The former James Bond, Pierce Brosnan shares Daniel Craig’s opinion that the new American president would make a good 007 agent.

“He's cool enough. He's definitely got the walk and the talk, yes,” said Brosnan...

In case there’s trouble or we’re under attack, have no fear, because Bond is black.

Stevie Wonder, for whom I already had much love, will forever be associated with the 2008 election--at least in my mind.

It's not as good as having a full video, but it'll have to do.

UPDATE!

Here's the video:

Today's playlist includes "Panic" by the Smiths—"hang the DJ, hang the DJ"—followed by songs about depression, suicide, and sleeping to escape the horribleness of the world. And then goes on the air to talk about how he can't sleep lately.

From Schmader's post, from two days ago: "I do not believe it’s fair to diagnose DJs through their playlists. But if I did, John might be ready for an intervention, or at least a big hug."

Removing a critic from his beat after 28 years is tantamount to firing him. He's been reassigned to general "arts and entertainment reporter" and the paper is refusing to explain itself, though in Rosenberg's account, he was called into the editor's office and summarily "reassigned" after she accused him of "attacking" the orchestra.

It's true that Rosenberg was deeply critical of the orchestra's current conductor, Franz Welser-Möst.

It's also true that the editor who fired Rosenberg has been at the helm of the paper a single year—and the publisher is on the board of trustees of the orchestra.

Whoa.

Stop, stop, stop.

Just about every critic worth anything has a long list of people lining up at the editor or publisher's door requesting their removal.

In this case, even the orchestra's executive director tells the New York Times: "I’ve never read anything in a Rosenberg review that was nonmusical." He says he didn't ask for Rosenberg's removal.

Probably he didn't have to. When the publisher is on the board of the orchestra, the critic is the one on the outside from the beginning.

I can't describe how wrong this is.

Welser-Möst has received mixed reviews from other critics as well. On tour in Europe, he gets good response. In New York, so-so. But these reviews are from critics who don't have to listen to his work every single week. What is a critic supposed to do when he believes, as Rosenberg told the New York Times, that "this is a case of an extraordinary orchestra with an ordinary conductor"? Be quiet about it? Who's best serving the city, the organization, and the art form then?

Repeated criticisms of the same subject by the same critic can begin to sound shrill. Readers often begin to accuse critics of having ulterior motivations. Critics have to watch out for this—and judging by Rosenberg's writings, he stayed well on the safe side of this dynamic.

But what is a critic to do when he or she disagrees with the artistic philosophy or doubts the abilities of a conductor, or a museum director, or the head of a theater?

The last time I was in a situation not unlike Rosenberg's (before his "reassignment," that is), a colleague who has been in the business far longer than I have pointed out: Editors and publishers don't mind if you write that this concert was boring and that concert was boring. But if you string it together into institutional critique—hey, everything that director does is boring, and wait, that's keeping the institution back—then you, the critic, are seen as "on the attack."

I fear that something like this happened to Don Rosenberg, when he was simply trying to do his job.

At this moment, I'm just glad I don't work for the Plain Dealer. The paper has embarrassed itself and its city.

(Not only all this, but Ross has been incredibly generous: A few years ago he loaded up an iPod for the charity auction Strangercrombie. Somebody is walking around here with a certifiably genius playlist.)

^{Illustration by Kyle T. Webster}

SFW? NSFW? You decide.

UPDATE! It's been brought to my attention that this was already posted by Dean Carlson--way back in July--on Line Out. He even wrote something informative about it, whereas I did not.

John? Something you want to tell us?

Thursday afternoon, Heart e-mailed out a statement regarding vice-presidential candidate Sarah "Barracuda" Palin's use of their similarly monikered song at the Republican National Convention: "The Republican campaign did not ask for permission to use the song, nor would they have been granted that permission," it read. "We have asked the Republican campaign publicly not to use our music...."

