Parkamarka

In cases like the DLA its cost effective not to go case by case and weed out those who are abusing the system so that its done properly and fairly, hence the we will skim and scrimp here by just removing it completely. There are other issues such as the 'media spun shirker' and everyone can name those abusing the system and so on. Ergo, that's fine to wipe them from getting dosh. Its a shame that they forget the other people who actually need it and offer no replacement in this case. other than a lower Universal benefit, where as as per above the revised system would incorporate those who actually need it. Essentially, its the double standards that go in to these things which annoys. If you are going to do it do it properly and not take the easy option as by actually sitting down and sorting it out would be better for everybody ( those getting the benefit, administration of the benefit and cost savings, future governments etc in the long run) but it very very rarely works that

The DWP estimates the fraud rate for DLA to be less than 0.5%, one of the lowest for any benefit. This cut consists of changing the name, and reducing the eligibility for the new payment by 20%, thereby cutting the funding for 19.5% of recipients that they've already determined are eligible and need it. The necessity of any of these cuts on the vulnerable can be immediately undermined by asking why they don't start by collecting the billions in tax that are not being paid by some of the richest people in the country. I'll never understand why that doesn't cause more of an outcry when everyone knows it's happening, and instead the public get drawn into this debate over scrimping and saving at the bottom end.

Just watched Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, and it was fucking great. I don't really want to say any more than that, as I enjoyed it immensely for having no idea what to expect. It's tons of fun though.

I wasn't that fussed about Four Lions. My expectations were very high. I liked it, but it all seemed a little pedestrian by Chris Morris standards.

What with the Oscar's being tomorrow night.. I wanted to get some opinions on the films I havent seen yet that are amongst the Best Picture nominees.

 

The Blind Side

An Education

The Hurt Locker

A Serious Man

Up in the Air

 

Thanks!

I haven't seen The Blind Side but this is how I'd score the others:

An Education: Well-made Oscar Bait, utterly predictable and very safe, but nothing too offensive. (**3/4)

The Hurt Locker: Best film on the shortlist by a mile. Very tense and claustrophobic with believable performances and creative, sparing use of special effects. (*****)

A Serious Man: A bit overrated, but it is in "good Coen" territory, in the vein of Fargo or Barton Fink. Sort of meanders unsatisfyingly towards a contrived conclusion. (***1/4)

Up in the Air: Perfectly well put-together and likeable light comedy drama, not really worthy of the kind of Oscar praise it's getting. Average in a good way. (***)

Anyone a fan of Richard Linklater's films? I've been on a right kick with him recently, Waking Life is awesome. The visuals are amazing, its freaky, dreamlike and a strange wandering through the imagination. Also, Before Sunrise and Before Sunset are interesting little flicks. Slacker's another fine example, although the student film look and shite acting can get annoying.

been meaning to watch more Linklater films, i have Slacker but i still ain't watched it. I'll get on it!

I much prefer Slacker to Waking Life. Visuals aside, I thought he went up his own arse a bit with that one. Sunrise/Sunset are the best, although I quite liked Tape, Suburbia and School of Rock too. Dazed and Confused is overrated.

I think you might be right. At a glance it looks well up my street. I'm having a crisis of faith with the British press, it's riddled with smug, hyper-critical wankers. The Independent gave WTWTA one star for fucks sake! One star!

Time to gather myself some decent online sources I reckon. Ta for the tip.

Saw Where the Wild Things Are myself yesterday, really enjoyed it. I've seen a lot of criticism of it around the press, and to be honest it seems incredibly nitpicky. To say that Max was too cool and aloof because he didn't react with shock and awe at the monsters (The Guardian) seems to miss the point a bit - this is a child that takes refuge in fantasy from what he can't control in the real world. The other main criticism seemed to be that the monsters were too human, talky and neurotic. Reminded me of the beef a lot of critics had with Fantastic Mr. Fox, which I also thoroughly enjoyed. Is it really that bad that they've written kids movies that don't pander to what people think kids movies should sound like? Wes Anderson is great. Dave Eggers is great. Kids are idiots.

