future of america

So we went over the most amazing quote today in my government class. A fellow by the name of de Tocqueville visited America in the early 1800's and in a prophetic way was able to see a part of democracy that would allow for a 'unique' kind of despotism. I'm going to cite the whole quote, it speaks volumes and has everything to do with my other govt post:

"I noticed during my stay in the United States that a democratic state of society similar to that of the Americans might offer unique opportunities for the establishment of despotism...

I think that the kind of oppression that threatens democratic peoples will not resemble anything previously seen in the history of the world...

I see a multitude of people, too numerous to count, equal and alike...Above them rises up a huge and guardian-like power, which is alone responsible for making sure that they are happy and for watching over their fate. It is absolute, attentive to details, regular, full of foresight, and gentle. It would resemble parental authority if, like that authority, it had for its purpose the preparation of people for adulthood. But, to the contrary, it only seeks to keep them in a state of permanent childhood.

It likes it when the citizens enjoy themselves--provided that they do not think about anything other than enjoying themselves.... It provides for their security, anticipates and takes care of their needs, facilitates their pleasures, manages their most important affairs, directs their labors, makes rules for the writings of their wills, divides their inheritances; why wouldn't it relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and the difficulty of living? ....In the end, it reduces each nation to nothing but a flock of timid and hard-working animals--with the government as its shepherd."

"I have always believed that this sort of slavery--orderly, gentle, and peaceful--the portrait of which I have just sketched out--could be combined more easily than one could imagine with some of the exterior forms of liberty. It is even possible that it could be established under the shadow of the sovereignty of the people....

Our contemporaries...imagine a single, guardian-like, and all-powerful authority--but elected by the citizens. They combine centralization and the sovereignty of the people....They console themselves for being under a guardian by thinking that they themselves chose their guardians....In this system, citizens depart from their dependence for a moment in order to choose their master--and then return to it....This does not satisfy me at all. Who my master is matters a whole lot less to me than the fact that I am under subjection...."

Basically he's saying that in a democracy, we as a people--through self-government--can give so much power to the federal government that the federal government is essentially taking care of all our needs, and that at that point we have become 'slaves' or 'sheep'. And what will be the fate of that society?

"It is altogether pointless to give the responsibility of choosing the representatives of this kind of central power to citizens whom you have rendered so dependent on it. This exercise of their free will--so important, but so brief and infrequent--will not prevent them from losing little by little their ability to think, to feel, and to act for themselves--and from gradually falling below the level of humanity.

It is truly hard to imagine how people who have renounced the habit of directing their own lives could do a good job of choosing those who must lead them; and one ought not to expect that a liberal, energetic, and wise government could ever arise from the votes of a people of slaves. A constitution that would be republican in its head and something more than a monarchy in all its other parts has always looked like a short-lived monster to me. The vices of the rules and the imbecility of the ruled will not be long in bringing it to destruction; and the people, weary of their representatives and of themselves, will either create freer institutions or soon return and spread themselves out at the feet of a single master."

--"What Kind of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear" by Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol.2, Part VI, Chapter 6, written around 1830 and translated by Michael Iachetta.

Does that sound like a good society?? Exactly as I was saying in my previous post, the more and more powers that shift to the federal government for the 'betterment of society' the more we are moving towards the society de Tocqueville describes here. It's important to recognize that he's not describing the conditions of America at the time of his visit to the US. It is a description of a political situation that he thinks could SOMEDAY arise in a country such as the US. And truly he was right, that's exactly what America is becoming, lending example to all the things I listed before, social security, medicare, federal 401k plans, etc.

All this illustrates the 8th and final meaning of liberty, having a large area of personal responsibility without help from government. We, as humans, have to be responsible. By giving our problems to someone else to solve, and by not being subject to the consequences of our actions (if you squander your money away, the government will still support you in your old age through Social Security), we are really eliminating choice altogether. It's a crazy concept to wrap your head around, but once you really do it's a huuuuge deal. Suddenly I see American government for what it was, what it is now, and what it's heading towards, and it's scary. I'm not sure I'll experience a fullness of what de Tocqueville was describing in my life time but I might. And knowing how ignorant the American people are towards politics and that too little effort is being taken to rectify this situation, it's enough to keep you up at night.

american government 101

**LONGEST POST SO FAR INCOMING**

So I'm taking a government class this semester, the first government class I've ever taken, and I gotta say I'm learning a lot. Probably the most important thing I'm learning is how our government is slowly shifting away from what our founding fathers had intended for our Federal government to be. I'm quickly learning that far too many Americans don't know anything about government or politics, I know, I used to be one of them. I didn't know anything about politics and was consequently apathetic towards it, but in my learnings I've realized it's exactly this state of mind among American citizens that is allowing the government to move away from what it used to be, and towards an uncertain goal.