But after McCain finished his speech accepting the GOP's presidential nomination tonight, Palin joined him on stage, and the song was used again: Heart's "Barracuda" played as balloons fell.... Heart's Nancy Wilson felt compelled to personally respond.... "I feel completely f---ed over." She and sister Ann Wilson then e-mailed the following exclusive statement:

"Sarah Palin's views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song 'Barracuda' no longer be used to promote her image. The song 'Barracuda' was written in the late 70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. (The 'barracuda' represented the business.) While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there's irony in Republican strategists' choice to make use of it there."

I used to see Ann Wilson at the QFC on 15th. She owned (still owns?) a house in Interlaken. Although Heart rules the world, I never wanted to bother her, so in line at the checkout stand right behind her once, I hummed "Barracuda" very softly as a tiny tribute. It is a difficult song to hum. She appeared not to notice.

Hi there, my name is Doug Perkul and I am the former AP at SPIN Magazine. Together with Sundance Award Winner Stefan Nadelman, we created a new literary site called Lit Mob (http://www.litmob.com). Now, before you start to yawn, please note that this is not like what is currently online--the site is more like Pitchfork in that it focuses on books, but also design and musical artists. We would love your thoughts on the site as well as any editorial love that you may be able to share.

Thanks a million! I have attached our press release for your review and am of course available to answer any questions that you may have.

Best,
Doug

Doug Perkul
Publisher & Founder
LIT MOB
doug@litmob.com
http://www.litmob.com
READERS UNITE!

You get a note like this and you feel something. "This is not like what's currently online"? "Readers unite!"? It's heartwarming, no? The language of revolution is a little crazy, but literary culture is Saltine-y and ridiculous and nowhere near commensurate with how great great writing can be, and it's refreshing to hear from one of those valiant few who's with you on this, who likewise believes that something must be done, that reading The Elegant Variation and Maude Newton and Arts & Letters Daily and subscribing to The New Yorker and n+1 and The Believer is not enough, and moreover that literature and music have some things in common, that there's got to be a way to get the average person as excited about books as they are about bands, that more alliances between to two mediums could be forged for... well, marketing reasons, really, horrible as that sounds. Reading could use a marketing update. Writers are rock stars. This at least was the thinking behind The Stranger's reading and dance party with Charles D'Ambrosio and Jonathan Safran Foer at Chop Suey in April 2005, and the one with Zadie Smith and Amos Latteier and the Dead Science at Neumo's in October 2005, and the one with Miranda July and Sarah Rudinoff and "Awesome" at Neumo's in May 2007.

Anyway, then I visited the website to see what a site about books that's "more like Pitchfork" is like, because that sounds pretty great, and started to read it and skipped right past yawning to narcolepsy. I have keyboard shapes on my cheek. The writing on Lit Mob is a lazy pile of unnecessary first-person and book-review cliches ("The protagonist is extremely self-absorbed yet easy to root for"). How can book reviewers who can't write be trusted? There is one page on Lit Mob that's kind of not a bad idea--a page of "what our favorite artists are reading now," where members of Earlimart and Cut Copy and Menomena and other bands recommend titles by dead people you already know about (Phillip K. Dick, Kurt Vonnegut, Charles Bukowski) and not-dead guys too (David Berman, Alex Ross, Keith Gessen, Jeffrey Eugenides). It's a handsome page, but it doesn't make for compelling reading. I reread Doug/Schatzi's email--what's an "AP at Spin magazine"? Apple polisher? Aryan procreator? Awful person?--and wondered why I ever extended any hope in his direction, then visited the website for Schatzi Marketing, just to round out the picture, and, well, here's what came up on the first page:

In case that's too fuzzy for you to read:

Schatzi is a unique marketing firm that specializes in creating compelling campaigns and programs for brands seeking "authentic" interactions with the marketplace.

Doug/Schatzi writes that he is "available to answer any questions that you may have." OK: Is this a joke, Doug/Schatzi? Could it please be a joke? What does "'authentic'" mean? Does that refer to something that seems authentic but isn't? Something that doesn't seem authentic but is? Something that doesn't seem authentic and isn't? It's compelling, that grammar there. It's packed like a poem.