I've also just watched Let the Right One In. Fucking hell, what took me so long? Five stars. Easy. Would have made my best of the decade list had I seen it earlier. Comparable to Pan's Labyrinth in tone and quality, but - for me - a fair bit better.

tUnE-yArDs - Fiya

Ignore the horrible alternating CAPS and lack of actual video and bear with this, it's just a girl with a ukelele and some cheap-ass recording software, and while it starts like a pretty restrained bit of folkiness, the song - and her voice - builds into something pretty awesome.

The Tallest Man on Earth - The Gardener

My favourite song of this year, although it was technically released in 2008. Jaunty-slash-mental song about burying potential love rivals in the garden.

Currently 700 of 898 pages into this:

It's about literary criticism, boxing, mathematics, rape, idol worship, murder, journalism, World War II and whores. It's sick, and wrong, and utterly essential.

Finally done with Twin Peaks season one.

 

Is Season Two better than it ? It can't be surely.

 

It isn't. David Lynch wasn't very happy with it, let's just say. But I think it's still got some great stuff in it and some of the support characters get a lot more time to develop, which I liked.

Season 2 gets a bad rap. Lynch was on board for much more of it than is generally believed, and it was more of a case of he went off to do a movie than he disowned it or anything.

The first half of it is fucking awesome and to a similar standard to season 1. There's a big drop in quality and some crappy subplots in the second half, but the final few episodes are great and the Lynch finale is just fucking monumental.

Nash is a fucking liar. It's that simple. It's amazing how easily suckered some people are. Also, let's not forget how much we all hated him for his "vanilla midgets" bullshit and then wonder where Benoit got the paranoia about his size from. Fuck Kevin Nash.And Parkamarka, you're right. The wrestlers AREN'T in a position to do anything much. Of course, if they all stood together, things would change overnight, but the difference between an undercard guy's money and a top guy's money is too great to make that a realistic prospect. So the only people who DO have any power are the fans. If everyone stops watching and tells WWE and its sponsors WHY they've stopped watching, EVERYTHING will change. If you're too gutless to turn off your TV for a couple of months and send half a dozen emails to help prevent the deaths of your favourite wrestlers then you're a fucking piece of shit coward and you ARE complicit in any future deaths. It's that simple. If you believe the industry is fucked up and you want it to change, YOU as a consumer have the power to make difference. But as long as you keep watching the TV and buying the PPVs, you're as guilty as Vince.

This is like saying if you so much as own a car then you're not allowed to be concerned about global warming. I'm sorry, but the world doesn't work in such absolutes.

It is the epitomy of hypocrisy to declare 'something must happen' with the underscore 'but I can't be fucked to get involved myself'. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's just the truth of it. You'll find that the world does work in absolutes. Plenty of them, and you can't pick and choose which ones are or aren't real. Hypocrisy isn't an absolute, though, so what on earth you're talking about I don't know. Hypocrisy is an incredibly gray and gradiated thing which only has any importance at all because its considered 'immoral' by our society. If being called a hypocrit and being hypocritical upsets you, try not to be a hypocrit.If you don't care, that's fine. But don't waste your breath trying to argue a definition.

Just thought I'd wade in and say I actually support kayfabesmonkey in this little debate that's been going on. Though condescending and arrogant at times, I'm sorry to say that it is INTENSELY hypocritical to constantly whine and moan about how desperately things need to change.... then on to watch the show as it stands.Why should Vince change? Nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, will make his fan base turn off. Guerrero didn't do it, despite that whole thing being one of the most hideous and grotesque things ever, Benoit's death won't do it...It is hypocritical. There's no two ways about it. I turned off, and I won't turn back on. The argument that 'well what difference does it make' is the lamest justification imaginable. If more people turned off, Vince would fucking notice. If everyone takes the attitude that it makes no difference, then Vince will just carry on laughing to the bank while doing whatever the hell he likes, irrespective of how degrading, insulting and stupid his latest insane idea happens to be.

