By this point, most have probably heard the news that Kim Jong-il is dead, and seen the countless videos of mourning citizens in hysterics. In the wake of the North Korean leader’s death, pundits and governments have been scrambling to reassess their strategy toward the hermit country. Most fundamentally, international observers are concerned with questions of the North Korean government’s future stability and the continuities and changes over which Kim Jong-un will preside.

Kim Jong-un remains an elusive figure since his sudden emergence in the international spotlight last year as Kim Jong-il’s named successor. The unknowns surrounding his personality as well as the stability of the transition of power are issues that plague any attempts to analyze the future of the Korean peninsula.

One variable that can be taken into account is the enormous sway that China wields over North Korea, regardless of what happens internally in the hermit state. Although the exact figures of how much aid China provides to North Korea are difficult to determine, we do know that the figure is likely in the hundreds of millions of dollars and that China accounts for 80% of North Korean trade. China has a vested interest in North Korea due to its strategic locationand the domestic destabilizing effect that a regime collapse on the peninsula would cause in China. Because of these considerations, Beijing is unwilling to allow the regime to fend for itself.

Professor Malcolm Cook, the Dean of the School of International Studies at Flinders University in Australia, believes that Kim Jong-un’s youth and political inexperience is set to cast North Korea into a new era of geopolitical instability. What he means by this is that North Korea will continue to aggressively pursue its nuclear program, while keeping up its aggressive stance toward the South. The younger Kim, he argues, lacks the political capital to change course from his father’s hard-line policies.

This instability-focused scenario underestimates the importance of China’s influence in North Korea. China’s rationale for its North Korean policy stems from two ideas – first, that China is opposed to the prospect of a united Korea with healthy ties to both Japan and U.S., and second, that China wants a politically stable North Korean state. This second concern would hold China to be as eager as any other nation to prevent North Korea from gaining a nuclear warhead, as evidenced by its recent push for the resumption of six party talks. Beijing has also continuously pressured North Korea to enact economic reforms in the direction of reforms enacted in the Deng years of the early 1980s. Both of these actions show that North Korea’s most important ally will do all that it can to prevent tensions in the peninsula, while keeping in place an agenda of gradual economic change. Considering the fact that Beijing essentially bankrolls the current regime, it will likely get its way in these regards.

China has already shown how the influence it has over North Korea can be used to promote policy change. In an perceived effort to get North Korea to return to six party talks this past September, China completely cut off oil exports to North Korea (dependent on China for up to 90% of its oil), effectively shutting down the country. However, North Korea has also been shown to be capable and willing to openly defy Chinese wishes by testing ballistic missiles this past July despite stern Chinese warnings.

Although Kim Jong-un might not have the political clout to greatly deviate from his father’s ‘military first‘  policies, he also cannot effectively rule without maintaining good relations with China due to that country’s economic stranglehold over the smaller nation. In the absence of Kim Jong-il’s strong leadership, the pendulum will now likely swing towards economic reform and the embrace of a Chinese economic model that has been demonstrated effective. With North Korean leadership no longer politically cohesive enough to openly defy China, the Korean peninsula is due to become more stable under Beijing’s heightened influence.

Facebook has become well known for its multitude of changes over the years in order to accommodate the latest and greatest trends in technology. Most of the time, though, these changes are highly unnecessary, such as the Inception-like News Feed within a feed introduced in September. Though the concept is interesting, the result is somewhat annoying: Facebook now decides who my most important friends are, and unfortunately enough for me, it usually misses the mark.

Just recently, Facebook unveiled yet another change for my profile allowing me to go back to the very beginning. Or at least, my beginning with Facebook.

The Timeline Facebook profile is exactly what it sounds like: a timeline. Users can now access every post, picture, video and comment since first joining Facebook, a daunting concept to say the least. Furthermore, this new feature gives you seven days to go through old posts and update the look of your profile before it is officially published on the site, giving you time to get rid of those comments you probably don’t want your boss to see.

