Who wants to marry a putz?
Millionaire s blatant misuse of marital power sickens, embitters
Let’s rename the atrocious game
show “Who Wants to Marry a
Millionaire?” to “Who Wants to Pick
a Bride from a Batch of 50 Bimbos?”
For those five of you un-hip peo
ple who didn’t catch the show (God
bless your pure souls), let me clue you
in on the newly refined ideals of mar
riage. '
One man with one stipulation (he
has to have enough money to buy a
wife) has the opportunity to, um, buy
a wife. This man then chooses 10
hussies from an initial pool of 50 sim
ply based on looks.
I know that secretly every human
being has an innate desire to be able
to discard 49 women as if they were
pistachio shells.
Perhaps the other voyeurs who
were privy to watching the show are
just as jealous as I am of the power of
the millionaire to display, in full
effect, the awesome power of choice.
Maybe, after my initial shock and
disgust at the show, it’s not too sur
prising, because ultimately, in an age
where Americans need everything
fast, quick and cheap, this is just
another step in the process of com
forting ourselves to the fullest.
It’s these genius Americans who
realize that divorce is just as easy as
saying “I do.” If the chosen wifey is
even a little resourceful, she will take
his money and his $35,000 ring and
divorce the schmuck.
I mean, who needs to value tradi
tion and honesty in a consummation
when there can be ulterior motives?
I’m a little disappointed at the
Christian Coalition for its lack of
attack upon this blatant act of mar
riage without the key ingredient of
love.
Then again, groups like these
don’t have time to denounce straight
people because of the constraints of
their busy agenda of condemning
homosexuals who want to get married
(who cite reasons of 27 years of devo
tion and love, for example) because
marriage for gays is nontraditional,
unnatural and sinful.
It’s shows like this that make me
glad gay marriage is oppressed - if it’s
that easy to be wed (divorced), then
thank you, but no. Homosexuals and,
in reality, the majority of straight peo
ple actually do prefer to wed someone
they’ve seen before.
Perhaps I’m just bitter because I
don’t have enough money to buy a
wife.
I merely have to rely on a great
personality, (un)godly features and a
great love and appreciation for both
high- and low-brow humor. You can
always win me over with obtuse butt
and fart jokes mixed with sharp refer
ences to Dante’s “Inferno.”
Let me inteiject a little something
right here. First of all, wouldn’t you
hate to be the parents of a man who
has to buy a wife? I mean, talk about
rearing a loser with a capital L.
Oh, but wait.
His parents are OK with this
“opportunity of a lifetime,” and so are
other relatives and some friends. They
were on the show as well and got to
voice their opinions of the sleazy hoes
as a way to build up the audience’s
anticipation for what the millionaire
values in a tramp in a bikini.
A good set of brains is the first
thing that pops into my mind when
looking for a mate, but then again,
I’m no millionaire.
I was pissed at myself for getting
nervous for the finale when we, the
audience (along with the last five
sluts), got to see the millionaire for
the first time. Before this, we only got
to see shots of him from behind while
he looked the hussies up and down
and drooled on his $1,500 napkin.
The last five contestants were
then drilled - with hard-hitting ques
tions.
All of them gave the same
ambiguous answers so as not to blow
their chances with the main money
man. The youngest, dumbest blonde
used “fun” 586 times in one sentence
to describe what would be an impor
tant quality in a relationship. I don’t
Karen Brown is a senior English and film studies major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist
think I need to explain the ludicrous
nature of the questions. -
The millionaire, so it seemed, jusi
wanted a girl who was able to tie her
own shoes. He picked the woman
who looked oddly like an aged Barbi*
doll.
The announcers of the show were
jewels as well.
The female one had breasts that
were poppin’ fresh (right out of the
oven), and the male announcer was a
slime-ball-o-rama. At the beginning,
he propositioned the ousted contes
tants to let him take them to his
room, where they could partake of
his special buffet after the show.
Swear to Allah.
“Who Wants to Marry a
Millionaire” beat out other not-so- I
popular shows like “Who Wants to 1
Boink a Redheaded
Hermaphrodite?” and “Who Wants to
Make the Misanthrope Laugh?” or
the nixed show “Who Wants to
Seduce a Five-Legged Prostitute?”
Call me crazy, but I’m going to
get married the old-fashioned way -
chugging to Vegas and a drive
up window and trading pasta
rings with my partner.
And I’ll do it as soon
as it’s legal for all people
who want to marry to be
to.
Until then, I can sit
back and laugh at straight
people who misuse their
powerful gift.
I’ll be laughing at
them from the front of
my television, elated that
I’m single - and poor.
Commercial conflict
Russians learned the art of spin-doctoring during battles with Chechen rebels
Rebel soldiers fall back to moun
tain bases, storm troopers advance with
mechanized infantry, fire guts build
ings and the peasantry finds itself
homeless.
