During her bizarre Today show appearance earlier this month, Dina Lohan announced that her daughter Lindsay, currently toiling away in a California rehab facility, will be moving to New York City when she gets out. Upon hearing the news, taxi cabs swerved, New Yorkers gasped, and whole industries were silenced! No, everyone was like, "Um, what? Okay, whatever," and went about their day. But not the Times! This weekend, the paper proposed that Lindsay Lohan just might be "saved" by her New York move, imagining a life for the actress here of critically acclaimed theater roles and ultimate redemption. The Gray Lady explains:
"Richard Nixon came to New York after losing the 1962 gubernatorial election in California, working as a lawyer and living on Fifth Avenue while he plotted his political comeback. In 2000, Monica Lewinsky moved to the West Village to start a line of handbags and blend into the crowds. So why not Lindsay?"
Certainly DWI is unacceptable, a jail stint is nothing to write home about, and a drug habit is a serious issue, but is this still very young and pretty woman really on par with Nixon? (Even early Nixon?) Or Monica Lewinsky? Does she need "saving," and must that take the form of a quiet life of Off Broadway anonymity, as the Times imagines it might?
This is a moot point, however, because to answer the Times' problematic question more simply: We're going with no. Obviously, New York City, arguably the world's most glamorous yet anxiety-inducing locale, will probably not make Lindsay Lohan humbler or calmer, if that's what she's really even after. Especially not if history repeats itself.