If you'll recall, we recently reinstated our ban on posting sightings of ubiquitous Canadian comedian Myers, his "hipster" girlfriend, and his hockey stick. So it was a little odd to hear, from the Times, about how much we miss him. Apparently, The Cat in the Hat is taking a break from the big screen to recharge his creative batteries — after all, as Myers told James Lipton, "There's process and there's product. And when you're too long on product, you forget about your process." The article goes on to compare the 'Shrek in the Swamp Karaoke Dance Party' star's creative output to that of Ben Stiller and Robin Williams, among others, who aren't as selective as the projects they take on. And Myers' abstemiousness won't end anytime soon:

To be fair, they did go a couple albums back.

• Soon, the Daily News will be all Widdicombe, all the time. Anyone know what ever happened to that Grove guy?
  

We were ogling the photos of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants author Ann Brashares's impeccably renovated four-story carriage house in today's Home section, which filled us with the same predictable envy and incredulity we feel every time anyone suggests that writing can eventually lead to fiscal solvency. However did Anne come up with the idea for the bestselling series that eventually netted her a 25X25 kitchen, we wondered? We seemed to remember hearing something about that once. Let's see — according to the Times,

The Times just can't seem to stop reminding us that the only thing people like to jerk off to anymore seems to be the work of aged porn stars like De'Bella, pictured (who we'd consider more of a Mom We Wouldn't Like To Fuck Even With Someone Else's Dick, but we digress.) A report in today's Business section confirms what we first learned on Sunday: old lady porn represents "the one area of huge growth" in an otherwise slackening industry. The culprit, as with most things, seems to be the goshdarned internets, but rest assured that DVDs aren't going anywhere anytime soon: in spite of the lack of growth, AVN Media Network Paul Fishbein still estimates the industry's revenues at $13 million billion. An "opponent of the industry" "gave a slightly smaller estimate of the size of the business," but we're sure Fishbein wouldn't exaggerate. And anyway, it's what you do with it.

From the sublime (uh, yeah, we just called Alessandra Stanley sublime; we feel kind of weird about it as well) to the ridiculous: the Times' other TV critic takes a break from watching YouTube to bring her highbrow critical faculties to the lowbrow arena of the sitcom:

It's a given, at this point, that any woman writer who tries to contradict Christopher Hitchens's airtight assertion that "Women Aren't Funny" (which he later amended, of course, to 'Non-"hefty, dykey, or Jewish" women aren't funny') will be on the receiving end of a predictable, nyah-nyah "You just proved my point." But today, in a review of two new tv shows featuring "funny" men and ornamental, dim ladies, Alessandra Stanley puts herself on the line for the women-are-funny cause:

• Here come the layoffs at the Philadelphia Inquirer. [NYT]
  

• "This painting addresses the celebrity worship cycle." [Kate's Studio via Boing Boing]
  

It's plenty easy to cry plagiarism these days, and even easier when the subject comes to reporting, where the facts are often stark and difficult to embellish upon, so we generally counsel restraint on whipping out the old "they ripped this off" accusation. Still, a tipster alerted us to recent New York Times coverage of the negotiations surrounding kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit containing a few sentences that seem awfully similar to those published earlier in Israel's Haaretz. Unavoidable duplication or jacked imitation? We'll take a look after the jump.

You know, sometimes when we read about the fabulous new Google office in Chelsea, with its free cafeteria and ping pong tables and lava lamps and rockin' Thank God It's Almost Friday soir es and cutely-nicknamed internecine cliques (Gayglers!), we have a momentary pang of jealousy.

• Say hello to the new Wall Street Journal. For free! [WSJ]
  

• The artist currently known as Prince is "in talks to develop a musically themed magazine." We can't w8 2 read it! [WWD]
  

• The top 9 celebrity sex tapes that never existed—much to our collective chagrin. [Derek Hail]
  

Today we were saddened, weirded out, and, okay, maybe a tiny bit amused (look at that goofy David Bowie eye!) by a Times article about how the Japanese craze for tiny "bonsai" dogs (wasn't there a scary fake website about this or something?) has led to lots of damaged goods getting pumped out of puppy mills. There's even a slide show. What's next, Times, a big picture of a retarded white tiger named Kenny?

It's not like we expect much from Thursgay Styles, but the newsworthlessness of today's article about the trouble with strapless bras must represent a new low. First, there's the flailing attempt to pretend that the article is in any way timely: "Just ask the legions of women who hook, wrap and suck themselves into such bras each New Year's Eve, then pray they do not drop like the crystal ball in Times Square." Uh, right. That's what we always wear to celebrate the last day of December, a strapless-bra-necessitating shoulder-baring gown! Goes well with our suntan and our open-toed sandals! (This is Rob, btw). But the article's real low point comes later on:

• Fashion magazine editor in chief documentary fever has risen to such a pitch that there are even cameras following around Marie Claire's Joanna Coles. Where will it end, Life& Style?? [NYT]
  

When there's blanket coverage of a celebrity death, it's always fun to compare the way it's handled by different news outlets. So: who do you think described James Brown's signature style and moves most whitely and dorkily?

The Times is all in a lather over a seeming reversal: President G. Dubs, who'd previously eschewed newspapers in favor of the "objective opinions" of his staff, mentioned reading an article in one last week. "Is there hope for newspapers after all?" the article tongue-in-cheekily asks. Well, not so fast, guys. We personally know how hard it is to read a bunch of newspapers, and in our professional opinion, Bush doesn't have what it takes. We think he's lying about reading that article: probably some aide read aloud to him while he watched Deal or No Deal or something. And while on the one hand you want to be all "our president is an idiot monkey" about this, on the other hand, you kind of see his point, right? Reading newspapers, at least for him, would be like if Lindsay Lohan read Us Weekly!

• NYT says "[Redacted], you [redacted] [redacted] of the CIA. Go [redacted] a up your [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] until it [redacted]." Ouch. [NYT]