The founding fathers of this country valued liberty above all else. Liberty, as I've been learning in class, had many different meanings to the founding fathers...7 that I've studied so far. First and most important, 1) Self-government, or living under laws created by representatives of the people. Having this makes it a lot easier for citizens to enjoy the other meanings of liberty, as they have a say into what becomes law. 2) Personal liberties or having a large area of personal choice without interference from government, such as religion, what color shirt you want to wear, what school you go to, who you can marry, etc. 3) Living under a government that protects person and property, or a government that protects citizens from each other. 4) Living under a government that does not harm innocent people in life, liberty, or property, or a government that protects citizens from itself. 5) Freedom from unlawful physical restraint. 6) Living under a government with limits, through means of a constitution. 7) Living under a local government, or not being ruled by foreigners.
This highly esteemed value of liberty that the founding fathers shared is what I'll refer to as traditional liberalism. Liberty valued above all else, "Give me liberty or give me death."

Prior to 1788, when the Constitution was ratified, our country operated under individual state governments. This gave the citizens of each state great power to create and live under laws of their choosing, Virginians living under laws that Virginians wanted, not Virginians living under laws that New Yorkers wanted. The founding fathers believed in a small federal government, considerably limited in it's powers; they wanted to leave a majority of the powers of government to the already established state governments. Article 1, section 8 of the constitution lists very specifically the powers of the federal government. It is from this you get one of the most fundamental contrasts between democrats and republicans. Since the creation of the constitution, there have been people in power who claim "if the constitution doesn't say I can't do it, then I can." and there have been others who hold to the beliefs that "if the constitution doesn't specifically say I can do it, then I can't." Democrats and Republicans. In general, Democrats are trying to expand the powers of the federal government beyond what is listed in Article 1.8 while republicans are trying to limit the powers of the federal government to what is listed in Article 1.8.

In the 1900's, or specifically the early 1900's, American government has experienced a dramatic shift, arguably for the worse. During the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, the federal government begun to expand its powers beyond what is listed in 1.8 to give itself powers ranging from regulating aspects of the economy, to providing social security and medical care, to playing an important role in housing grants and education. While these may sound like beneficial parts of our nation, it is important to consider that as the powers of the federal government expand, we, as citizens, begin to become less free. As the powers of government are shifted from the state governments (where our voice has a greater impact in the legislature) towards the federal government (where our voice has a lesser impact in congress), we are beginning to lose liberty in the sense of self government. My professor uses this diagram a lot in class to portray the change in government we've been experiencing in the twentieth century:


1931 or there about is when the shift of the powers of federal government really began, during the Roosevelt administration. We began to shift away from a constitutionally limited federal government (one of the meanings of liberty) to a federal government that has more and more control over us. The American people back then were more or less knowingly giving their freedoms to the federal government in exchange for the government 'solving all their problems'. This creates another problem, as the American people have less and less say in government, the more ignorance towards politics there will be. Fact is, we as an American people are the ones who control the government, not the other way around. Corruption aside, the government isn't ruling over us and making laws we as a people don't want, these are legislations approved by our elected representatives in Congress, yet the less knowledge we have of politics, the less useful we are as a people in the legislative process to make meaning contributions to democracy.

So government has become something that barely resembles our original federal government that was founded on traditional liberalism, that's just the cold hard truth. Is it bad? I don't know. The goal of pre-1931 government was to preserve the liberty of the American people, liberty to not have 1/3rd of our income taxed to support government policies that go outside of the constitutionally framed powers of the federal government as listed in Article 1.8, but the fact is that President Roosevelt didn't force this shift in government, though he definitely pushed the American people strongly towards it, it was the interest of the American people in a time of national desperation, war and depression. Citizens thought that if they gave the federal government more power, it could solve the economic crisis the country was experiencing, and it well might have, it's a government class not a history class so I don't know how well it actually worked. The idea was to give these powers to the federal government to create a solution to the problem, and then once the problem was solved, the powers never really shifted back to state governments.


So if the federal government's goal prior to 1931 was protecting liberty, what is the goal of post-1931 federal government? I'm not sure, but consider the policies implemented since then (largely by the democratic party), welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, government funding of the arts or scientific research, and a more recent example, Democratic party member Senator Clinton's proposal to create a federal 401k plan allowing the government to establish 401k plans for every American, matching up to $1,000 of each citizen's deposits each year. If you look at all these policies and many many more established post-1931, it would seem the goal of the federal government (and even the American people since they are the ones voting these presidents into office and voting these legislative representatives into Congress) is societal welfare. Sounds like a noble enough cause right? Let me give a little example to illustrate societal welfare entails...

According to "The History of Plymouth Plantation", the pilgrims at this time were experiencing an economic drought, if you will. They were practicing a society under which everyone was expected to work to the extent of their ability and the fruit of their labor was shared as communal property for the betterment of every member of the society (societal welfare), yet they "languished in misery" because of the shortage of food being grown. "This sharing of property in common (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men who were most able and fit for labor and service were annoyed at spending their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong or resourceful man had no more in the division of food and clothing than the man who was weak and not able to do a quarter of what the other one could; this was thought injustice" Simply put, the pilgrims were staving because the members of the society were unmotivated to work. In a society in which everything is given you by means of the mutual labor of the society, to what extent can a man be motivated? The taking of property from the few and giving it to the many breeds laziness, slothfulness, lack of motivation, and indeed economic poverty.