Though the general layout is sleek and innovative, definitely giving Facebook a new and improved look, this change brings forth another round of privacy debates. These now accessible old posts, created far before the continually changing privacy settings, can be seen by everyone you originally shared the post with and can only be managed individually. Though it will be a hassle to go through six years of content and manage each post individually, it’s easily achievable, as I can set aside a few days, or even take the whole week allotted if I have to, in order to ensure I have the profile I want.

I’m excited to get the chance to go back and see how I’ve grown over time. Timeline is a virtual scrapbook, and even sometimes a diary, as it lets me go back and place myself in those moments in a way I couldn’t have otherwise. I also have the chance to relive events or random moments in my life that I may have forgotten, and through this, reconnect with an old friend, or laugh about a random comment I had made two years prior.

Timeline also hosts a new set of features that enhances this “scrapbook” feel. I can now add photos or jobs that occurred previously to my joining Facebook, and I have full control over how my profile looks to other people—maximizing certain stories I feel are more important with the “star” feature, while hiding the updates I feel can be left out. In doing so, Facebook has paved the way for a groundbreaking sense of individuality toward each person’s respective page, where the older profile, in retrospect, looks staccato and conformed. Facebook has also integrated the Timeline toolbar to the side and top of a user’s page, making older posts more easily accessible than before by simply clicking on the year and month desired.

I’ve been critical of Facebook’s many changes, of which I feel most were unneeded and frustrating, but Timeline proves the first instance where I enthusiastically applaud the changes to my profile. This new feature will certainly make history as the new year approaches. Your perceptions of Facebook are about to change.

Pell Grants will be cut for an estimated 100,000 students nationwide as part of a nearly $1 trillion federal omnibus appropriations bill passed into law Friday.

Amid a flurry of end-of-year Congressional activity, President Barack Obama signed a legislative compromise that tightens eligibility requirements for Pell Grant recipients, while keeping the maximum grant amount at $5,550.

Pell Grants are a form of federally funded financial aid aimed to help low income students afford the cost of college. The grant sizes range from $555 to $5,550, and over 9 million students across the nation received grants in 2011, according to the U.S. Department of Education website.

Under the new legislation, the grants can only be used for 12 semesters rather than 18 semesters, as in the past. Additionally, the highest annual income level under which a student would automatically receive the maximum grant amount drops from $30,000 to $23,000.

U. California has been a major beneficiary of Pell Grant funding. In 2010, 40 percent of all UC undergraduates were eligible for Pell Grants and UC students received a total of $286 million. Nearly 80 percent of UC Pell Grant recipients graduated within six years, according to a letter sent by UC President Mark Yudof and UC Student Association President Claudia Magana to Congress members representing California.

The changes to the eligibility criteria come as spending on the program has nearly doubled in the past two years while the number of participating students has increased by nearly 3 million. The reforms to the program are expected to save more than $11 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Rich Williams, the higher education advocate for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said in a statement that Congress is “blindsiding about 143,000 students next year.”

“At a time when student debt is at an all time high, Congress has failed to deliver on an agreement which helps struggling students pay for college and make it to graduation,” he said in the statement.

Magana said the changes would be especially problematic for UC undergraduates because “the UC keeps raising tuition.”

However, the finalized legislation avoids a number of previously considered restrictions that would have eliminated the grants for 1 million students, said Terry Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council on Education in an interview with The New York Times.

“We had to make some very painful cuts in this bill to meet our allocation,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, a member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, in a statement to The Huffington Post.  “So I am very pleased we could minimize the damage in education, maintain the maximum Pell grant award and actually provide some increases for Head Start, Title I, special education and Promise Neighborhoods.”

In the last 17 minutes of No. 6 Baylor’s game against No. 14 Mississippi State Wednesday night, the Bears tried and tried again to take the lead.

Baylor finally pulled ahead on junior Pierre Jackson’s driving layup with 28 seconds left and blocked the Bulldogs’ final shot attempt for a 54-52 victory, improving Baylor’s record to 13-0 and tying a school record best start.

“Any time you’re part of history, it means a lot,” head coach Scott Drew said. “And I think for what the upperclassmen have done, with leading this team from day one, they’re a group that deserves this credit and deserves that honor.”

