The general public of North Korea being malnourished is, unfortunately, not exactly front-page news. At least, it isn't in the sense that car crashes and cancer deaths aren't either. They are all tragic, but avoid the front page at least in part due to their all being common, and common knowledge.
However, as Mark Willacy of ABC (Australia) reports, new footage out of North Korea by a local journalist who managed to smuggle it out shows that the North Korean army is now starving as well. That is something to take note of.
After the Kims themselves, the army gets fed first. The army is how the Kims project their strength, impose their will. They are the people who stand guard at the borders. They are the people who run the day-to-day operations at the gulags. They are the people who watch for and crack down on any signs of dissent. As long as they're kept at least somewhat happy, the Kims can continue to conduct business as usual.
In fact, the promise of being fed regularly is a strong incentive to join the North Korean army in the first place.
That promise can seemingly no longer be upheld, and on Saturday, One Free Korea compiled and reviewed a growing body of consequences. According to One Free Korea, and the video reported on by Willacy, the army is now attempting to obtain their food from the black market that is the main food source for much of the general public, either through "donations" or outright looting. In addition, soldiers are now suffering from a lack of winter uniforms.
Most notably, to underscore just why some soldiers are soldiers at all, the lack of food is causing some to desert. That sets up a few important questions:
First, how weak can the army's constitution get, and how small can the army shrink, while still remaining a projective force, especially in the face of a transition of power between the Kims?
And second, is the rest of the world going to be able to bear to watch?
Monday, June 27, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
At Least I Get To Eat
Don't have too much time to spend on getting something out today; it's my mom's birthday and we're headed out of town to celebrate.
So we leave things today to Noreen Connolly, who is traveling through western Africa with Nick Kristof of the New York Times. Connolly, in a piece submitted yesterday, turned in a heart-warming-yet-rending report from Molii, a village in southern Niger.
So we leave things today to Noreen Connolly, who is traveling through western Africa with Nick Kristof of the New York Times. Connolly, in a piece submitted yesterday, turned in a heart-warming-yet-rending report from Molii, a village in southern Niger.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
That's Some Nice Flutin', Boy
In one long-ago episode of the Simpsons, Ralph Wiggum had a flute up his nose. It was a long time ago. Specifically, this was the episode where Bleeding Gums Murphy died.
Today, playing Wikipedia Roulette, you are going to find out that a flute up the nose is done in some cultures on purpose. Unsurprisingly, the instrument is called a nose flute. It's found in Hawaii, DR Congo, China, the Philippines, New Zealand and India.
Here's a sample of the Hawaiian one, the most prominent of the nose flutes, also known as the ohe hano ihu, and more on why in blazes you're playing it with your nose. I'll just let the expert talk...
When playing it, you want to breathe gently. First off, it's not going to sound very good. Second, you never want to blow your nose into your musical instruments if you can avoid it.
If you'd like to buy one... unfortunately, this appears to be one of the few things you can't buy on the Internet. So you'll have to make your own. That's what you're supposed to do anyway. It's pretty simple; all you need is a stick of bamboo wood you can blow into, preferably with a thin wall, and get both your hands onto. Put one hole into the side of the wood towards the end; that's where your nose is going to go. Close the nose end of the stick. After that, place a couple finger holes onto the same side of the wood; those are your finger holes. It's your call as to how many holes you want, but the standard is three, with the middle hole in dead center.
That's really about it. The sound you get out of the flute is going to depend on the size of the stick's cavity, the length of the stick and the location and size of the holes. Every flute is going to sound different.
After that, it's a simple matter of explaining to your friends that, no really, this has REAL CULTURAL VALUE and will you stop talking about how you bent your wookie already.
Today, playing Wikipedia Roulette, you are going to find out that a flute up the nose is done in some cultures on purpose. Unsurprisingly, the instrument is called a nose flute. It's found in Hawaii, DR Congo, China, the Philippines, New Zealand and India.
