rumor has it that with the death of his mistress, kim jong-illin’ like a villain has retreated into seclusion, setting the stage for a possible military coup d’etat. it’s all speculation, of course. maybe they were just pictures from a bad hair day.

and who’s to know — if the rumors are true — what would happen from there. is there another crackpot willing to step up and take over for the dear leader, and would this make a us-led invasion all the more imminent?

on the other hand, hopefully some sane individual would be put in power, and end all the weird bullshit going on there.

those crazy kids at wired have written up a nice summary of the of the scientific community and the government. also, check out colin powell kickin’ it old school with his ghetto headphones. what’s on your ipod, mr. secretary?

I’m going to assume that anyone who reads the contents of this page is familiar with my long-standing dislike of the U.S. media. that’s why this article on scientific political correctness caught my attention:

The basic notion that journalists should go beyond mere “balance” in search of the actual truth hardly represents a novel insight. This magazine, along with its political Web site, Campaign Desk, has been part of a rising chorus against a prevalent but lazy form of journalism that makes no attempt to dig beneath competing claims. But for journalists raised on objectivity and tempered by accusations of bias, knowing that phony balance can create distortion is one thing and taking steps to fix the reporting is another.

science is a very hard thing to prove to the general public. this doesn’t help when the underlying mechanics are theoretical; some people just won’t believe what they can’t see. and then there’s always a semi-plausible crackpot theory to throw just enough doubt into the picture (see: intelligent design).

speaking of science, apparently there’s a technique to convert cheap-o vodka so that it doesn’t taste like camel spit. sure, it takes half a dozen times through, and a few hours to process, but the results speak for themselves.

[edit] added a better quote to summarize.

since maurice clarett’s recent “tell-all” to espn the magazine, he’s become even more despised around the ’bus. the fact that he’s more well-known now for his off-the-field antics than his running ability isn’t exactly helping his cause, either. seems like he’s just digging a bigger hole for himself.

the question really isn’t about alleged “improprieties” — you’d be naive to think that schools don’t give preferential treatment to their athletes. the question is why, after so many months of staying away from the public eye, did he decide to suddenly come forward and accuse his former team?

I’m not sure how he thinks this will gain him any favor in the nfl. scouts see a player with great abilities but little experience, players and coaches see a guy who ratted out his coach and teammates, and the front office sees someone who could cause headaches for the entire team. so while clarett’s talent is without question, his draft stock continues to drop. first it was possible second round, now it’s easily the fourth round, if that. my guess is he’ll be picked up by someone with no need for a back, and traded.

the nice thing about being a running back in the nfl — your draft position doesn’t mean shit. just look at terrell davis, curtis martin, dorsey levens, or rudi johnson. priest holmes wasn’t even drafted. and do you remember ki-jana carter, lawrence phillips, or rashaan salaam being drafted in the first round? all busts.

someone will pick up clarett. as long as he doesn’t keep killing his career on his own.