The déjà vu was hard to ignore.

For the second time in two years, Alejandro Maldonado’s kick was just a little too far left, and Oregon found itself out of hope, out of chances and out of the running for the national championship.

Behind the best rushing defense in college football, No. 13 Stanford smothered Oregon’s potent offense on its way to a stunning 17-14 overtime win in front of 58,792 dazed Duck fans at Autzen Stadium on Saturday night. The loss knocked Oregon (10-1, 7-1 Pac-12) off its path toward a BCS title game and gave Stanford (9-2, 7-1) the right to control its destiny through the conference championship game and beyond.

Of course the game wasn’t over after (or decided by) Maldonado’s second missed field goal of the night. Oregon’s defense still had a shot to stop Stanford and force a second overtime — the Ducks were even gifted a fumble by Cardinal quarterback Kevin Hogan — but Stanford recovered, and kicker Jordan Williamson booted a 37-yard walk-off field goal.

Maldonado’s checkered past, including a missed field goal last year against USC that crippled Oregon’s title hopes, sparked questions after the game about his consistency.

“When I kick, I don’t really think about the distance because I know I have a strong enough leg to get it through,” said the junior from Colton, Calif. “I kicked the ball well in warm-ups and practice. Sometimes it just doesn’t go your way.”

Little went right for the Ducks all game. The highest-scoring team in the nation found its running lanes clogged by the Cardinal’s stout defensive line. After a scoreless first quarter, Hogan led Stanford on a 15-play, 93-yard drive culminating in the freshman plowing into the end zone from one yard out. The strike quieted a crowd used to seeing weekly blowouts and set the tone for the rest of the contest.

Oregon got on the scoreboard nine minutes later courtesy of a 28-yard touchdown pass from Ducks quarterback Marcus Mariota to wideout Keanon Lowe, and soon took the lead with a six-yard rushing touchdown by sophomore standout De’Anthony Thomas in the third quarter.

But the game quickly turned into a war of attrition, with both sides trading punts and battling for field position.

Keeping Oregon in a tight contest — unfamiliar territory for the Ducks, if one’s being honest — Stanford held the ball for more than 10 minutes of the fourth quarter. Cardinal running back Stepfan Taylor gashed Oregon’s injury-depleted middle, racking up 46 of his 156 rushing yards in the last quarter alone.

The dagger came with 1:35 left on the clock. Hogan hit tight end Zach Ertz for a 10-yard touchdown that initially was ruled incomplete. Video evidence overturned the call, however, and sent both teams into overtime.

Each team had just one possession, and Maldonado missed his kick. Williamson didn’t.

What it means. Mariota and Kelly both acknowledged the loss hurt but emphasized the need to focus on what’s ahead of them: Civil War against Oregon State. The Beavers dismantled Cal on Saturday night, and a win over the Ducks next Saturday would freeze Oregon out of the Pac-12 Championship game. The best-case scenario would potentially be an at-large BCS bid to a second-tier bowl — the Orange Bowl or the Fiesta Bowl, for instance.

No natty. No Rose Bowls. No Pac-12 titles.

Additionally, if Stanford beats UCLA next weekend, Oregon’s performance against Oregon State will matter little. The only way Oregon can play, and host, a second-consecutive Pac-12 Championship Game is if Stanford loses to the Bruins, and Oregon beats Oregon State.

And that’s just within the Pac-12.

With No. 1 Kansas State losing to unranked Baylor, the BCS picture is even more clouded. For all intents and purposes, Oregon’s chance at a BCS National Championship is shot. Undefeated Notre Dame will ascend to the top spot after Saturday’s win over Wake Forest, and a slew of SEC teams — Alabama, Georgia and Florida — will jostle with the Ducks and the Wildcats behind them. What happens now is anyone’s guess.

Turning point. Despite the seesaw battle, Oregon held a legitimate shot to win right up until Maldonado’s kick hit the left upright. Autzen, loud as ever, fell silent, and students and fans refused to leave their seats for long after Stanford took its celebration into the visitor’s locker room.

Put all the Kristen Stewart acting jokes and Team Edward/Team Jacob hysteria aside, and what you’re left with in “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part Two” is a visually impressive science fiction/thriller with plenty of action and head-ripping-off to go around.

I’ll admit, I read all of the “Twilight” books when they first came out, but I only saw the inaugural movie and “Part One” of the two films made from the last novel in the series.

The first movie made me gag from its cheesiness. But “Part One” was a guilty, but nonetheless entertaining rental choice on an extremely late and bored night.

I only could imagine the final chapter to the “saga” only could be better. And, trust me, director Bill Condon (who worked on the fourth film) and crew certainly didn’t disappoint.