Here's a sample of the Hawaiian one, the most prominent of the nose flutes, also known as the ohe hano ihu, and more on why in blazes you're playing it with your nose. I'll just let the expert talk...
When playing it, you want to breathe gently. First off, it's not going to sound very good. Second, you never want to blow your nose into your musical instruments if you can avoid it.
If you'd like to buy one... unfortunately, this appears to be one of the few things you can't buy on the Internet. So you'll have to make your own. That's what you're supposed to do anyway. It's pretty simple; all you need is a stick of bamboo wood you can blow into, preferably with a thin wall, and get both your hands onto. Put one hole into the side of the wood towards the end; that's where your nose is going to go. Close the nose end of the stick. After that, place a couple finger holes onto the same side of the wood; those are your finger holes. It's your call as to how many holes you want, but the standard is three, with the middle hole in dead center.
That's really about it. The sound you get out of the flute is going to depend on the size of the stick's cavity, the length of the stick and the location and size of the holes. Every flute is going to sound different.
After that, it's a simple matter of explaining to your friends that, no really, this has REAL CULTURAL VALUE and will you stop talking about how you bent your wookie already.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Random News Generator- Latvia
Have you ever gotten a pop-up ad that launches into a virus scan you didn't ask for? Yeah, me too. I'll bet it found all sorts of nasty viruses and stuff in your computer, too, right? And then of course they'd offer some sort of antivirus software to fix all these problems you just found out about. Sometimes the ad is particularly persistent and reappears when you try to close the window.
In case you didn't already know, that pop-up ad is lying about all the viruses it found. The antivirus software that's being pushed on you? THAT'S a virus. It's known as scareware. It's a 21st-century version of those quack doctors that tell you you've got cancer, venereal disease, consumption, typhoid, dysentery, snakebite and broken leg all at the same time, and then they sell you a cure-all pill named after Dr. Somebody-or-Other that turns out to have mercury in it.
Due to the RNG landing on Latvia today, it is my pleasure to tell you that two international scareware rings that specialize in that kind of stunt have been rounded up by the FBI and US Department of Justice in a hunt called Operation Trident Tribunal. Trident Tribunal, aside from Latvia and the United States, has also involved Canada, Cyprus, France, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
One ring was a two-man operation consisting- allegedly- of 22-year-old Peteris Sahurovs and 23-year-old Marina Maslobojeva. If you regularly visit the site of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, you've run into them at some point. Sahurovs and Maslobojeva are accused of having created a fake ad agency and told the Star-Tribune they represented Best Western. Once accepted by the Star-Tribune, they swapped the original ads for Best Western out for ads that triggered scareware.
By doing this, Star-Tribune readers were allegedly bilked out of $2 million. If you have at some point purchased something called "Antivirus Soft" for $49.95 after visiting the Star-Tribune website, you've been conned.
The other ring, a much larger operation, raked in $72 million from some 960,000 victims who got taken for $129 each. Five different bank accounts were seized from this larger ring. Paradoxially, less info is available on this ring than on the two-man Latvian operation.
Granted, as long as the info is 'the scary antivirus ad people are going to go away now', you probably could care less how they go away.
In case you didn't already know, that pop-up ad is lying about all the viruses it found. The antivirus software that's being pushed on you? THAT'S a virus. It's known as scareware. It's a 21st-century version of those quack doctors that tell you you've got cancer, venereal disease, consumption, typhoid, dysentery, snakebite and broken leg all at the same time, and then they sell you a cure-all pill named after Dr. Somebody-or-Other that turns out to have mercury in it.
Due to the RNG landing on Latvia today, it is my pleasure to tell you that two international scareware rings that specialize in that kind of stunt have been rounded up by the FBI and US Department of Justice in a hunt called Operation Trident Tribunal. Trident Tribunal, aside from Latvia and the United States, has also involved Canada, Cyprus, France, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
One ring was a two-man operation consisting- allegedly- of 22-year-old Peteris Sahurovs and 23-year-old Marina Maslobojeva. If you regularly visit the site of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, you've run into them at some point. Sahurovs and Maslobojeva are accused of having created a fake ad agency and told the Star-Tribune they represented Best Western. Once accepted by the Star-Tribune, they swapped the original ads for Best Western out for ads that triggered scareware.
