I probably read a blog entry on HuffPo maybe once a month - I like the site’s catch-all news-feediness, but I really don’t need to hear Alec Baldwin’s political point of view (love him on 30 Rock, tend to lean Democrat - but I don’t need to hear actors talk politics).
Well, except maybe for Paulina’s blogs. She was pretty much my favorite model back in the day when that mattered a lot to the younger me. And, other than having weird aesthetic taste in husband material (giving hope to tall musical geeks like me the world 'round) - it turns out she has a great brain on those alabaster shoulders.
This blog entry is nothing more than a commonsense commentary on what it means to be a model, but she speaks clearly and frankly.
Along the same vein - It fries me every time a pro athletes get publicity for talking to little kids. Their message is invariably to let them know that if they just try hard enough and follow their dreams they, too, can be anything they want.
Sure, if they try hard enough and follow their dreams and are incredible genetic freaks of nature perhaps.
It seems to me that her first sentence and last sentence are contradictory. Is it a rare combination of attributes, or is it looks and right place/right time?
Well, the chupacabra is a mythical “monster”, so I think what she’s saying is that this “rare combination of attributes” = “no such animal”. If it’s mostly a matter of looking the right way and being in the right place at the right time, then these mysterious “attributes” aren’t something you can learn because they don’t exist. Basically, you can learn to be a fashion model; you can’t learn to be a Tyra Banks or a Cindy Crawford.
Also, does anybody else find it odd that an Eastern European woman chose a Puerto Rican cryptobeast for her metaphor?