NYT sentences to ponder

Kaia Gerber’s Dad Was a Model, Too


Rande Gerber is married to Cindy Crawford, is a father to the teenage supermodels Kaia and Presley Gerber, and is a tequila baron (with his pal George Clooney).

That is the front-page header for this NYT piece, you will note it is not a critique of the wealthy or famous.  Recommended, interesting throughout, and don’t forget to check out the photos…

Oh, and here is the closer:

The Gerbers can sound a little corny, and that’s because they are. Nothing confounds a celebrity profile like a happy family. They are four golden figures that, even viewed up close, seem to be constantly dissolving into a Malibu sunset.

“When I meet people from my past, they’re not really shocked where my life has taken me,” Mr. Gerber said, clinking his Casamigos and ice, flanked by his wife and equally symmetrical daughter.

“Most people just figured I would have been successful,” he said, and shrugged.


A monel what?😏

Was he the Gerber baby?

The emphasized formatting is just in case we get too complacent about ignoring a classic average is over headline, right?

So I was so like expecting them to be like vapid and shallow and they are not like that at all!

Actually, they do seem like nice enough people. Gerber gets most of the story, but Crawford was born in DeKalb, Illinois in 1966. I can assure you that is a reasonably humble background, and she's always struck me as a bright and sensible person.

Good luck raising kids out there. Maybe they can pull it off.

I do appreciate Tyler pointing out the "kid gloves for the right kind of rich and famous" angle, which is spot on.

I also find the unmentioned subtext of genetics, even breeding(!?!), to hang pretty heavily over the whole article.

I believe that Cindy Crawford is also quite bright and received admission to Northwestern to study Chemistry. So yes, genetic averaging shouldn't be bad for them.

Yes, she spent one semester at Northwestern before moving into modeling full time. I met her back in 1993 at a Leukemia Society Fundraiser in Los Angeles (I was an invited panel discussant on drug development that was held the next morning). She was active on the national Board at that time as her young brother passed away from the disease following treatment at the McArdle cancer center at Univ of Wisconsin. She made regular trips there to help fund raise. Don't know how active she is on this these days.

I’m an NU alum from when she was there. A friend of mine tried hitting on her at a frat party once. Struck out.

The girl isn't as pretty as her Ma: something wrong about her lips. As for the boy, how could anyone be so abusive as to call him Presley?

But what is that "story" about? Oh, it's about arse-licking: "a part-billionaire, but he also enjoys newfound cultural currency"

It's the NYT - what would you expect? Which makes Prof. Cowen's 'not a critique of the wealthy or famous' hilarious within that context.

dearieme: "But what is that “story” about?:
Tyler: ..... " ...you will note it is not a critique of the wealthy or famous."

... the 'story' is merely banal celebrity-worship... and a black mark upon the media persons promoting it

So, not a loyal reader?

No. So please detail (in plain language) the larger context that I seem to be missing here.

Prof. Cowen used to be a NYT columnist, and as with the apparent Brooks fawning (Friedman seems to have fallen a bit from favor), anyone actually familiar with the NYT recognizes it is one of the most consistent American media sources that celebrates the rich and famous.

However, there is also the apparent belief that somehow, the NYT is a left wing paper and a leading vanguard of the sociailist revolution, and thus bitterly hostile to the rich and famous. Prof. Cowen is not the sort of person to mock such a ludicrous persepective, but at the same time, he knows what his loyal readers expect.

>>> "... he knows what his loyal readers expect."

OK thanks, but still too cryptic.

For us dummies -- exactly what do Prof Cowen's loyal readers expect, in the context of his NYTimes post here today ??

'exactly what do Prof Cowen’s loyal readers expect'

Maybe loyal commenters would have been more accurate. You do read the comments - it is not exactly hard to figure out.

prior needs to remain cryptic. Otherwise he'd soon need to provide evidence.

Cyrus: prior is a longtime lunatic stalker of Cowen's.

Nobody listened. My advice for years was to marry a rich woman whose father owns a liquor store, or at least a bass boat.

A few years ago, I was on a job with a man whose wife was personal banker to Tom Brady (boo) and his wife, Gisele. Big money, good bones, good genes, good health, and Heaven, too.

Stuff like that would be found in "Parade Magazine" which was included in many Sunday papers.

Anyhow, I wouldn't read the NYT with your eyes.

So that is what we became: a feudalist country. Models are models' children. Millionaires re millionaires' children. And so far and so on.

Funny. I happened to see a bit on real versus perceived mobility:


So that is what we have become: a bunch of deluded people.

Amazing that there is such an East West divide, starting at say 95 Degrees West.