By doing this, Star-Tribune readers were allegedly bilked out of $2 million. If you have at some point purchased something called "Antivirus Soft" for $49.95 after visiting the Star-Tribune website, you've been conned.
The other ring, a much larger operation, raked in $72 million from some 960,000 victims who got taken for $129 each. Five different bank accounts were seized from this larger ring. Paradoxially, less info is available on this ring than on the two-man Latvian operation.
Granted, as long as the info is 'the scary antivirus ad people are going to go away now', you probably could care less how they go away.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Journalism All-Star Draft Pool
As a policy, my journalism all-star team is staffed by individual journalists, not organizations. (To remind you of the current makeup of the team, in no particular order: Rachel Maddow, Mariana van Zeller, Soledad O'Brien, Jon Stewart, Nate Silver, Gwen Ifill, Stephen Colbert, Sanjay Gupta, Andrew Sullivan, Fareed Zakaria, Matt Taibbi, Anderson Cooper, Christiane Amanpour, and Laura and Lisa, the sisters Ling. Shepard Smith, due to his continued presence on Fox News, is on the DL.)
I don't have any jerseys to hand out today. But there are two places from which any new addition to the roster is likely to come.
First is Bill Simmons' new venture in sportswriting, Grantland. To a fair degree, Grantland looks a bit like what I would do if I were focusing solely on sports and pop culture, and deleted all the quickie give-you-something-to-do posts. Long-form, free-flowing wavering between covering a recent event and telling a story that just happens to be on someone's mind at the time. And Simmons has called upon quite the stable of writers. Depending on how I feel about adding a pure sportswriter, I may end up inducting someone from Grantland soon, perhaps Simmons himself, perhaps someone else. Haven't made up my mind yet.
The second place is Journeyman Pictures, which you can find on this YouTube channel. Based out of the UK, they do mini-documentaries on a wide variety of topics from around the world. They're like a higher-output, faster-turnaround version of the National Geographic Channel, but without all the episodes of Dog Whisperer.
Why no inductees from here? A few reasons: first, their website hides full hour-long documentaries behind a paywall, which in and of itself is a bit of an obstacle. (The YouTube channel is of course free, although there it's nigh-impossible to scrounge up any names at all.) Second, they don't do a very good job of sorting works by reporter, and as a result, I simply haven't gotten through any one individual's various works yet. Again, we reward individuals here, not organizations.
Although if our all-star team needed a home stadium, we know who we ought to call.
Here's one recent piece from Journeyman out of, what a coincidence, Wisconsin (amazingly, it has nothing to do with the recall efforts):
I don't have any jerseys to hand out today. But there are two places from which any new addition to the roster is likely to come.
First is Bill Simmons' new venture in sportswriting, Grantland. To a fair degree, Grantland looks a bit like what I would do if I were focusing solely on sports and pop culture, and deleted all the quickie give-you-something-to-do posts. Long-form, free-flowing wavering between covering a recent event and telling a story that just happens to be on someone's mind at the time. And Simmons has called upon quite the stable of writers. Depending on how I feel about adding a pure sportswriter, I may end up inducting someone from Grantland soon, perhaps Simmons himself, perhaps someone else. Haven't made up my mind yet.
The second place is Journeyman Pictures, which you can find on this YouTube channel. Based out of the UK, they do mini-documentaries on a wide variety of topics from around the world. They're like a higher-output, faster-turnaround version of the National Geographic Channel, but without all the episodes of Dog Whisperer.