“Part Two” picks up right where its predecessor left off, in the process of cleaning up “Part One’s” post-birth — both in terms of the birth of Bella’s (Kristen Stewart) daughter Renesmee and Bella’s birth into full-fledged vampiredom. Bella is a newborn vampire, complete with bloodthirsty red eyes, flawless beauty and fancy set of undead skills to match.

She wants to see her baby, but the “I want to suck your blood” thing and Jacob (Taylor Lautner) imprinting on Renesmee gets in the way. Thus, Edward (Robert Pattinson) takes her for a lively jog through the forest — a.k.a. running at break-neck speeds, scaling cliffs and tackling mountain lions — to try to get her newfound thirst under control.

From then, the movie is full of drama. A fair deal of humor is thrown into the mix, as Bella, out of her awkward human years, is now in her awkward years as a gorgeous vampire and has to learn to deal with the major adjustment. This is where Stewart eases up on her signature sulkiness and starts to let loose in her altered role.

What this movie also has that the others lacked is an interesting slew of minor supporting characters. The Volturi (coven of vampires who enforce vampire laws) are sure Renesmee (Mackenzie Foy) is some kind of unnatural threat against their kind and are dead set on confronting (and likely destroying) the Cullens. Alice (Ashley Greene), with her clairvoyant abilities, is able to warn the family and allow them time to gather friends and allies from across the globe to act as witnesses to Renesmee’s unthreatening nature.

Enter in Alaskan Kate (Casey LaBow), who can stun vampires with her taser-like physical electricity; Egyptian Benjamin (Rami Malek), who has insane control over the elements; Amazonian Zafrina (Judith Shekoni), who has the ability to create amazingly realistic visual illusions; and American nomad Garrett (Lee Pace), who is incredibly good looking and should’ve been introduced into the franchise much earlier.

Obviously, subtlety isn’t “Twilight’s” strong suit, so at certain points it’s just best to go with the extremely over-the-top, computer generated flow — which is half the fun of watching it anyway. The most notable example is the tremendous fight scene between the Volturi and the Cullen mini-army. Extremely intense and well staged, a major twist is thrown into the mix — one that wasn’t included in the books — that only makes things that much more thrilling.

Those who have yet to buy into author Stephanie Meyer’s undead love saga are unlikely to change their personalities and suddenly laud “Twilight’s” worth as a film franchise. But readers and viewers who have followed the story since its inception will not be disappointed by this final chapter in their beloved series.

Like it or not, the “Twilight” saga’s success and popularity is as immortal as its undead characters — maybe it’s time to give into its “so-not-cool/I’m too hipster for this shit” cheesiness after all.

In response to the re-election of President Barack Obama, some people took to the Internet to vent. Some folks declared they would leave the country.

Now, the hip new disappointment tactic is to petition to secede from the union.

The secession movement stems from Texas, where an online petition to secede has more than 93,000 signatures as of Nov. 14 on WhiteHouse.gov.

According to ABCNews, the White House said it will review petitions that collect more than 25,000 signatures in 30 days, like the petition from Texas.

The Obama administration created the “We the People” website in 2011 so that Americans could easily petition for the redress of grievances. So naturally, people in more than 35 states have started petitions to free their states of the now socialist government of America. Arizona is one of them.

Let’s take a moment to think about what the world would be like if Arizona seceded: First of all, Jan Brewer would be the president.

Welcome back to the union.

Secession isn’t exactly new to Arizona. In 2011, people in Tucson wanted to secede from the state of Arizona to create Baja Arizona. They were driven to make the move because they were tired of the Republican policies of the state, specifically ones that defied the power of the federal government.

Though less far-fetched, because secession from states has happened before without resulting in war (see Maine from Massachusetts and West Virginia from Virginia), the idea was just as ridiculous as current attempts to secede from the union.

It was as though people thought that once Obama was re-elected, the country would turn into an apocalyptic state, where those gay folks getting married would forever destroy straight marriage and all the poor people would knock on the rich people’s doors for free money, as if every day were grown-up Halloween.

But people are forgetting a pretty important fact: Obama has already been in office for four years. Things aren’t going to start going to hell because he has another four years. In fact, things are probably going to get better.

You know that whole economy thing people are worried about? Prior to the election, a Slate magazine analysis predicted that by maintaining current trends, 7.8 million new jobs would be created, regardless of who won the election. And financial experts predicted that, with some improvements, there will be around 12 million new jobs created.

And you know that universal health care thing everyone is freaking out about? The majority of democratic countries around the world have that. Want to move to Canada? England? Spain? Australia? All of those countries have the same universal health care that you’re so angry about.