Jackson led all scorers with 14 points, and freshman Quincy Miller followed with 12 for the Bears.

The Bears hauled in a defensive rebound and called timeout with 46 seconds remaining to set up the winning bucket. Out of the timeout, Jackson used a screen from senior Quincy Acy to drive through a wide open lane and softly lay the ball in for a 54-52 lead.

Jalen Steele and Renardo Sidney, who fouled out with 1:35 left in the game and then committed a technical foul, both scored 10 for the Bulldogs.

Sidney’s foul, Mississippi State coach Rick Stansbury said, proved the most difficult obstacle to overcome late in the game.

Mississippi State held a 52-50 lead when Sidney was called for a push trying to rebound a missed Baylor shot. It was his fifth foul, and his subsequent argument cost his team another two free throw attempts. Miller hit one of two technical free throws, and Acy made just the front end of a one-and-one to tie the game at 52.

Less than a minute later, the Bears executed their offense and snatched the victory.

“Quincy Acy set a great ball screen. It forced them to play the screen and not the person who had the ball,” Jackson said. “We had a couple good shooters in the game, so if [Mississippi State] stepped up, I had the kick out.”

On the floor during the play was Brady Heslip, who went 3 of 5 from behind the arc, tallied 11 points and now has double-digit point totals in each of his last six games.

“We know that when it comes down to it, we’re going to come through, and we’re confident we’re going to do that,” Heslip said.

On the final play of the game, Jackson took the task of covering Mississippi State’s Rodney Hood, who had a 10-inch height advantage over Jackson. When Hood tried to shoot over Jackson, Acy rotated over and swatted the shot away. Jackson then slapped the ball up the court to kill the final seconds on the clock.

Wednesday’s game featured two contrasting halves, with Baylor topping Mississippi State by one point in both periods. The difference was a combined 39 points from the teams in the final 20 minutes compared to the first half, after which Baylor led 34-33.

The Bears struggled to 6 of 28 shooting in the second half, while the Bulldogs didn’t fare much better at 8 of 23. With such smothering defenses, Miller was asked if Wednesday was a man’s game.

“It was. The big men were tough, physical,” Miller said. “It was a very tough game.”

Baylor forced three ties in the second half after Jalen Steele’s 3-pointer put the Bulldogs ahead 38-36 at 17:34. After the first two ties, though, the Bulldogs responded by silencing the Baylor fans in attendance.

Hood answered a Perry Jones III dunk with a runner in the paint to retake a 40-38 lead, and Dee Bost later nailed a jumper in the paint after another Jones III dunk momentarily tied the game at 48.

Jones’ dunks were two of only four field goals he netted in the game, as he finished 4 of 13 with eight points. Jones is now 11 of 34 in his last three games.

The first half of Wednesday’s game was a seesaw affair, with three ties and five lead changes. Heslip had 11 points at the halftime buzzer, while Jackson had 10.

The Bears now turn their attention to their conference opener against Texas A&M, which tips at 6 p.m. Monday at the Ferrell Center.

Film series usually start to show their age after about three movies. The plots get too thick, the action too flashy and the leads too wrinkly. Threequelitis sadly afflicted the “Spider-Man” series and the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise, causing them to abort all hopes of continuity and issuing the orders to “reboot.” Some series, such as the poor “Shrek” movies, started showing symptoms in their corny sequels.

Maybe it’s because the charm of a good action flick will never die, or because the movies have always seemed to be in safe directorial hands, or maybe Tom Cruise’s sound (but creepy) belief in Scientology holds the secrets to anti-aging and great hair, but the “Mission: Impossible” series has yet to suffer from threequelitis. In fact, five years after the critically-acclaimed third outing and a whopping 11 years after the original, Cruise’s explosive spy saga returns with “Ghost Protocol,” a flashy, tense and fast-paced cornball thrill ride that basically defines “awesome popcorn action flick.”