Why no inductees from here? A few reasons: first, their website hides full hour-long documentaries behind a paywall, which in and of itself is a bit of an obstacle. (The YouTube channel is of course free, although there it's nigh-impossible to scrounge up any names at all.) Second, they don't do a very good job of sorting works by reporter, and as a result, I simply haven't gotten through any one individual's various works yet. Again, we reward individuals here, not organizations.
Although if our all-star team needed a home stadium, we know who we ought to call.
Here's one recent piece from Journeyman out of, what a coincidence, Wisconsin (amazingly, it has nothing to do with the recall efforts):
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Ai Weiwei Free, Sort Of
If you've been up on your news concerning efforts to introduce or increase freedoms in China, you know the name Ai Weiwei. Weiwei is an artist, China's most famous (you know him as the guy who designed the Bird's Nest, the main stadium from the 2008 Olympics), who has been critical of the Chinese government, most notably over mishandling of the Sichuan earthquake, also in 2008. Over the past three months, Weiwei has been held on what many believe to be spurious-at-best charges of tax evasion. The rest of the world is certain that Weiwei's detention is just a way to silence a prominent critic, and China has been raked over the coals for it.
Well, today Weiwei has been released from his detention. He's not completely free, though. As he put it after his release, "I’m released, I’m home, I’m fine. In legal terms, I’m — how do you say — on bail. So I cannot give any interviews. But I’m fine."
Basically, China gets to monitor him for a year, place restrictions on his behavior, and hang on to his travel documents. Should they deem him to have violated those restrictions, he could be reimprisoned. But, for now, he's out of the hoosegow.
Well, today Weiwei has been released from his detention. He's not completely free, though. As he put it after his release, "I’m released, I’m home, I’m fine. In legal terms, I’m — how do you say — on bail. So I cannot give any interviews. But I’m fine."
Basically, China gets to monitor him for a year, place restrictions on his behavior, and hang on to his travel documents. Should they deem him to have violated those restrictions, he could be reimprisoned. But, for now, he's out of the hoosegow.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Cleri, Cleri, Way Too Eerie
Reality TV, unless you live under a rock, you know as filled with preening, uninhibited, often intoxicated loudmouths who are willing to do anything to get their 15 minutes. (Minus some far-too-uncommon blessed souls.) Once in a while, one of these inherently hateable people somehow becomes a person that people love to hate, or at least is viewed as such by the producers, and is brought back for future seasons, or even guest appearances on other shows, or for a rare obnoxious few, a show all to themselves.
This is a large part of why so many obnoxious people show up. Aside from the stated, primary goal of the program, many of them hope that by standing out enough, by being the famewhoriest of the famewhores, they too will get their own show, or at least another appearance on the one they're on.
What none of them realize, however, is that they can't all have that. The punishment for failure in acquiring the Famewhore Holy Grail can have disastrous effects once the cameras go off. Relationships at home can be strained or ended. Employers may be humiliated to have these people on the payroll. And if you're on a talent-search show for a common job- a cook, a businessperson, an interior designer- and you make a disastrous blunder, or get eliminated early on, your career in that field can easily come to a screeching halt. Never mind getting the dream job the show was offering. What aspiring cook anywhere is going to take lessons from the person who, on national television, can't tell sugar from salt?
(Colleen, Season 5, Hell's Kitchen. I know you were wondering.)
If you truly suck at what you do, or if you truly suck as a person, reality TV has a billion ways to make sure you get yours.
Take 'The Moment Of Truth', technically a game show but with all the spectacle of reality TV. The premise is simple enough. You take a lie detector test prior to the show, are asked a series of questions (some more personal than others), and are given many of the same questions on air. You are tasked with answering honestly. The more questions you answer honestly on-air, the more money you win, up to a top prize of $500,000. (In the American version, at least, and yes, there were international versions.) But if at any point you lie, you lose everything and the game is over. Refuse to answer, and the game is also over, although you (and your loved ones) are given one opportunity to swap out one question you feel is better left unanswered by pressing a button.