It’s time to come out of your toddler years, and stop throwing a hissy fit every time something doesn’t go your way. Secede from the union? That’s bullshit. We don’t need to be even more divided right now.

Sure, maybe it’s the crazy people that actually think about seceding, but we need to cut those crazy people out of the conversation.

Let people who want to secede leave the country to form a new one. They can move to a tropical island and call it Idiotsland. I’ll make sure to never visit.

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that independent groups could spend infinite amounts of money on political campaigns. This decision, and the ensuing creation of countless Super PACs, led many to worry that incredibly rich individuals would now be able to buy elections by radically outspending their opponents.

Thankfully, this does not appear to be the case. While there were a great deal of contributions made to Super PACs by wealthy individuals and many wealthy candidates self-funding their campaigns, it appears that having more money does not always win an election. No amount of spending can convince the public to elect a candidate they just don’t like.

Although Super PACs are legally forbidden from coordinating with candidates’ official campaigns, there are many that have been created solely to support one candidate. In the presidential race, Restore Our Future backed Governor Mitt Romney, and Priorities USA Action backed President Obama. Over the course of the election, Restore our Future spent $142,645,946, and Priorities USA Action spent $66,482,084. In addition, the American Crossroads Super PAC run by Republican Karl Rove outspent Obama’s own PAC, spending $91,115,402. Yet despite his Super PAC spending over two and a half times more than his opponent’s and having the help of other groups like American Crossroads, Romney still lost the election by a significant margin. While it certainly had an impact, spending by Super PACs did not decide the presidential election.

Similarly, wealthy individuals were unable to buy the election, in spite of their new ability to contribute unlimited amounts of money to Super PACs. The biggest individual spender of the 2012 election was casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who contributed a total of $53.7 million to various campaigns and Super PACs. All eight of the candidates backed by Adelson lost. Harold Simmons, the second-highest spender at $26.9 million, donated to 7 campaigns. Six of them lost.

Of course, there are some other explanations to consider when looking at these trends. It is possible that candidates who were trailing in the polls attracted more donations than those who were leading by healthy margins. A candidate in a safe seat does not need to spend a lot to win, while an underdog needs more money in order to have a chance at victory. This is especially true when running against an incumbent, a difficult and costly endeavor.

Money is certainly a factor in political campaigns. There is no denying that. In fact, having a sizeable war chest is essentially a requirement of winning an election. Yet whether a campaign is fueled by a nearly anonymous Super PAC or a wealthy self-funding candidate, money alone isn’t enough to win. A core principle of American democracy is that one person gets one vote and no amount of money can convince voters to elect someone they don’t like.

Banning the sale of bottled water on campus might seem like an odd way to take a stand against social injustice, but few people fully understand exactly what they are sipping from their disposable plastic bottles.  The issues associated with bottled water and the privatization of water in general far exceed those of roadside litter and landfills.

The environmental issues surrounding bottled water are nothing new. Plastic bottles are made from a byproduct of refining oil and, when accompanied with the gasoline used to transport the bottles from one place to another, give bottled water a huge carbon footprint. Also, only 10 percent of plastic bottles are recycled, sending the rest to landfills, incinerators and waterways, according to Food & Water Watch.

One issue students may find particularly hard to swallow is the effect that water privatization has on human rights in our global community. Buying bottled water supports international companies who have succeeded in privatizing all municipal water in third world countries. The privatization of Bolivian water has led to a doubling of water prices. Many Bolivians cannot afford the price increase and there have been mass riots across the nation.

In addition to hurting the global water system, buying bottled water supports unjust efforts right here at home. Several towns in our country have had their municipal water sources claimed and bottled by big companies like Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Even during times of drought, these Americans are forced to buy what used to be a free resource. Even as they grow thirsty, the companies continue to bottle.

In a survey administered to the American U. community in October 2012, one student posed the argument that purchasing bottled water is everyone’s right. In response, students declared our freedoms only extend until they infringe on the rights of others. Everyone has a right to clean, safe drinking water. This freedom should not be sacrificed for our luxury of drinking from disposable bottles while our sinks are filled with safer, cleaner water.

The most common misconception about bottled water is its superiority to tap water. D.C. tap water is checked for bacteria several times a day and has a water quality report available online. Nationally, tap water is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Safe Drinking Water Act and is held to higher standards for safety than bottled water, which is regulated as a food product by the Food and Drug Administration. Additionally, the FDA gives the responsibility for safety checks directly to the bottled water companies, who are never legally required to release this information.