The pilgrims eventually divided the crop land among each individual family, based on their size, and stated that they were in charge of providing for their own family with this section of land. No more was food and/or clothing going to be given to them, if they didn't work their section of the field, that family would starve. If they worked hard, they could eat exceptionally well. This created a huge motivation among the pilgrims, "the women now went willingly into the field and took their little ones with them to plant corn, whereas before they would allege weakness and inability; and it would have been thought great tyranny and oppression to compel them."

Why is America arguably the most prosperous nation in the world? Undoubtedly this can be attributed to the founding fathers' views that "what a man earns belongs to him", this being in contrast to a communistic nation, or a 'societal welfare' where "what a man earns belongs to society as a whole". However since 1931, with the expansion of the powers of federal government, we currently sit somewhere between those two extremes, thusly: "what a man earns belongs partly to him and partly to society." We are taxed almost 1/3rd of our income, these taxes of course going towards supporting "societal welfare". But the shift of powers from the states to the federal government hasn't stopped, indeed it increases with each presidency. Suppose in 20 years the amount of government programs we've allowed the federal government to install requires that we're taxed 2/3rd of our income?? If we follow this pattern, eventually we will become a government who's only goal is societal welfare, or in modern day terms, "socialism" or "communism", and the entirety of our income will go towards the support of government programs for communal benefit, and what happens then? Once we've achieved our goal of 'societal welfare'? Utopia? I think not; almost certainly history will repeat itself and just like the pilgrims of Plymouth Plantation, we will experience 'economic drought', starvation, slothfulness, apathy, etc. Interesting side note about Utopia, its derived from Greek: οὐ no, and τόπος, place, i.e. "no place" or "place that does not exist."

So it is then left for every American to decide for themselves, do we protect the liberty and property of every American, even if it means that those who are genuinely less capable in their circumstance (for whatever reason) will be exposed to poverty and poor health? Or do we voluntarily give up that part of our liberty, or earning rights, for the economic and medical betterment of society, even if it means that lazy Americans (and illegal immigrants) can, and will, live comfortably on your dollar by exploiting the system? If you lean towards the first, your beliefs are closer related to the republican party. If you lean towards the second, your beliefs are closer related to the democratic party.
Also to clarify, the terms 'conservatives' and 'liberals' came from the shift in powers during the Roosevelt administration. Those who opposed the expansion of the powers of federal government were called conservatives, while those who supported Roosevelt in his efforts to expand those powers were called liberals. Yet the conservatives were, and still are, the ones who are trying to preserve what I earlier called "traditional liberalism", where liberty is the highest priority. Modern day liberals are trying to get away from traditional liberalism in a movement thats referred to as 'Progressivism'.

So there you have it, American Government in a nutshell. As a citizen it is your obligation to voice your opinion in the democratic process, lest through our neglect we allow for further corruption of government. As I said, it is left for every man to decide whether to pursue traditional liberalism or America's current goal which I still am not sure of, but suspect is societal welfare. Each extreme has its merits and it's shortcomings. My goal isn't to say which one I think is better, only to log for myself a summary of these facts, and help others to understand that which they may not have previously known.

comment section on religion

I'm going to link the commentary on this because I think it's important for me to log in my journal, for myself. I almost missed it because I didn't expect anyone would be commenting on my posts, as so few people even know about it. I don't know who this person is but thank you for taking the time to offer an educated and well thought out response. I enjoy debating religion when it's not with close minded people.

comment section of "origin of mankind"

friends

I've come to the realization that friends are harder to make as you get older. When you're a kid, you meet another kid, you push some girl over together, and bam! You're friends. When you're older, people already have their friends, social orders get more complex, suddenly it's not as easy. Right now I'm at a point in my life where I feel like I really need a good friend.

My best friend of 6 years got married this last summer and I hardly ever see him anymore and I don't really have many other friends in Dallas. Almost all the friends I had in high school are away at school or in different parts of their life and I don't see them anymore. I have my family but in most cases family isn't really the same thing as friends. Friends can talk about anything, friends understand what makes the other person tick, friends have similar interests and similar views on life. My brother Spencer and my sister Maretta are who I spent most of my time with growing up in my family and Spencer has been in Utah for a majority of the last few years and Maretta has been as well, and recently got married and moved to Philadelphia for the next 4 years. I'm striving with connect with my other older brother Scott but he's married with a kid and is starting up a new business still and so his schedule is pretty busy.

Over the last 6-7 months I gradually been getting to know a lot of people through means of an online game, World of Warcraft. I play with a few of my friends, and have met many more people that I would call friends, but what do you do when you start to realize that the people you thought were friends actually don't respect you at all and consider you beneath them because you haven't been playing the game as long as they have and don't have as much 'experience'. Where I used to really enjoy socializing with most of these people I've met online, chatting or over vent, over the last few weeks I've been coming to the realization that a lot of them probably don't consider me as a friend, just a 'friend rank'. Which has come as devastating news to me, because before I started school this fall I didn't have much other opportunity to socialize, so these people were about the extent of my friends, but now I feel like I have been setting myself up for disappointment. Even my friend Max who I've known for years and years, sometimes treats me that way in-game. I don't blame him, he's supposed to be the leader of this guild, or social network, and feels obligated to maintain order amongst everyone. It just sucks he's in that position because he's one of the few friends online that I could fall back on, and I can't even do that sometimes because I know he can't fairly take my side. Whatever...