Artillery fires in rapid succession,
gun ships black out the sky and severe
commanders order Federal troops
across secret communication frequen
cies.
Sound like some imperial drama
from “Star Wars” or perhaps some
thing from “Dune?”
Nope, this is the situation in
Chechnya. The Russian Federal troops
claim to hold all of the Chechen capi
tal, Grozny, a city we have never heard
of, except in some obscure stock-mar
- ket index for imported alcohol. What
does this war have to do with
Americans? Why is Washington con
demning the Russian democracy? -
Should we expect something else from
this region of the world?
Fact: Russia is now a democracy.
Fact: Russia is very unstable. Fact: The
Chechen War is going well for the
Russians. Fact: America is touchy with
this other world power.
We as Americans enjoy a certain
notoriety in the world. We are the
policemen, rich capitalists, puppeteers
of foreign governments, supporters of
dictators, champions of democracy and
imperialists ready to take over the
world. Our nation has existed on this
earth for 224 years. The Russian war
lords have waged war longer than
Mohammed’s dictates have been
preached from the sands.
Moscow has cowed its neighbors
for a long time, and the current war is
only different in regards to technology.
After squaring off with America across
the sea for so long, Russia needs to
regain national composure after
Afghanistan (the Russian Vietnam)
and the ’96 Chechen War. Russia need
ed to assert to the world that Russia has
power, that Russia is not to be messed
with.
Why Chechnya, one may ask?
Simple, it was overstepping its bounds,
poking at the wounded Russian bear,
trying to incite others to join in its inde
pendence.
Chechnya gained independence
after Russia retreated in 19%. That wai
was the result of a mismanagement of
Silas DeBoer is a sophomore English major and Daily Nebraskan columnist.
resources; Russia sent in ground troops
first, with little air cover, and instead
relied on the ground tanks. The strate
gy was not a smart move when dealing
with fleet-footed rebels with rocket
launchers.
The Chechens are blamed for send
ing guerrillas into the neighboring
region of Dagestan to foment rebellion.
Russia interceded, driving back the
guerrillas and taking the conflict to
Chechnya’s front door. This was what
the Russian government needed to
unify a doubtful public.
Then-President Yeltsin needed to
rally the government members with
something other than the failing
Russian domestic system, thereby tak
ing the heat away from the reforms and
giving the people something they
knew, something they trusted - war.
What is different with this war?
Why is Russia winning? Easy answer.
It is following the American models of
the GulfWar, the Yugoslavian debacle
and just about any current NATO war
pattern. Hit the enemy with air power,
bombard with naval power when possi
ble, send in ground troops last
This use of power not only saves on
casualties but improves national
morale; the more people who are neu
tral aboutthe war or barely approve,
the fewer people who will protest it
(big mistake of the Vietnam struggle
here in America).
What interests me are the role the
media are playing in this war. The
Russian generals are giving accounts
of the war to the media, as are the
Chechen rebel commanders.
Americans are getting two sides of the
same war, like some kind of war enter
tainment television. Both sides are try
ing to sway morale, national opinion
and international prestige.
The Russians claimed land, then
converged on the Capital after taking
two strategic outlying cities nearby.
The Chechen rebels were quick to give
their assessment of the situation, down
playing their dead, while claiming to
have taken the lives of many Federal
soldiers. This kind of media bragging
has been prevalent throughout the war.
Why this change from the normal
ly close-lipped Russians? During the
Afghan conflict, Americans heard
something about the freedom fighters
when it started, then heard a lot more
when it was learned that the CIA was
involved in helping the Afghanis.
Russia didn’t have to relate its loss
es during the Napoleonic Wars, nor
during World War I or World War II.
The government could constrain tech
nology. The Czars could depend on
news from the front not making it past
dead messengers and the generals.
While the Czars were toppled with the
astronomical losses of Russian lives
during World War I, the Bolshevik
takeover had long been simmering.
With satellite technology, mobile
phones and the world media, the
Russian state is using something it has
just learned: public relations. The com
munists were masters of propaganda,
but they only fed ideology to their own
people, subverting the old peasants to a
new brutality. Now, the Russian state
has to cajole the media, make sure it
doesn’t lose too many Russian troops,
appear as a flawless machine of war.
The invincible aura that has sur
rounded the American troops since the
Gulf War has been achieved by the low
loss-record. We cried “foul” and
“bloody hell” when three of our guys
were caught by Milosevic’s guys. We
as a nation want to have bloodless
wars; Russia only noticed this trend
and jumped on the bandwagon.
This isn’t a new idea, but it gains
importance with the influence and
power spin-control has in the world
today. Low losses with victory oily
build the eminence of the nation,
improve the morale of the people and
intimidate other nations. These are not
new ideas either.
What should we learn from this
point in the war between the Russians
and the rebel Chechens?
Nothing. It is business as ugual.
