While commuters and the news channels were gearing up for Occupy’s subway takeover this afternoon (sayeth the website: “Facing the most brutal assault on our Democracy since 9-11, New Yorkers must once again stand as one!” end quote), another storm was brewing outside the tony office towers of Manhattan’s 6th Avenue.

Protesters lined the street today in front of publishing powerhouse Time & Life, raising placards of dissent and voices in riotous chanting:

Bradley Cooper is just fine but Ryan Gosling is divine!

Following People Magazine’s contentious release of the Sexiest Man of Alive special issue, Ryan Gosling fans gathered to rally against the injustice of those responsible for putting Bradley Cooper, of The Hangover fame, at the top of the list of lust-worthy leading men. Donning Gosling masks, available for printing here, the small but boisterous crowd took a 99%-esque approach to the cause, minus spirit fingers and drums, plus unified message.

And like the Occupiers, the group railed against unfair banking practices. Spank banking practices, that is.

I’m sorry; since when do republicans tag?

…and 1-percenters ride the subway?

I truly believe this week’s New Yorker cover should be passed into law. It’s a pedestrian-traffic solution I’ve often dreamed about (while power walking in the middle of the street, fuming and muttering obscenities), but couldn’t summon the inner Swift to bring to light. Thank you, Bruce McCall, for doing in paint what I could never do in…well…anything.

I liked the idea enough to pitch it to O. O liked it enough to run the story. And someone liked the story enough to call Darren and invite him to give a TED talk at a local SoCal event. Well, the circle was completed when I got an email from Darren asking if I’d work with him to write his speech. He was having trouble putting his thoughts into words and hoped I could help. A big fan of both Darren and TED, I was more than happy to collaborate. We went back and forth for a few days and here’s what we came up with. Darren was nervous about the talk, but I think he pulled it off swimmingly.

Call me prude, but in this if-you-see-something-say-something age is it really appropriate to produce a show that encourages contestants to hide a locked steel suitcase from investigators? Here, citizen, take this unmarked package and bury it somewhere. Stash it out of sight. And show America the best way to elude authorities while you do it. Moreover: Parody criminality for profit.

There’s a lot of value in that case. But what happened to values?

I don’t know how many times I can endure this.

It’s Monday morning, but try not to freak out.

[Thanks, Mikey.]

Take it away, Slate:

A Fox News website has picked up a hoax story about an Islamic council in Pakistan protesting the use of padded and colorful bras and presented it as fact.

The story, which is still featured on Fox News’ Fox Nation website, was illustrated with a picture of a woman’s mid-section and carried the headline “Pakistan: Islamic Clerics Protest Women Wearing Padded Bras as ‘Devil’s Cushions.’” (UPDATE 9:30: Fox has now pulled the story. See the original here.)

…[T]he whole thing is an obvious Onion-style satire — a fact first pointed out by Arif Rafiq of the Pakistan Policy Blog.

The sify.com story linked by Fox cites a “report” from yet another site called Roznama Jawani.

Roznama Jawani, in turn, appears to be a Pakistani version of the Onion, featuring such stories as “Karachi Preparing a Huge Ass Bat to Beat the Shit Out of Kamran Akmal,” “Altaf Hussain Challenges Imran Khan to a Rap Battle to Settle Differences,” and “Man From Peshawar Sues Red Bull. Says he has no wings!”

Matter of fact, in my limited experience in the Muslim world, padded, colorful bras are not only acceptable, they’re everywhere. Bazars are lined with bedazzled braziers, and women with headscarves paw unabashedly through racks of neon and lace. Even midscale shops in Syria equally supply for beauty on the inside and the outside:

Gag me.

Really, America? No Strings Attached took the top box office spot over the weekend? Really? I’ll have to chalk it up to the fact that there weren’t other openings last Friday, because the thought of a movie with such an insultingly thin plot line — and a lame title that must have taken all of two seconds to come up with — being the most popular in the country makes me want to hurl. And that’s completely independent of the standard effect Ashton Kutcher has on my upchuck reflex, or how tired I am of Natalie Portman. It’s just the only reaction I can muster upon reading that it took in $20.3 million. I know I shouldn’t be surprised. Or disappointed. But I can’t help it if sometimes my emotions get the best of me. Puking is an emotion, right?

In other entertainment news, this just in from Yahoo: “Bret Michaels is undergoing a procedure in Phoenix to close a hole in his heart.”

Medical emergency, or brilliant concept for the Rock of Love star’s next reality series? Either way, I hope the plug works.

In the past three years, newspaper advertising revenues have plummeted, a fourth of all newsroom employees have been laid off or have accepted buyouts, and more than a hundred free local papers have folded.

The industry’s unlikely hero, Auletta continues, is AOL, which has hired 900 journalists in the last year, adding another 40 each week to its mushrooming Patch local newsroom network. Or should that be anti-hero? The compendium of online newspapers in small, affluent communities numbers 700 in 19 states and the District of Columbia, and each is run by an editor who makes, Auletta reports, between $40,000 and $50,000 a year.

Just a few short years ago, $40k was the starting salary for a bottom-of-the-masthead magazine reporter. Not, certainly, what an effective Editor-in-Chief should even consider. Honestly, I don’t know what Patch writers make, but I know it’s not much, and that it is a source of much nervous and angry chatter among journalists who are hungry for work but unwilling to chew and swallow their pride for sustenance. It’s no wonder we’re all so fucking bitter.

Other, funnier numbers from the story include:

• 50% of internet surfers logged on using AOL pay-per-minute dial-up service in the late 1990s
• 35 million AOL users in 2002
• 4 million AOL users today (and falling precipitously)
• 75% of current AOL dial-up subscribers have DSL or cable hook-ups and don’t need AOL — but don’t realize it
• $9.99-$25.90 per month: price of AOL’s dial-up plan options [not in the story; I added that one]

Still being able to subscribe to the New Yorker and read it in print on the subway: Priceless.