Friends just come so naturally when you're younger that you never really learn HOW to make friends. I go back and think how you make friends, by finding a common interest. Well...one common interest that is easily found in almost any guy is video games, which now that I think about it is one of the great benefits of video games. It's really how I've made many of my friends in the past. Also and more recently, sports, also found in most guys. But depending on the situation it's kind of difficult to genuinely steer conversation towards these topics. I'm also learning that school is one of the harder environments to make the transition from 'classmate' to 'out-of-class friend'. Lucky for me I'm an introvertive person and am usually happy with 1-2 good friends. Thats why it's never been a problem until my friend William got married, and that's a whole other mess by itself, but it leaves me suddenly feeling friendless. Or maybe more specifically, best-friendless. It's important for people to have a best friend, and not just someone they consider a best friend, but someone who considers you a best friend back. To be one of the most important people in someone's life, and be the same to that person. Mutual friendship.

I've been trying to befriend some people at school but it doesn't happen quickly, if at all. There's two girls in my math class that I sit between, Jennifer and Amber. Both are cute girls and have a lot of energy and personality. My first thought at that point was "hey maybe I can hook up with one of these two" but now that I'm realizing I just need a friend, that's my only goal at this point. But how do you make a friend out of a girl anyways? And why isn't there a better term for non-intimate male/female friends anyways? I used to have a female friend a few years back, and it was awesome. We joked back and forth, had a lot of the same attitudes towards things, had a lot of fun times, and there's just something confidence building about hanging out with a hot girl who you're important to, even if it's in a non-intimate way. Turns out that girl got too comfortable with me being a generally nice person and started taking advantage of my generosity, using me if you will. Chauffeur, fast food, TV/internet, whatever. She went off to college (in Dallas still) and we stopped talking, or rather I stopped making effort to get together with her and since she had never really made any effort to begin with, we just stopped talking.

So this girl Jennifer, she's got a boyfriend which is kind of discouraging, but she's pretty, funny, and interesting. We talk a lot in class and I've gotten to know a lot about her, but I'm afraid the end of the semester will come and that'll be that, we don't really see each other again. Given my need of friends, I would hate to have that happen. So I wonder how you create a friendship with a girl knowing you can't use any kind of chemistry to help the friendship along. That's what I used with the first girl I was talking about, we probably would've hooked up at some point and I think the feelings were there from both of us at one time or another, but we never got the timing right. So do I start by asking this girl to do something outside of class? I've already done that, we've gotten together to study outside of class, but we still mainly talk about what we're working on. So do I just ask if she wants to grab some lunch on campus or something? Will she take that as me asking her on a date? Indeed it essentially is the same thing, just different motives, but it may be hard for her to differentiate those motives. Bunch of questions I'm just asking myself really lol, need to ask someone who can maybe give an answer.

In any case, that's my lament. At this point in my life I feel like I could do with a few good friends, since I recently 'lost' my best friend. I'll make due with what I can though.

And ps for anyone who might be reading, this isn't a cry for help it's just me logging my feelings. This is my journal first and foremost, then an outlet media.


::EDIT:: I was kind of emotional when I wrote this and realize that impromptu writing, at least for me, produces very unorganized writing. This entry was all over the place.

heroes oct 8

**SPOILER ALERT**

Oh man...serious business. So 1) Why did Candice save Sylar? Who does she work for? I thought she worked for the old mob boss whatever his name was, but he died so what in the world. 2) Hah she really was fat and ugly like I thought we would see last season when Nikki knocked her out. But is she dead or just knocked out? Because after he hit her, she was still concious, but after the commercial he was pulling glass out of her neck? And she looked dead? Did Sylar forget that he has to cut people's heads open and inspect their brains to be able to take their powers? Least we know he's still a jerk.

So I guess my impressions about West were wrong, it seems like he's an alright kid, albeit a little creepy. Though it does look like he's going to turn Claire against her dad. But I thought Claire knew her Dad used to work for the company and what he did. So much I don't remember about the first season. I wonder if Mr Bennett really will die.

And whats with new Peter? Why does he have a buzz cut and always has his shirt off any chance he gets. When he was trying to make his powers work it reminded me of Spiderman, "Go web!" lol. Least he can still score when he shoots, amirite?

Matt Parkman is still a joke, Mohinder is going to get caught, and Maya and Alejandro are just nuts. They need to just get to America and figure out a point to their lives other than running and killing people, and then bringing them back to life. Patooie I say.

What does Hiro intend to do by staying in Japan? I think he's going to usurp Kensei and teleport him thousands of miles away, so he can take the girl. Bam! Hiro's gunna get a spine.

