the money would be to invest in equipment and an infrastructure to permanently archive as much public domain material as they can get their hands on. Old encyclopedias, wax cylinders, maps, sheet music, speeches, rapidly-decaying film negatives, newspapers, the entire Congressional record, academic journals, plays, letters, novels, etc. should all be digitized for prosperity, indexed, and thrown online. Why give the money to some misers who want to hoard information when there’s a ton of information being swept into history’s dustbin?

I’ve read so many “Republicans are in trouble” articles that they’re starting to take on an almost jazz-like quality. Journalists, bloggers, and pundits are riffing on poll numbers and conventional wisdom the way musicians improvise on a melody. There’s so many familiar themes being weaved together like Foley, Abramoff, Iraq, and Katrina that you’d think it would get repetitive after a while, but I gotta admit that it’s a pretty damn catchy tune.

But, it’s sad when a major media outlet like Newsweek is consumed with playing the same song that they end up burying a lede like this (via Digg):

Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support, especially calls to impeach Bush: 47 percent of Democrats say that should be a “top priority,” but only 28 percent of all Americans say it should be, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done. (Five percent of Republicans say it should be a top priority and 15 percent of Republicans say it should be a lower priority; 78 percent oppose impeachment.) Rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts would be contentious too: 38 percent of Americans say the Dems should make that a top priority; 28 percent say it should be a lower priority; and 28 percent say it shouldn’t be done at all.

Now wait a second…doesn’t 28% plus 23% equal 51%? I’d think that a poll showing the majority of Americans favor impeaching the President would be pretty newsworthy, especially considering that this far exceeds the numbers of a President that actually was impeached. If the majorities favoring impeachment and repealing Bush’s tax cuts is how Newsweek defines “less support”, then the GOP is in a lot more trouble that I thought. I still can’t bring myself to start celebrating before the polls even open, but it’s nice to hear.

This hurts to watch.

If Republicans didn’t care about stem cell research after the Gipper’s wife and son begged them to support it, they certainly aren’t going to care now. It would be nice if they were as concerned about saving the lives of human beings as they are about saving frozen embryos, but that’s the way things go with the GOP. They’re obsessed with protecting “life”, but curiously only define the term in abstract ways that benefit them politically. Gosh, it must be nice to take the moral high-ground all the time.

Have you ever had a band that you loves so much during their prime that you found yourself continuing to buy their new albums even after you’ve admitted to yourself that they suck now? Well, that’s how I am with “Studio 60″. I still feel compelled to watch it even though it’s obviously a mediocre show, but luckily for me, NBC is probably going to put me out of my misery :

One month later, it appears “Studio 60″ will be lucky to last the season. Since its premiere on Sept. 19, the pricey series has been shedding viewers weekly, and those who once saw Aaron Sorkin as the Arthur Miller of network drama grumble about the poor quality of the show’s comedy and the characters’ endless back-patting claims that said tepid comedy is in fact boundary-pushing, hilarious, edgy fare.

The latest episode featured a toothless, unfunny parody of Nancy Grace which was painful to watch. Hell, with the way Grace foams at the mouth every time someone accused of a crime is found “not guilty”, her show should be easy to parody, but the “Studio 60″ sketch was the Christian chick (a bland label for a bland character) wearing a wig and using a bad accent badgering someone about a lost cel phone. Not ready for primetime, indeed.

What was even more pathetic was the musical guest. For a show that is supposed to be “edgy” (or at least heading in that direction), why the hell would they feature Sting performing selections from his album of 16th-century lute music. It seemed like a third of the episode was Sting hyping his album while the various cast members stood around admiring his brilliance. Uggghhh…what’s wrong, were Bryan Adams and Eddie Money too busy to help contribute some of their cutting edge cred as well?

Speaking of horrible shows on NBC, can we talk a little about how horrible “Deal or No Deal” is? First of all, they took one of the all-time greatest game shows ever, “Let’s Make A Deal”, and squeezed out every drop of personality the show had. Instead we’re stuck with something that looks like a mishmash of every other primetime gameshow phenomenon, but without even the slightest bit of skill involved in winning the game. No trivia, no strategy, no challenges, it’s just trying to guess where that guy who used to put rubber gloves on his head is hiding the money. They might as well have a double-or-nothing, coin-flipping show or fast track “What Number Am I Thinking Of?” as a mid-season replacement.

Of course, the reason people get glued to the show is manufactured drama of deal-making, but even that aspect of the program is simple-minded and stupid. How can anyone watch more than ten minutes of the show before figuring out that “The Banker” is just counting the remaining cases and offering sums based solely on the odds. For example, if there are five cases left, you’ve got a one-in-five chance of winning the money, so they’ll offer you slightly less than one-fifth of the grand prize. It fairly simple math and it’s not much different than the way a casino’s games and allowed bets are always designed to give the house a slight edge. If “Deal or No Deal” were being played in Vegas, it would be like watching a stranger play a slow-motion craps game with only one bet and no dice.

Oh well, at least Heroes is good.

Looking at the Connecticut Senate race, it seems to me that the one thing that Lieberman undoubtedly has over Lamont is his seniority in the Senate. All things being equal, a Lamont win should have a slightly negative impact for the people of Connecticut, since replacing a Senator with as much clout as Lieberman would mean state interests would be in the hands of a junior Senator. That’s the theory anyways, but the most damaging exchange from yesterdays debate, as David Sirota notes, highlighted just how little Lieberman has done to represent the people of Connecticut.