Also, plastic water bottles contain PETs, a chemical that is linked with cancer and reproductive issues. PETs begin to leak from the bottle and into the water instantly. The chemicals leak into the water increasingly due to the duration and temperature at which the bottle is kept. Ironic that the labels wrapped around those bottles read “pure,” “clean,” and “natural.”

The Take Back the Tap campus group is working to ban the sale of bottled water on the AU campus. Our goal is to have the administration agree to a campus-wide ban of bottled water sales. Bottled water will be available off campus and all other bottled beverages will continue to be available for purchase on campus. To find out more about the issue or get involved, please contact TakeBackTheTapAU@gmail.com.

Water is life, and life shouldn’t be privatized.

In just one year, senior running back Cierre Wood went from 5,641 rushing yards and 71 touchdowns in high school to zero his freshman year. Zero yards, zero touchdowns and zero playing time.

“I was thinking about [transferring after freshman year],” Wood said. “I didn’t like the position I was in and stuff like that. But [running backs] coach [Tony] Alford kept me grinding the whole time I’ve been here along with a couple of my teammates. And we decided we were going to make it work and found a way to make it happen.”

Recruited by former Irish coach Charlie Weis, Wood was a highly regarded four-star recruit, also receiving offers from Auburn, Florida and USC. Coming from all the attention to none at all was a definite challenge, combined with the adjustment to the frigid weather.

“In the beginning it was terrible, because of the fact that it was so cold,” he said. “But once you’ve been out here for a long time, you begin to adapt. And once I got that, it felt easier at that point.”

Wood has his sights set on something beyond his collegiate career, 2,275 rushing yards, 15 touchdowns and three seasons later.

“I can’t really say it, but it has to do with the [NFL],” Wood said. “If they give me good news, I might skedaddle. It all depends, but that is what it will come down to. But I’m not really worried about that.”

West Coast bias

When it comes down to home, the Oxnard, Calif., native had only one thing to say.

“West Coast, best coast, West Coast is the best coast,” Wood said.

Wood started his spectacular high school career in Long Beach, Calif., at Long Beach Poly, the same school that produced NFL talents DeSean Jackson, Marcedes Lewis and Willie McGinest. But Wood transferred before his sophomore year to Santa Clara High School, where he rushed for 2,612 yards and 34 touchdowns in his junior year alone.

And even though he is in his fourth year away from home, Wood said he still misses the luxuries of home.

“I miss everything. In-N-Out [Burger]. Going to the beach, all the clubs in Hollywood. Going shopping,” Wood said. “Everything in California is just better than any other place in the world. There is something to do at all times. You’ll never be bored. You can go outside, literally walk outside your door, and something is bound to happen. I don’t think it’s the same with the Midwest or the East.”

Although some things could not come to South Bend with him, Wood said he brought the mentality of his state with him, and it has translated in between the tackles as well.

“Just the fact that in California, people don’t really trip out about a lot of stuff,” Wood said. “Everybody’s calm, everybody’s collected. My demeanor is just real cool. When things go down, a lot of people always ask me why I am so nonchalant about stuff. But I just can’t help it. Even when I’m mad, I don’t really trip out about it. That’s just how I roll.”

No matter wherever his life takes him, Wood said one thing will remain constant.

“[I’m a California boy] through and through. It doesn’t matter where [I live].”

All-around effort

Coming from high school to college, Wood worked on refining his raw athleticism and speed into a lethal combination of agility and power.

“At the beginning it was all finesse, but I had to learn how to become a complete back,” Wood said. “If I had to go in between the tackles, I would be able to do it. Or I could be the speedy guy on the outside. Once I got here I learned how to do it.

“That’s how it is in the [NFL]. That’s part of why we are here. We are not doing this for nothing. The backs in the league now are all well-rounded. There are some that are finesse and make it work. But at some point you have to have the physicality to run up the middle. I figured I should get a start on that early rather than later.”

The senior gained 23 pounds between the summer of his freshman year and his senior year, putting in the work during and after practice. He even went as far as to ask senior linebacker Manti Te’o to hit and tackle him repeatedly so the 6-foot, 215-pound back could improve his toughness and pass blocking.

“I really wasn’t good at pass blocking at the beginning, so [Te’o] is a good pass rusher,” he said. “When I got here, we had a bunch of big dudes like [linebackers] Kerry Neal and Brian Smith. So what I would do is have them line up coming off the edge and do their best move, whether it be a bull rush or whatever. That’s what made me get better.”