I kinda expect DL to be dead, though its kinda sad. I wish Micah had died instead of DL, he's still just as bad as he was last season. He's the worst actor on the show and I hate him for it. Is that creepy black lady DL mom? She looks different, and a whole lot creepier. Why does Nikki think this company can cure her? Is that why they want Mohinder? To eventually refine the virus to not kill these people, but leech their powers away? In my opinion, Nikki needs to embrace Jessica, they could be good friends!

When I was watching the first season, I didn't start until like episode 18, so I got to watch them all back to back. Watching them 1 at a time, once a week, is painfully agonizing. I liked it better when all I had to do to stifle my curiosity was click "next episode". Bah!

::EDIT:: On closer look at the picture header, I see that DL is in it. It wouldn't mean much except that Maya and Alejandro are in it, meaning it's a picture of the heroes in season 2, which makes it more significant that DL is there. Maybe he's not really dead?

wing stop

So Wing Stop is a wings restaurant we have here in Dallas and I believe many other parts of the nation. I have a beef to contend with Wing Stop, but first I should state that I love them just the same. It is my opinion that this place is amazing, simply amazing. They do an amazing job on their wings and flavors. Their fries are delicious, albeit a little soggy by the time you eat them (they sit in a bag full of steam until you take them out), and their ranch is just about the best ranch I've ever had in my life. They are a bit pricey but I'll be damned if they don't just hit the spot sometimes.

That being said, I went to Wing Stop today because I had a strong craving for wings after working out. I got my usual 10-piece combo and went home to eat. When I got home and started eating, I found the jerks had given me 8 leg pieces and only 2 wing pieces! Now, some might argue that both selections are appealing in different ways, but not to me. I think the wing pieces have way more meat than legs, less bone, less cartilage, are easier to dip, and just generally easier to eat. So you can imagine my frustration at getting 8 of 10 leg pieces. I mean it's called WING Stop, not LEG Stop, amirite?

I'm going to try and request all leg pieces next time....buncha jerks

Monday Night Football

There are no words for Monday night's game, except for unbelievable. It was hands down the most unbelievable, most amazing, most stunning game I've ever seen in my short time as a football fan. What made it exciting was that it was sooo close in the final minutes, though not because both teams were playing well. In fact, both teams played pretty terribly. Dallas had 6 turnovers and another 3-4 almost turnovers. The Bills offensive team only managed to get 3 points the whole game with the rest of their points coming from their defense and special teams, and only then because of the mistakes Dallas made.

I've been an avid watcher of the Cowboys this season. I got on the bandwagon near the end of their season after Romo took over Bledsoe and rode on hope into the Playoffs but like every one else, was disappointed at Romo's field goal fumble. But I knew then that Romo had something Bledsoe didn't, and with Parcels retiring, I knew this season would be one to remember.

Coming into the game with a 4-0 record, and the Bills being 1-3 with a new starter QB and a rookie running back, I didn't have many doubts for this game. We'd been steamrolling big teams like the Giants and Rams. Out of 7 commentators, 6 picked Dallas as a favorite to win.

We were all in for a surprise though as the game started off terribly with Romo's first interception of the game getting run in for a Buffalo touchdown. Things just got worse as he threw 3 more picks in the first half, one being easily caught in Dallas' end zone for another touch down. This was followed by a fumble, also by Romo, which led to a field goal by the Bills. Thankfully the Cowboys weren't ALL playing terribly and we were able to secure 10 points before the half. But heading into the locker room with a score of 10-18, things didn't look good. However I knew the Cowboys have been coming out in the second half and just cleaning up, so I had hope they would stop the shenanigans and come back and win.

Things didn't get better fast though as we only managed to get two more field goals which Buffalo was able to return a kickoff for a touch down, bringing the score to a tense 16-24. With only one touch down and a two-point conversion between us and a tie game, things were VERY tense in the fourth quarter. But in a game where everything had been going wrong, things started to look hopeful. Everyone knew what needed to happen, we needed a touch down and a two-point conversion to have a shot at winning in overtime.

With Dallas in possession in the final two minutes, we managed to drive from our 20 all the way to the red zone, and pick up a touchdown with 20 seconds remaining on the clock. At this point I was on the edge of my seat, dripping sweat in anticipation. I began to have flashbacks of Dallas' playoff game last season and hoped with every fiber of my being that something similar didn't happen in this game. When Terrell Owens dropped the tie game pass, I thought it was all over. But with an onside kick left, I still entertained thoughts of victory. At this point both my brother and I were standing, only feet away from the screen, fingers crossed. Through some miracle we managed to recover the onside kick with 18 seconds left. Romo then threw a 20-yard pass to Terrell Owens which looked good and I was already beginning to celebrate in anticipation of an easy field goal, but when the refs ruled it incomplete, I again began to think all hope was lost. The tension elevated as Romo had time throw two short passes, either of which if the receiver hadn't gone out, it would've been game. But the stars aligned and we were able to complete the passes and give our kicker a 53-yard attempt (it would be a new distance record for him, not very reassuring). But oh man when he made the first attempt, I was already slapping high fives, shoutin', celebrating, hell I would've run outside yelling but that stupid Buffalo coach and his last second time out, what a weasel. That's the stupidest rule, and as the commentators argued over it being a good rule or not, they set up the second kick. And this was it, this was the end-all be-all last attempt at a phenomenal comeback to keep our undefeated status.