On its face, it doesn't sound so bad. But once you start asking the kind of questions you expect someone to answer for half a million dollars- or $200,000, as nobody ever made it to the top of the money ladder in the US version- things go south in a hurry, especially since friends, family and other people in the contestant's life were commonly brought in by FOX to spectate and sometimes ask a question themselves.
And this is prime-time television. They know how you answered before the cameras go on. You know full well they're going to make a beeline for the most humiliating and damaging answers in the whole test. Which is the other thing: the answers are out there once you give them, whether you win any money or not.
The most spectacular revealing of skeletons in someone's closet came by way of Lauren Cleri of Piermont, New York, who would later flat-out admit to the New York Post that she was solely going for the money.
Lauren left enough bridges burned in the process to span an ocean. Host Mark L. Wahlberg, who you'll note as the person who signed up to host this show in the first place, felt the need to make a preshow comment that the episode containing Lauren, had Wahlberg had his way, would not have aired at all, and that it was "the most uncomfortable I've ever been on television."
The episode is available on YouTube here:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Here is the line of questions Lauren faced, with her answers in parentheses:
1: As an employee of a hair salon, have you ever told a customer you liked their hairstyle when in fact, you didn't? (no)
2: Have you ever flashed a stranger just for laughs? (yes)
3: Would you give food to a stray dog before you would give it to a homeless person? (yes)
This one got the first groans from the audience. If they only knew what was coming...
4: Have you ever derived pleasure when one of your siblings has gotten into trouble? (yes)
5: Have you ever been fired from a job for stealing money? (yes)
Please note, Lauren hasn't actually won any money yet. The first prize level, $10,000, comes only after answering the first six questions.
6: If you knew you wouldn't get caught, would you steal money from your place of employment? (no)
Now she's won money. The next level is five more questions for $25,000.
7: Since you've been married, have you ever pretended to be asleep in order to avoid having sex with your husband Frank? (yes)
8: Do you blame your husband for your lack of close friends? (yes)
9: Would you ever be a surrogate mother for your sister if she were unable to have children? (yes)
10: Do you think your parents are proud of you? (no)
11: Do you know things about your father that you keep secret from your mother? (yes)
$25,000 and some long talks with Frank are now Lauren's... for now. Next up, four questions for $100,000. And those long talks are about to get longer, as at this point Wahlberg appears for a second advisory warning, mentioning the following to be the part that made him not want to air the episode.
12: Do you secretly stay in touch with any boyfriends that your husband does not know about? (no)
13: Have you ever taken off your wedding ring to appear as if you were single? (yes)
14: Do you believe you might have been in love with a former boyfriend on your wedding day? (yes)
At this point, Wahlberg is half-facepalming and telling Lauren "I can't tell you to walk away" while in the process strongly suggesting it. When she elects to continue, he just shakes his head. Lauren's aforementioned ex arrives on stage to ask the $100,000 question.
15: If I wanted to get back together with you, would you leave your husband?
Wahlberg is almost begging Frank to hit the button and swap the question out, but by now Frank's reaction is 'no, no, now I kinda want to hear this'. So Lauren's sister hits the button instead.
Fate can be cruel, Lauren's sister.
15-A: Do you believe I am the man you should be married to?
Not only was that fight not avoided, it actually got worse. Lauren said yes with disturbingly little hesitation. Coming back true (and making the skipped question easily guessable), she made it to $100,000, which by this point seems not nearly enough money to cover the costs of even attempting to undo all the damage.
So of course Lauren continues on for $200,000, three more questions away.
16: Since you've been married, have you ever had sexual relations with someone other than your husband?
Wahlberg: "I wish the button was still there."
Frank: "You're telling me."
Lauren answered yes. The answer is true. Frank is now burying his face in his hands. Lauren's face has gone cold at this point. ...well, it was prior, but now it is flat-out emotionless. Forget the long talks. There's no longer anything to talk about. This marriage has died right there on-stage.