The series revolves around the ass-kicking, bad-guy-outsmarting, building-leaping, fatal-injury-defying Ethan Hunt, the best of the best for the IMF, a secret government organization that’s basically like the CIA.  This outing finds the brooding Hunt tucked away in a Hungarian prison until he’s broken out – to the tune of Dean Martin’s “Ain’t That a Kick in the Head?”- by his trusty teammates, the nerdy-adorable Benji (Simon Pegg) and sexy-woman-scorned Jane (Paula Patton). Their main mission ultimately becomes a race to stop an evil Russian guy (Michael Nyqvist, who did the whole “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” thing in Sweden before Daniel Craig) from starting a nuclear war. Buildings are demolished, fingers (and guns) are pointed, roundhouse kicks are swung and trust is tested.

Both governments – American and Russian – put the blame of a mission gone awry on Hunt and his team, forcing them to go even more undercover than usual with a “ghost protocol.” They also gain a new tagalong in the form of agent-turned-analyst Brant (Jeremy Renner), who’s like a more hesitant, rational apprentice to Cruise’s Hunt.

“Ghost Protocol” is a bit like a Michael Bay movie, in the sense that what audiences are seeing on screen is probably more interesting than what they’re hearing coming out of the pretty peoples’ mouths. However, that’s not to insult the flick’s intelligence. It’s not a head-scratcher by any means, but the dialogue is bearably cheesy and many, many action shots are tense, clean and conversely tweaked with a sense of goofy fun, thanks to director Brad Bird’s history with making fantastic animation (Just try to watch the whole thing without thinking, “That looks like a shot out of ‘The Incredibles.’”). The characters move almost exaggeratedly, but it’s not annoying, and it’s certainly better than the herky-jerky camerawork that adorns Jason Statham flicks.

Lack of a knee-deep mythology lets “Mission: Impossible” dispose of tertiary characters as it sees fit. Fortunately, Pegg returned to play the staple comic relief. His one-liners aren’t stuff of legend, but he keeps the chemistry going between the team. Without him, the group would feel awkward. Patton got stuck with the chick role, but she does it with a set jaw and a hell-hath-no-fury-like-a-sexy-spy-scorned attitude. She stereotypically gets the “seduce the man” missions, but she plays Agent Carter with a Zoe Saldana-like air, making her more of an “Alias” girl than a Bond bimbo. Renner has the face and gestures of an actor meant for tough-guy-punk roles, so it’s weird to see him as a semi-scaredy-cat. He meshes well with the rest of the cast, though, butting heads with stony leader Hunt and exchanging friendly banter with the other two. He’s the least jaded of the group, and he almost has better lines than designated funny guy Pegg.

The heart of “Ghost Protocol,” however, is Cruise. For all of his off-screen weirdness (the couch jumping, the Scientology, the conscious decision to make “Knight and Day,” the couch jumping), you can’t deny that the guy gives it 110% on-screen. Boyfriend commits to every pair of oddly tight white pants, every flip of those bouncy luscious locks and every leap off of the Burj, a.k.a. the tallest building in the world. Cruise does all his own stunts and seems to have stopped aging at about 40. Will his cold, almost bland turn as Hunt win him an Oscar? Nope. But his unparalleled dedication to the Art of Playing a Freakin’ Awesome Spy keeps “Mission: Impossible” in that happy medium between the suave Bond saga and the almost-embarrassing “Get Smart” or “Johnny English” series.

“Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” works because, for all its glitzy party scenes in Mumbai and explosive highway car chases and prison breakout fights, it doesn’t try too hard and it doesn’t take itself too seriously. Action movies are placed at different ends of the This is Ridiculous spectrum – there’s the gritty, often military-based shoot-‘em-up and the pompous, gag-inducing flair of something such as “Transformers.” Unlike the former, “Ghost Protocol” stays light-hearted but manages to keep its badassery in check. And unlike the latter, audiences won’t feel like they need to gauge out their eyeballs and/or shower multiple times to achieve cleanliness after viewing.

In an era where anything after a threequel is considered a reboot, desperate or DOA, “Ghost Protocol” breaks the mold by staying true to the franchise without boring anyone or scaring them away with hideous acting.

And, seriously – can we just take a moment to admire that hair?

—

Rating: A

“Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol”

Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence

Starring Tom Cruise, Paula Patton, Jeremy Renner and Simon Pegg