The snap,

the kick,

time expires,

and it's good. Cowboys win, 25-24. I don't know if I've ever been more excited over anything sport-related in my life. Ladies and Gentlemen, that's a game that will go down in history, God bless America and football. Thank you Cowboys for pulling it together. My fingers are crossed for next week's game versus the Patriots.

heroes oct 1

**WARNING: SPOILERS CONTAINED IN THIS POST**

So I decided I would start reviewing (or at least speculating about) the episodes of NBC's hit series, Heroes. Like millions of others, I got hooked on this show last season and religiously watched all the episodes in about 3 days. This new season looks like it holds promise.

So much happened in this episode....let's see, where to begin. Let's start with Claire. What a bimbo, she keeps hanging out with this guy at school and then ignores him when he brings up interesting topics. Seems like she's digging herself into a trap. Also, her car was stolen? What in the world. What I thought was funny (but actually dumb) was that she goes to her father's job, tells him the car was stolen and is like "I'll be more careful with the next one!". !!!! Who says you get another brand new car? Someone stole your car you dumb ho! Instead of pleading with your daddy to buy you a new one, call the cops!! Who steals a car on school grounds, in a parking lot RIGHT in front of the school? Then she cuts her toe off in the middle of her living room, with the dullest scissors she can find. And whats with people and leaving their windows open at night? That's just asking for creepy flying high-school kids to peep on you. Claire, in my opinion, needs to get a role real fast because this whole "waaa I wanna be myself but I can't!" emo phase is already annoying.

Maya and Alejandro...I don't even know what to think about these two. First, Maya is hot, I'm only going to say that once. Second, she is nutty. She cries tears of death! If she didn't want to kill people she should work on not being such a crybaby. And what the heck, Alejandro can contain her tears of death and it brings those people back to life?? If he can bring people she killed back to life, what's the problem? I don't get those two at all, but I hope they get into America soon so they can have a purpose also.

Peter is always awesome. Seems like he met up with some heroes during his absence and got their powers. I'm anxious to see what else he can do besides shoot energy balls or whatever. Second, he already has enough powers that he could get that box with his ID and stuff away from his captor without having to do this supposed 'job'. What he needs to do is use his powers to get with that Irish chick because she is a fox and her accent is hot.

Hiro is my second favorite hero. In the first episode I started thinking that he was going to end up being the 'Kensei' that the legends were about, and in this second episode I really started to think that, until the Englishman regenerated his arrow wounds. First, who runs up and shoots someone with bows at 10ft? Why not use a pike or a sword? And then runs off before knowing he's dead! Drive by shooting imo. I think it could be speculated that Claire is a descendant of this guy, but that's assuming that like-powers have anything to do with heredity, in which case now that I think about it, that would make the creepy highschool kid related to Nathan...in any case, I think Hiro's story is going to be really good.

And who was attacking Mrs. Patrelli? They need to introduce the villain real fast. They keep having Sylar in episode teasers but he's not in these episodes! Whoever is in this supposed group of 9, I'm really curious about. I think the person attacking Mrs. Patrelli was like, attacking her with his mind from somewhere else, causing her to inflict the damage on herself.

It's nice that Matt Parkman and Mohinder adopted Molly or whatever, but Molly is a brat (cute as a button though) and Matt is a porkchop loser who can't keep his wife. Mohinder is still cool, I like that he's working with Mr. Bennett, and that they got the Haitian working with them again.

Yep, lots of promise in these next episodes. However, what happened to Nikki and DL and Micah? They still haven't introduced them yet. I'm having a hard time remembering, but I was pretty confident that in the last episode of the first season, Matt Parkman and DL were mortally wounded. People need to die! Personally I'm not missing Micah, I hated that kid. He was such a punk kid, boy you don't talk down to your parents like that! Nikki needs to let Jessica practice some 'tough love' and teach that kid a lesson. DL was cool, they need to bring him back, although Peter has his powers now I guess so we don't really need him. And when is Peter going to go on a power trip and just trying to find all these 'heroes' just to increase his own power? Seems like something I would do in his case, not just for the raw power but just because different abilities are cool! Not the metal melting one, that's just ridiculous.

the origin of mankind

I think every theology begins with a simple question: Why are we here? People could ask the additional questions of "Where did I come from?" and "Where am I going after this life?" but I think both of those fall under the original question.

Let's start with the first question in the chronology. "Where did I come from?" or more specifically, "How did human life come into existence?" I think that's a good question for everyone to ask themselves seriously at some point in their life. There's a lot of popular choices out there. You can place your beliefs in evolution, big bang, a preexistence of some sort, or even something along the lines of alien experiments or 'the matrix'. Crazy ideas you say? Well each one has as much proof as the next, none. They are all equally as likely, albeit not equally as plausible. The two most popular theories are either evolution or some sort of God. Basically, science vs God. I choose to place my bet on God. I realize evolution is a modern reality, but going as far as to say all life evolved from bacteria and that man evolved from apes is taking it a step too far I think.