I want to say I believe the most damning line of the whole debate came not when Lieberman lied, but when Ned got him on the defensive with the facts and Lieberman refused to give a straight answer about why Connecticut is 49 out of 50 in its rate of federal investment. He said that’s because Connecticut is a wealthy state - and then refused to answer why when he was first elected Connecticut used to get 88 cents back for every dollar it sent to Washington, and now it gets just 66 cents back. Apparently, Lieberman hasn’t been to places like Bridgeport or New Haven in a while. If he had been, he would understand just how out-of-touch it is for him to dismiss his failure to deliver as totally acceptable because he thinks everyone in Connecticut is rolling in cash.

Think about that for a minute. The beltway chattering classes are in love with Joe Lieberman. The Democratic Party insiders are close enough that even after the Lieberman campaign’s string of anti-Democrat insults, they still refuse to completely throw Joe under the bus. The Republican party has more respect for Lieberman than their own Senate candidate. At a glance, it seems that Joe Lieberman is one of the most powerful Democrats in the country, yet despite all the praise he gets in Washington, the people of Connecticut are getting less than they were before Joe came to town.

One of the big myths about the CT Senate race (which has been milked for all it’s worth by the Lieberman campaign) is that lefty bloggers hate, hate, hate Holy Joe. Even now, after all of the things Lieberman has said and done to undermine his party, I still wouldn’t characterize my feelings towards him as anger. I can’t speak for all of my fellow bloggers, but I have little doubt that Joe Lieberman is a decent person. He’s like an old friend or a roommate that keeps making the same stupid mistakes over and over and over again. Being a dummy doesn’t make you a bad guy and I’m willing to concede that Joe’s probably sincere in his mushy approach to politics, but watching him can be so…

damn…

frustrating.

Contrary to what Lieberman supporters would have you think, questioning Joe’s ability isn’t an ad hominem attack. Joe Lieberman has in some respects been a reliable Democrat, but politics is about a lot more than just your voting record. When you’re picking somebody to represent your interests and values in Washington, political judgement is as important a factor as any to watch and it’s that measure by which Lieberman has repeatedly failed.

Much has been written about Lieberman’s fetishization of “bipartisanship”, but the problem isn’t his willingness to work both both sides of the aisle, but the way that he’s chosen to do it. Rather than be a true centrist with a mixed record, Joe Lieberman tends to vote Democratic, but lend his voice of support to every bullshit right-wing meme that comes down the pike. For Dems, it makes Joe look like a back-stabbing fool and for Republicans it makes him look like somebody who’s not willing to back up his words in the halls of Congress. Either way, Joe Lieberman’s bizarre notion of what constitutes “bipartisan” just doesn’t work. At least, it hasn’t worked for the people of Connecticut.

Give me 35 seconds to make you a George Formby fan :

Okay, now go buy this.

I’m watching the streaming video of the three-man debate for Connecticut Senate and I think I’ve figured out why Lieberman is ahead in the polls. Granted, this is all based on a few minutes, but it seems to me that the real Republican candidate is the race is a complete nutcase. Then again, you’d have to be even crazier to vote for Joe. The guy’s too wishy-washy to pick a side a go with it. If he’s reelected, will he support the Democrats or the Republicans? The consensus seems to be that he’ll stay a Democrat as long as he gets to keep his seniority, but if the GOP offers him a better deal, all bets are off. After all, Joe’s been cozying up to the Republicans for a while now and has refused to support any other Democrats running for election.

Why would Democrats or Republicans vote for Lieberman when they don’t know which one they’re voting for?

I don’t know if I’m supposed to be writing about this or not, but I didn’t sign a NDA, so screw it. I just got back from the Fuse/Fangoria Chainsaw Awards, which is the “premiere award show spotlighting the best in horror-themed cinema, music and television”. It was pretty much what you’d expect of a music channel-sponsored awards show, but I gotta tell you about one award that was definitely the most surreal part of the evening. Rob Zombie was presenting the “Prince of Darkness Award” for the “Darkest male artist in [a] music video”. And the winner was….Jared Leto. Yeah, that Jared Leto.

To be fair, his band, 30 Seconds to Mars, wasn’t any worse than most of the crap they play on the radio. It was pretty much the same pseudo-goth mall punk that those young whippersnappers seem to love these days. Also, I can’t help but sympathise for a guy who’s probably spent the last decade trying to escape his Tiger Beat typecasting. The dude was in Fight Club, so he can’t be all bad. But c’mon. Prince of Darkness? Jared Leto? I don’t see it.

I couldn’t agree with this sentiment from John Avarosis more (via Kos) :

Is it just me, or has Google News become useless? Their definition of “news sites” seems to include an ever increasing number of simply bizarre Web sites that aren’t even the top in their category of site. Meaning, they’ve tried to include blogs, but only some blogs, and many of the ones they have you’ll never have heard of, and many of the ones you have heard of are just plain bad. When I’m doing a news search, I want news site - not blogs, not left-wing conspiracy sites, or right-wing religious nutjobs. News. If they want a blog search enging, that’s fine too. But the current state of affairs has taken a great news search engine and turned it into a bunch of noise.

Equally bad is that Google’s news search doesn’t enough to make their results meaningful. It looks neat when you do a search for “Hastert”, “sexual predator”, and “cover-up” and Google News returns a few hundred entries, but when 95% of those results are the same repackaged stories from the Associated Press or Reuters, then you quickly realize that clicking around looking for interesting news is largely a waste of time. You’re better off finding a dozen or so news providers that do unique work and going to them instead.