It started off as a pretty rough morning, complete with my falling up the stairs from the Subway.  The instant my butt and knees smacked the concrete, I thought to myself "Today is the day I am getting a Rachel Nasvik bag!", and that is exactly what I did.

Handbag designer Rachel Nasvik has been hiding handbags across the city for over a week via Twitter.  Last Wednesday, I ran out of my office three blocks to McNally's bookstore, where I was 10 minutes too late to snag this bag.  On Saturday, bags were placed right outside my office, yet I was at my home in Brooklyn. My want for the elusive bags was palpable - I was determined to snag one.

Bless the girls in the office - they put up with more whining and pouting than I have produced in a long time.  I saw a tweet clueing us into a bag drop on Bond St.  I thought my last chance for a bag was gone.  Twitter Search brought me good fortune and @RachelNasvik alluded to a bag drop in Soho - could I be so lucky?

Once again, Twitter Search was my guardian angel, alerting me to a new Tweet from @RachelNasvik.  Right.outside.my.office - 8 bags up for grabs!  Dashing out of the office, with a little help from a few friends, I am now the proud owner of a Rachel Nasvik bag.  Each bag is numbered, and although my bag wasn't filled with goodies, my bag could be the key to a Phoebe by Rachel Nasvik. My bag is numbered lucky 57.  Watch @RachelNasvik tomorrow to see if I am a lucky winner, and follow the Thrill of the Chase blogl

There is always a difference between knowing something and seeing it manifested into reality right in front of your eyes.  While running an errand, Eye4Style and I noticed the sign at left on the front of the new Hollister store (currently under construction).  It's a well known fact that the Abercrombie family (of which Hollister is a part of) aims to hire only the most beautiful.  In NYC, most Abercrombie are actors or models in between jobs.  I'm sure beautiful people persuade customers more easily and models need jobs too, however there is something so inherently wrong about blatantly advertising a need for "good-looking" people.

One could argue that "good-looking" isn't offensive or discriminatory because "good-looking" is subjective, but that is entirely the point.  What is "good-looking" to me may not be "good-looking" to you, and in fact there are many things I find "good-looking" that aren't the traditional idea.

So which is it Hollister? Are you telling me that I must be a size 2 and every man's wet dream to work in your store or is "good-looking" simply a subjective attribute decided by the manager I'd interview with that day?  Not to mention there must be a law outlining these types of discriminatory hiring conditions as illegal.

What do you think readers - does Hollister's public quest for vanity shock you?