So now we have the theory that some sort of 'God' created man and everything we've come to know. The further begs the question, what is 'God'? Well, again, there's lots of popular opinions. However we again have no proof of any of these opinions and so for all we know God is a interstellar giraffilope that created a race of apemen to be some sort of cosmic child's play toy...not very likely though. So then it's left for every man to decide for himself what he believes about 'God'.
Personally I believe God to be some benevolent cosmic force that had a strong hand in our creation. That being said, I believe in a counter force as well, call it Satan if you want. If there's a benevolent cosmic force, there must be an evil cosmic force as well. Opposition in all things, that just makes sense. I believe that both were involved in our creation, but that's the extent of their involvement. I don't believe that God or Satan has a continual influence on all men all the time, I don't believe that men talk to God or Satan or that either attempt to communicate in any way with man. That means I also don't believe in Jesus as far as him being a man born of God directly and placed on this Earth to administer "God's teachings" to a handful of select people in one part of the Earth at only one time in Earth's existence.

The second question: "Where am I going after this life?" I think is very closely related to the main question of purpose. We, as humans, have a tendency to 'look at the big picture'. That's probably where most religion stems from. Most people look at this life here on Earth and assume that's the whole picture, and, for them, that's just fine. However, for people like me, that picture just isn't big enough. It's a puzzle with pieces missing. I don't necessarily believe in a post-existence or a preexistence. What I do believe is that there's something greater than this life, and that somehow we, as a human race, are involved. That really takes me right into the next question,

"What is our purpose?" and really I think this is the most important question. I'm a very logical person. That means that things without innate purpose or reason are, to me, very unappealing. A friend of mine recently quoted the Bible in suggesting that "Men are that they might have joy." and that that's the extent of our purpose. That we exist simply that we might experience joy. I agreed with him on that, but he was taking "Men are" in the sense of our mortal existence, whereas I took "Men are" in the sense of our eternal souls. To me, the idea of being born, learning everything we do in life, and the dying and losing it all just seems like a waste to me.
If God created us, I believe that he created us for a reason. And, for me, our creation just so we as humans can experience what there is to experience in this life and this life alone, doesn't seem like a good enough reason to merit creation. So in my logical mind, believing that death is the end of it would be like an equation that ends at the = sign. You can see the problem, you can work it out, you can even be proud of how you worked it, but you'll never see what it equals.

The same friend offered the idea of reincarnation as a consideration. This approach offers the eternal existence of our souls through the lives of many different people throughout time. He suggested that our soul or 'life force' could exist in a living thing and when that thing dies our life force returns to the planet to be reassigned to a new life. To me this seems like the continuance of life for the sake of continuing life. That our lives are only for the purpose of propagating our species, what some people would argue as our most primal purpose. Again, it just doesn't seem like a good enough reason to merit the existence of something so complicated as human life.

He then asked if I wasn't happy to simply be alive, to which I replied no. I don't believe people are capable of being happy to be alive. By it's very nature, we would have to have experienced something BESIDES life or at least know something about it to be capable of developing an opinion, about either. You have to experience pain to appreciate not feeling pain. If someone said they didn't like the taste of apples when they have never tasted one, you might think that person is crazy, or an idiot. There is a necessary contrast that must be made in order for opinion to even exist. Therefore when people say they are 'happy to be alive', what they really mean is "The things I experience in life make me happy more often than they make me unhappy", whereas someone who experienced the opposite would say they were 'unhappy to be alive'.

So here I'm stuck on the idea that our existence is greater than just life on Earth. It just makes more sense than anything else I've heard. Do I know what this greater purpose entails? No, and in fact, I don't even care to theorize. The nature of our possible pre or post existence is an unimportant detail to me, and not something I should bother myself over, at least not for now. So there you have it, my take on the questions of life. The thing about religion is that in order to set itself apart from other religions it has to dive deeper into these theories than I have or care to. The things they come up with may make sense to some and may seem totally ridiculous to others. The problem stems from the fact that they get so specific in their beliefs that it disallows them to even interact with each other without a conflict of beliefs coming up. Hence the millions of lives that have been given in religion's name. Damn shame if you ask me...but that's a different topic.

organized religion

I'm a baptized Mormon, born and raised, however I never really got into church my entire life. I went to church every Sunday because my parents made me and because a lot of my friends were there. I jumped through their hoops and learned their scriptures (lolscripturechase), all the while never really questioning it until I was about 17ish. Even during that time I would try to apply all these principles I had learned growing up but none of them ever panned out for me. When I graduated I went out to BYU (a Mormon-founded university in Utah) and while there I really developed some different perspectives of religion.

