this one maytag dryer claims that it has an infinite speed motor. that seems unlikely. i think what they mean is that this machine, in theory, thanks to analog controls, has an infinite number of speed settings, in that you can never find the exact same speed. but if they meant it has infinite speed, well then couldn’t the dryer spin at several times the speed of light and then expand to a mass near infinity and murder you and your whole family using both Skynet and the power of Metaphysics? isn’t the dryer probably thinking about doing that right now? Does anyone see how my fears might come true?
more on my beef with copywriters later. my current problem is with linsday lohan. she’s not a very good teenage sex symbol. because she’s not that good-looking, in any valuable sense, nor is she behaviorally suited to the role. which is why, in an ironic sense, she’s probably the best national teenage sex symbol ever. that and she’s not even really a good actress, which isn’t the point. i don’t know anything about capacity for singing and dancing. now, this is going to be slightly regressive (not in a misogynistic way, just in an all-around old-timey way). i’m more than happy to force my crypto-victorian sexual mores on you all, and i think you’ll be happy to have them, but this goes beyond simple posturing into the realm of national identity crisis. our sex symbols aren’t sexy.
to find what inspired my quiet rage here, refer, fine readers, to the current cover of GQ magazine featuring lindsay lohan. i’d put it here for your convenience but i think the ppl at work might think i was doing something unsavory, and i’m not sure that i wouldn’t (be doing something unsavory). anyway, before we start evaluating the evidence, i have the following things to say about this cover: one, it’s boring. you can’t do any better than a ripped A-shirt for sexy attire? don’t magazine photographers know how to be subversive anymore? can’t she be draped in meat and doll parts (been done before)? or wearing a muslim headscarf and holding a defaced picture of jacques chirac over her lap? is the lack of provocativity linday’s fault? sort of. she’s not provocative. she’ s attractive, in the way that any trim young woman in not very much clothing is attractive. judging from some scant research, the article in GQ about how’s she egg on the face of a hollywood system that prefers really skinny blonde chicks. that might be true, in that she’s a redhead, and probably weights more than 100 lbs. this is going to devolve into some sort of pseudeo-comparative analysis of which attributes i find more attractive. before that happens: lindsay lohan is sort of inevitable, if you examine industry trends. that doesn’t mean she can get away with a total lack of innovation. this is what brought down American car manufacturers. let’s not let it happen to our sex symbol industry either. not that anybody should be worried; the spice girls were the sex symbol equivalent of Le Car (a really skinny girl with bad teeth who wears track pants. that’s not sexy). but i don’t like this. britney spears was bad enough, with her neo-conservatism and weird inability, for a pop star who doesn’t have to write songs, to actually find good tracks. now we have to deal with lindsay lohan. this is bullshit. i want molly ringwald back. she never got a chance to show what she could do. she was a redhead with tastefully mangled teeth. when does her time come?
i apologize for the disorganized ranting. i feel self-conscious about writing at work. not that i should. right now i mostly feel like i want to leave and eat lunch a lot more than i want to come back to this again later and finish it. i leave it to others to flesh this shit out.