And then reality TV rears up to give Lauren a good hard smack:
17: Do you think you're a good person?
The entire human race and several species of lichen found only in Antarctica immediately scream the answer. Frank shakes his head no before a word comes out of Lauren's mouth.
Lauren answers yes.
The lie detector begs to differ.
Game over. Lauren walks away with absolutely nothing. This is the end of the episode, and Wahlberg makes one final note in front of an empty stage:
"I honestly believe that some truths are better left unsaid. Hopefully, Lauren and her family can make peace with what happened here tonight. I wish them all the very best."
In fact, the marriage may have been doomed from the moment she was cast. As the New York Post reported:
In an update interview, Lauren noted that she and Frank split up. Or as she put it, "are no longer living under the same roof." An aspiring model, she also told the New York Post that no job offers came out of her appearance.
Considering the nature of modeling, and considering there has been no update on her since, she is in all likelihood still waiting. Her only stable job now is as a cautionary tale.
This is a large part of why so many obnoxious people show up. Aside from the stated, primary goal of the program, many of them hope that by standing out enough, by being the famewhoriest of the famewhores, they too will get their own show, or at least another appearance on the one they're on.
What none of them realize, however, is that they can't all have that. The punishment for failure in acquiring the Famewhore Holy Grail can have disastrous effects once the cameras go off. Relationships at home can be strained or ended. Employers may be humiliated to have these people on the payroll. And if you're on a talent-search show for a common job- a cook, a businessperson, an interior designer- and you make a disastrous blunder, or get eliminated early on, your career in that field can easily come to a screeching halt. Never mind getting the dream job the show was offering. What aspiring cook anywhere is going to take lessons from the person who, on national television, can't tell sugar from salt?
(Colleen, Season 5, Hell's Kitchen. I know you were wondering.)
If you truly suck at what you do, or if you truly suck as a person, reality TV has a billion ways to make sure you get yours.
Take 'The Moment Of Truth', technically a game show but with all the spectacle of reality TV. The premise is simple enough. You take a lie detector test prior to the show, are asked a series of questions (some more personal than others), and are given many of the same questions on air. You are tasked with answering honestly. The more questions you answer honestly on-air, the more money you win, up to a top prize of $500,000. (In the American version, at least, and yes, there were international versions.) But if at any point you lie, you lose everything and the game is over. Refuse to answer, and the game is also over, although you (and your loved ones) are given one opportunity to swap out one question you feel is better left unanswered by pressing a button.
On its face, it doesn't sound so bad. But once you start asking the kind of questions you expect someone to answer for half a million dollars- or $200,000, as nobody ever made it to the top of the money ladder in the US version- things go south in a hurry, especially since friends, family and other people in the contestant's life were commonly brought in by FOX to spectate and sometimes ask a question themselves.
And this is prime-time television. They know how you answered before the cameras go on. You know full well they're going to make a beeline for the most humiliating and damaging answers in the whole test. Which is the other thing: the answers are out there once you give them, whether you win any money or not.
The most spectacular revealing of skeletons in someone's closet came by way of Lauren Cleri of Piermont, New York, who would later flat-out admit to the New York Post that she was solely going for the money.
Lauren left enough bridges burned in the process to span an ocean. Host Mark L. Wahlberg, who you'll note as the person who signed up to host this show in the first place, felt the need to make a preshow comment that the episode containing Lauren, had Wahlberg had his way, would not have aired at all, and that it was "the most uncomfortable I've ever been on television."
The episode is available on YouTube here:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Here is the line of questions Lauren faced, with her answers in parentheses:
1: As an employee of a hair salon, have you ever told a customer you liked their hairstyle when in fact, you didn't? (no)
2: Have you ever flashed a stranger just for laughs? (yes)
3: Would you give food to a stray dog before you would give it to a homeless person? (yes)
This one got the first groans from the audience. If they only knew what was coming...