Everyone there at this school where almost 100% of the students were members of this church, just seemed like robots to me. Almost every single person acted and handled themselves in exactly the same ways. To me there was just such a lack of individuality that it made me stand back in shock and during the next 2 years I spent there never really felt like I should, could, or wanted to try and fall in with this crowd. The theology and doctrines, while nice and convenient, preached things that when I applied, I never felt any real return from it. The people, while friendly and generally helpful, tended to be very ignorant and close-minded. The administration, while organized and well-mannered, was quick to judge and call people out on things. I mean, for crying out loud, men can't even wear long hair (even past their neckline or covering their ears) at BYU or wear a beard of any length! Thats just one thing in the pool of unindividualism.

I ended up getting suspended from BYU (mostly by choice) for fooling around with marijuana and just as well because I was planning on transferring out. I spent about a year back home in my own apartment just kind of drifting through life for awhile, just working and hanging out and not really bothering myself with religion or church (which is and has always been extremely difficult for me to ignore since my entire family and extended family on both my Mom's and Dad's sides are all devout Mormons) until about a year ago when I ran into an especially compelling piece of Mormon propaganda and decided that, what the hell, I'll give it one more shot. So I thought back on all the teachings I'd learned since I was a kid about how to understand the scriptures and 'receive answers to prayers' and 'feel the spirit of God' and so on. I was really determined to get an answer this time and I put more faith and emotion into this attempt than ever I had before. Yet after 3 weeks of consistent scripture reading, church attendance, and stand-up moral behavior, I had nothing to show for it. No revelations, no epiphanies, no spiritual feelings, just an overwhelming bitterness after one particularly hard afternoon when I thought I actually might've been onto something and prayed for what seemed like hours and never got anything back.

Since then I've pretty much felt that yeah, Mormons teach nice values and are friendly people. They have a lot of interesting stories but I can't really get on board with a lot of their doctrine. I've never been interested in examining other churches because I figure, if I'm not particularly drawn to one I've been accustomed to and that would be easiest for me to be devout in, why bother try to learn about a new one I know nothing about and that I know would bring me lots of social stress from my friends and family.

I feel like I know the difference between right and wrong and that I don't need any religious group to lay down boundaries that I may not agree with or already know. Upon deeper exploration of religion and how so many millions of people can swear to the root of their being that everything they know is the absolute truth and that they've received undeniable witness that its true, I've come to theorize that some people need religion. They just need it, the idea of something greater, the idea of a golden brick road that leads to the Emerald City and that if they stay on the road and don't get kidnapped by flying monkeys, that the Wizard will grant them safe passage back to where ever they came from before this life. Without religion, these people don't know how to get to the Emerald City and consequently feel like they will never get 'home', so they gather together and form a belief system that makes sense to them and build a yellow brick road out of it and claim the Emerald City lies 'just beyond those hills'. Does it do wonderful things for people? Definitely. It is for everyone? I honestly dont believe it is. Do I believe in some sort of existence after death..?..Yeah I do. Call it idealistic but as long as I maintain at least some shred of a sort of eternal existence, it helps me to not make a complete screw up of my life. Already you could call that religion, and by no means am I atheist, I just don't buy into the stock these religions are selling. They each claim their stock will be worth a fortune after this life and that if you make sacrifices by investing with them, you'll get a big pay off after death. Convenient theory for the religions, especially the ones that bring a handsome amount of money in through donations or tithes.

Anyways, in Mormonism they teach that man holds no accountability for that which he doesn't know to be wrong. For example, Mormons (like many religions) share the belief that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Well, according to this belief, if I had never been taught that and never heard about it, and at the root of my being didn't feel it was wrong, I could fornicate all my life and not be held accountable for it after this life (assuming, of course, there is some sort of state of accountability after death). Now thats a belief that if your goal as a church was to bring people to your religion, seems kind of like an argument to the opposition. Take me for instance, most people I know are Mormon and insist the church is true and I should come back. However, according to this belief if I never receive some sort of witness for myself that everything I've been taught all my life is true, that all these principles and 'rules' are true, then I can't be held accountable for violating them. To me they are all just a bunch of nice stories. So after considering that all I can say is, what's my motivation? What's my motivation to restrict my actions to receive the same 'supposed' reward as all these other followers who never in their life break any 'rules'. For most people it's a sense of belonging and deeper understanding of themselves that drives them to restrict themselves, they'll jump into the pen with the rest of the animals and graze on scriptures until they die, as long as they are with the other animals; but to me it's just not that simple.

I have always made a point of being an individual, to not blend with the crowd. I'm not shunned by my family for not following their beliefs but it's definitely a source of social discomfort between us from time to time. It's something I've learned to put up with.

I believe people should share their beliefs, but only with those for whom they deeply care, not just some stranger on the bus or a coworker you barely talk to. And like I said, they should be shared, never pushed, and that goes for all people. You wouldn't push your religious beliefs on a stranger because it's rude. However it's not any less rude to do the same thing with a family member. Religion is a huge deal to a lot of people, with some (like Mormons) it's a life-encompassing decision, but that's not any different that any other set of morals, beliefs, talents, ethics, or personalities that make up a person. It's been around forever and it'll continue to go on. As long as we can all learn to get along together and accept our differences, God forbid we even celebrate our differences, then that's what will make the world a better place. Thats all I have to say about it.