Been listening to a bunch of, I guess, classic rock/Americana today, and realised I haven't posted any My Morning Jacket. This is probably them at their most cheesy and Skynyrd-esque (half the song is just a big fuckoff guitar solo), but it's an immensely fun track that I never tire of.

My Morning Jacket - One Big Holiday

Ok let me ask you a different one, well the same but phrased differently. A. Do you believe wrestling is too blame for the death of eddy Guerrero and a host of other wrestlers. (If you're one of the guys on here who doesn't, fair enough)B. If the answer is yes, do you not feel you have to take some of the responsibility as you have continued to support the product despite this, knowing that the combined support of you and many others is the reason the practices you believe killed these men still occur?

Your question is absurdly reductionist, but since you think you're being so insightful I'll - against my better judgement - humour you.A. Largely, yes, allowing for arguable predispositions to addiction.B. No. Not in the sense that you're trying to apportion blame on fans merely for watching, and trying to imply a deep hypocrisy in all of us for caring while not switching off something we love. Arguing that the machine may be fucked up, but the fans are a part of that machine so they should take responsibility - I don't think even Vince McMahon at his most irrationally defensive would offer that as an argument. I will, in all likelihood, always watch wrestling - WWE in particular - because I love it. I will watch it if steroids are eliminated completely and we are left with smaller, more natural-looking performers. I will watch it if it continues to be riddled with steroids, although I will continue to worry about the wrestlers like I worried about Eddie Guerrero - who I'd been a fan of since 1993 - ever since he stepped out on Nitro in 1998 looking far too big for his frame. And yeah, I'll continue to complain on my little message board because I don't believe it's my responsibility to switch off something I love in order to save lives, it's the responsibility of Vince McMahon and his staff to try and undo some of the damage we are seeing from the system he has perpetuated.I can confidently say I didn't get into it because of the physiques, but even if I had, your argument that just by watching I endorsed a system of steroid abuse is piss-weak at best.

But you're supporting something which, when asked if it kills wrestlers you said "Largely ,yes, for arguable predispositions to addiction."Now by watching and supporting, you are part of the problem - as if everyone stopped (as kenny rightly pointed out) watching, the problem would go away.So it's a big problem, but not big enough for you to go without your monday night raw.Ah ok then, see before that I thought it was wildly hypocritical - now you've shown me the error of my ways

Actually, to a certain extent I agree with the troll. People have to stop watching and make it clear why they've stopped watching if they expect anything to change. That's the only way things may change.

Ok let me ask you a different one, well the same but phrased differently. A. Do you believe wrestling is too blame for the death of eddy Guerrero and a host of other wrestlers. (If you're one of the guys on here who doesn't, fair enough)B. If the answer is yes, do you not feel you have to take some of the responsibility as you have continued to support the product despite this, knowing that the combined support of you and many others is the reason the practices you believe killed these men still occur?

Okay, now I know you're trolling.

See now I thought I was responding to a fearsome amount of hypocrisy amongst quite a few of the chaps on here. Pointing out that if you truly believe that wrestling's to blame for these guys deaths and are still supporting it. Well it is supporting, well these guys deaths, the cause - call it what you will.Granted it wouldn't be a very popular opinion on here, cos it points out that regardless of whining on message boards many of you guys still support the thing that's killing these guys. Now can you honestly tell me that's not true?If yBut of course, if having an opinion that's not agreed with on here is trolling, I guess you could call it that. I tend to prefer to think of it as educational, but fear you may not be sufficiently advanced mentally to benifit from it. There are people on here bright enough for me to engage in discourse with, and I have attempted to do so.