If that is based on age of settlement, it bodes ill. If the West is maintaining a more freewheeling culture, maybe not.

"Funny. I happened to see a bit on real versus perceived mobility:"

What a bad chart. You can't measure that on a state by state basis. There are plenty of high skilled people from the more rural states who move to where the high paying jobs are.

I suppose the point here is the economics of the celebrity culture. The irony of the celebrity culture is it wouldn't exist absent non-celebrities to celebrate the celebrities. It works, for both the celebrities and the non-celebrities, the latter provided with someone to celebrate and emulate. And celebrities are emulated in almost every way, even in the tequila they may or may not drink. Maybe non-celebrities can't afford a house in Malibu, but they can afford a bottle of tequila. And what celebrity is better to emulate than George Clooney. Is there a happier celebrity than Mr. Clooney, who is even cheerful when drifting off into space; only Mr. Clooney could pull that off. Mr. Clooney is today's Cary Grant. although there is a difference: Mr. Grant preferred LSD to tequila. Emulate that!

"And celebrities are emulated in almost every way, even in the tequila they may or may not drink. Maybe non-celebrities can’t afford a house in Malibu, but they can afford a bottle of tequila. And what celebrity is better to emulate than George Clooney."
Then why I have seen on a coffee ad?!

It's funny, and sad, that people care about "celebrities", and would give any weight to their supposed opinions about anything.

Better to take James Mattis's recommendation to read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

(By the way, any University that claims to value "diversity" should have to explain why they didn't offer Mattis a professorship when he left the Marines, and why they don't have someone similar on the faculty today.)

Contrast the celebrity-led economy with the state-led economy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/state-run-economies-increasingly-adore-the-free-market/2018/01/26/e1ae08b4-0212-11e8-bb03-722769454f82_story.html The celebrity-led economy is certainly "freer", but I suspect the state-led economy has longer staying power. Bottoms up!

Heredity of a valuable face taken at face value by those who otherwise deny its influence (my straussian reading of the link, not the article).

I don't think the Professor really thinks that the Times staff are blank slaters.

They might be fairly informed on what it means to be born an unfortunate in modern America. That would be without beauty, or talent, or intelligence, or money, or family connections. It can get even worse if on top of that, you have a funny name and an accent.

They might have a fairly compassionate attitude and politics toward such people. Caring for those who will accept it, and endlessly trying to understand those who will not.

I am pretty sure I saw them once all together about 12-13 years ago when I was on vacation in California at Yosemite. I wasn't sure at the time it was them, but that sure looked like Cindy Crawford in sunglasses with two very young children. Looking at the ages of the children just now, I am more certain.

Very funny. I just went on my hike in the Santa Monica Mountains. I "saw" Calista Flockhart. I told myself that semi seriously, but I said when I got back I would check the internet to see if she has two small black dogs. And she does. Same dogs. So what do you know.

>So what do you know.

Well, I know that people like you enjoy posting to an uncaring world about the time you once saw a famous person.

And now I also know that Tyler is as vulnerable to foolish celebrity-fawning as the NYT.

It is funny to me in two ways. Before I left for my hike I wrote this in adjacent comments:

"But there are certainly other models of happiness in the world. The nordics pay more tax, but in return they have a lot less stress and more free time.

A bike ride through the park can make you feel good, even when it doesn’t make you feel elite. ..

Speaking of which, maybe I have time for a hike in the Santa Monica Mountains. All are welcome, no entrance fee.

So I got happy confirmation that all sorts are out there having a good time. No entrance fee.

And it is also funny to me because I never believe that the person who looks like, is the person. Nor of course would I intrude and ask.

Is there a method of making money more vacuous than modeling? Some time ago there was a magazine article about a woman whose modeling career was devoted to photographs of her hands. In order to keep them photogenic she wore gloves whenever her hands weren't holding some consumer product before a camera and took no part in activities with a possibility of altering the appearance of her hands. No washing dishes, no baking, no household chores, no outdoor activity. Rather like those women that grow their fingernails so long that their hands are no longer useful for much of anything. Large sums of money are so important that people will do literally anything in order to get them.

Rande Gerber is married to Cindy Crawford, is a father to the teenage supermodels

How many fathers do they have?

It may not be a critique of the rich and famous - fine - but does anyone believe that Kaia and Presley would have made it as supermodels, good looks and all, as children of unknown middle class parents?

It substantially increased the odds, but then Cindy Crawford made it as supermodels, as a child of unknown middle class parents as did most models in Forbes highest paid model list.

“a part-billionaire”

The neologism "part-billionaire" is just too cutesy. Nearly all of the people on earth are technically "part-billionaires", and there's a perfectly good term available (multimillionaire).

Comments for this post are closed