4: Have you ever derived pleasure when one of your siblings has gotten into trouble? (yes)
5: Have you ever been fired from a job for stealing money? (yes)
Please note, Lauren hasn't actually won any money yet. The first prize level, $10,000, comes only after answering the first six questions.
6: If you knew you wouldn't get caught, would you steal money from your place of employment? (no)
Now she's won money. The next level is five more questions for $25,000.
7: Since you've been married, have you ever pretended to be asleep in order to avoid having sex with your husband Frank? (yes)
8: Do you blame your husband for your lack of close friends? (yes)
9: Would you ever be a surrogate mother for your sister if she were unable to have children? (yes)
10: Do you think your parents are proud of you? (no)
11: Do you know things about your father that you keep secret from your mother? (yes)
$25,000 and some long talks with Frank are now Lauren's... for now. Next up, four questions for $100,000. And those long talks are about to get longer, as at this point Wahlberg appears for a second advisory warning, mentioning the following to be the part that made him not want to air the episode.
12: Do you secretly stay in touch with any boyfriends that your husband does not know about? (no)
13: Have you ever taken off your wedding ring to appear as if you were single? (yes)
14: Do you believe you might have been in love with a former boyfriend on your wedding day? (yes)
At this point, Wahlberg is half-facepalming and telling Lauren "I can't tell you to walk away" while in the process strongly suggesting it. When she elects to continue, he just shakes his head. Lauren's aforementioned ex arrives on stage to ask the $100,000 question.
15: If I wanted to get back together with you, would you leave your husband?
Wahlberg is almost begging Frank to hit the button and swap the question out, but by now Frank's reaction is 'no, no, now I kinda want to hear this'. So Lauren's sister hits the button instead.
Fate can be cruel, Lauren's sister.
15-A: Do you believe I am the man you should be married to?
Not only was that fight not avoided, it actually got worse. Lauren said yes with disturbingly little hesitation. Coming back true (and making the skipped question easily guessable), she made it to $100,000, which by this point seems not nearly enough money to cover the costs of even attempting to undo all the damage.
So of course Lauren continues on for $200,000, three more questions away.
16: Since you've been married, have you ever had sexual relations with someone other than your husband?
Wahlberg: "I wish the button was still there."
Frank: "You're telling me."
Lauren answered yes. The answer is true. Frank is now burying his face in his hands. Lauren's face has gone cold at this point. ...well, it was prior, but now it is flat-out emotionless. Forget the long talks. There's no longer anything to talk about. This marriage has died right there on-stage.
And then reality TV rears up to give Lauren a good hard smack:
17: Do you think you're a good person?
The entire human race and several species of lichen found only in Antarctica immediately scream the answer. Frank shakes his head no before a word comes out of Lauren's mouth.
Lauren answers yes.
The lie detector begs to differ.
Game over. Lauren walks away with absolutely nothing. This is the end of the episode, and Wahlberg makes one final note in front of an empty stage:
"I honestly believe that some truths are better left unsaid. Hopefully, Lauren and her family can make peace with what happened here tonight. I wish them all the very best."
In fact, the marriage may have been doomed from the moment she was cast. As the New York Post reported:
The show's executive producer, Howard Schultz, said Lauren Cleri told him later that "she doesn't want a relationship [with her ex or her husband].
"She wanted out of her marriage, and she wanted to . . . tell the truth," Schultz told The Post.
"Perhaps some of it was then, 'If I'm going to end my marriage, then if I can win a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand dollars. I can start a new life with some cash in my pocket.' "
Asked if she went on the show to get out of her marriage, Lauren yesterday said "definitely" not.
In an update interview, Lauren noted that she and Frank split up. Or as she put it, "are no longer living under the same roof." An aspiring model, she also told the New York Post that no job offers came out of her appearance.
Considering the nature of modeling, and considering there has been no update on her since, she is in all likelihood still waiting. Her only stable job now is as a cautionary tale.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)