Hey mick managed it, for quite some time, suck it up or get off the road their choice. You know full well what a wwe contract is when you sign it.And yeah, it's entirely down to the wrestlers as to how many pain pills or juice they take. You can kinda notice it by how, some do and some (a minority, but some) don't. Simple as that. If you want off the juice, come off the juice, if it affects your push but you live another 40 yrs great. If you figure fuck it take the risk and stay on it, great too. Their choice. And they've chose to stay on it after seeing eddy die, after seeing all the 80's guys hearts pop, fine good for them. And bear in mind the wellness policies already there, if they all decided to stick to it.....The argument that if wrestlers don't want to fuck themselves up with steroids then they shouldn't be wrestlers is ignorant and redundant.

Read the actul words small foolish child. I said if they didn't wanna take steroids they shouldn't take steroids.

You're basically calling us all fools for giving a shit about the health of these guys we watch every week and hoping that a bit of public outrage might lead to some systematic change.

Yeah pretty much, it's their bodies and there choice, and watching em on the telly doesn't give you the right to try and control their choices. We've had ample proof that vinny ain't gonna change the way he does business and (most) wrestlers ain't gonna stop juicing.

You can't see a problem with a system whereby Chris Masters is openly ridiculed and buried on television for coming off steroids, and is subsequently back on them within weeks? You think this is a black-and-white case of free will, and not maybe a teeny tiny bit about a negligently unhealthy work environment? Your argument is basically that to be a top wrestler, you have to be willing to risk your life for it, and if fans have a problem with that and would like to see the system made safer, they're idiots. That's retarded.

Well in the matter of chris masters you got a shit wrestler with a decent body, once he got off the juice it's just a shit wrestler - so he got buried, life goes on. And yeah, to be top of the pile of WWE you have to be juiced or unusually naturally gifted in terms of physique (very unlikely) or have something else to get you there (like mick, again very unlikely) If you're not either of these things then you have to realise that juicing is necessary to be the best, and make your choice.See it's always interesting, when challenging people's steadfast perceptions, to see them reply to what they assume you say rather than what you said. Try reading a bit more carefully this time.Wrestlers, every single one, has the choice of how many roids to do, how many drugs to do - same as you or I. Now roids will help them in most wrestling jobs, not all by any stretch, but the more prominent ones certainly. And if you want to be the top of wwe, you may need to juice alot to get the size (Benoit) or a (presumably?) much safer amount (the rock) and you weigh up the risk rewards accordingly.I'm saying if you really don't like the system, and still support it but still whinge that something must be done - then you're a fucking idiot cos you're funding it.If it's as bad and evil as you think and you're even watching it on sky sports and giving em their add revenue then you're an actual part of the process, you're a tiny part of the reason eddy's dead now. You helped.

Hey mick managed it, for quite some time, suck it up or get off the road their choice. You know full well what a wwe contract is when you sign it.And yeah, it's entirely down to the wrestlers as to how many pain pills or juice they take. You can kinda notice it by how, some do and some (a minority, but some) don't. Simple as that. If you want off the juice, come off the juice, if it affects your push but you live another 40 yrs great. If you figure fuck it take the risk and stay on it, great too. Their choice. And they've chose to stay on it after seeing eddy die, after seeing all the 80's guys hearts pop, fine good for them. And bear in mind the wellness policies already there, if they all decided to stick to it.....

There is one group who could stop it, and stop it tomorrow. And that's the wrestlers, if they all stop taking the pain pills, the juice etc and heal up if necessary then it stops tomorrow. Nothing vinny can do if the whole lot decide to do things a new way.But they wont, they've made there choice to do it this way, so fuck it - go with it. Or whine on here, but I'd lay good odds the whinging won't help

I really liked what I saw of Bat For Lashes on the Glastonbury coverage, I'm looking forward to checking her out at Latitude. The Kate Bush/Bjork comparisons definitely ring true. Those songs you posted purplemonkeydishwasher, however, won't play as they appear to be copy-protected and can only be authorised by you.

I remember someone being into Sigur Ros earlier in the thread, so I thought I'd post this from Amiina, a female orchestral outfit who apparently double as Sigur Ros' string section. They've got an album just out called Kurr, from which this track cometh:

Amiina - Rugla

The reason for the interbrand action this past week is due to the week being a tribute to the fans.