Last season, Wood’s hard work paid off, becoming just the 11th player in Notre Dame history to surpass the 1,000-yard rushing mark, highlighted by a career high 191 yards on 20 carries against Purdue on Oct. 1, 2011. Despite missing the first two games of the 2012 season for violating team rules, Wood has rushed for 570 yards and three touchdowns while averaging 6.3 yards per carry.

But one play this season still has the running back fuming: a goal-line fumble in the second overtime against Pittsburgh on Nov. 3.

“I don’t care what anyone says, I know I [scored],” Wood said. “The ball crossed the plane, but it is what it is. It shouldn’t have happened, but it did. I am just happy we won the game. My teammates kept me up. And we are still undefeated. I don’t care what people say about the game, we still won and that still counts.

“I was kind of upset about it, but you have to snap out of it and step right back.”

In his Notre Dame career, Wood has recorded four two-touchdown performances, with the latest coming in a 41-3 win over Miami on Oct. 6. But he has yet to score three touchdowns in a single game.

“I can do it,” he said. ”If they need me to, I could get five. I know I can get multiple. If I get the ball out there, I know it can happen.”

Lasting bonds

In his four years at Notre Dame, Wood has had plenty of time to develop a reputation as a lovable jokester within the Irish locker room, where no one is safe from a verbal onslaught.

“They all have nicknames. Chocolate drop [Louis Nix]. [Robby Toma] is Tommy from ‘The Rugrats.’ We all have nicknames,” Wood said. “[Being a jokester] is just how I am. Being from California, everyone just makes fun of each other. I was born and raised like that, so I might as well bring it here.”

But Wood said he has developed a special bond and target for his barbs in his roommates and fellow four-star recruits from the class of 2009: defensive tackle Tyler Stockton and running back Theo Riddick.

“We are around each other as often as possible,” he said. “I live with Theo, so I see him every day. So being around him everyday, we can pick up on each other’s tendencies and learn a lot more from each other.”

Always trying to one-up the same back he shares carries and a house with, Riddick interrupted Wood and jokingly gave his take on his fellow senior.

“If you ask him if he can paint, he will say he’s the best painter. If you ask him ‘Can you play tennis?’ He will say he is the next Serena [Williams],” Riddick said. “He thinks he is the best at everything. Let me correct that: I’m the best. Don’t let anybody else tell you different.”

For Wood, going to school more than 2,000 miles away from home has been a journey mixed with hardships, roadblocks and change. But it has also been one mixed with diligence, resolve and camaraderie — something Wood said he will never forget.

“There are a lot of experiences basically,” he said. “From coming out of the tunnel to going to class or playing on the field, I’ll take in everything I’ve been through since I’ve been here.”

This Monday was supposed to see the start of the trial of Al Baghdadi al Mahmoudi, the former Prime Minister of Libya under Moammar Gaddafi. He is facing charges of corruption and the ordering of mass rape during last year’s uprising. The trial was scheduled to start only four days after Libya’s parliament swore in their Prime Minister Ali Zeidan’s cabinet, the first democratically elected government Libya has seen in four decades. Although al Mahmoudi’s trial has been postponed for a month, Oct. 20, 2012 marked the one-year anniversary of former Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi’s death and al Mahmoudi’s trial is an important reminder that, although Libya is moving in the right direction, Gaddafi’s legacy continues to present challenges for Libya’s transition to democracy.

In his 40 years of power, Gaddafi suppressed Libyan civil society, violently repressing any perceived threat to his rule. Gaddafi was ruthless and unforgiving. University students, a source of potential for change, knew this all too well. In April 1977, following university student protests in 1976, Omar Dabbob and Mohammaad ben Saud were hanged in public on the campus of Tripoli’s Al-Fateh University. Leaving nothing to chance, the hangings were broadcast on state television, in case anyone was still unaware of the consequences of dissent. The students had held anti-Gaddafi protests in light of his declaration banning all independent student unions. Between 1977 and 1984, April 7 was a day of annual public student executions and a tragic symbol of the demise of Libyan civil society.

Although civil society is showing promising signs of revival, it is still incredibly weak after decades of violence and oppression. Since Ghaddafi’s death, private media has been allowed to operate again, seeing a proliferation of services such as an English-only radio channel. Such services would have been unheard of under Ghaddafi’s rule and have helped move Libya’s press to be given the status “partly free” in the 2012 Freedom House Index. These tentative signs of progress, while positive, are exactly that: tentative. Only last year, the Freedom House Global Press Freedom Index placed Libya fourth to last, narrowly beating Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and North Korea.

Libya’s weak civil society is also threatened by a traditionally divided Libya. Libya has always been a country more divided, both regionally and tribally, than unified. One of Gaddafi’s political talents was to manipulate the rival sentiments between regions, cities and tribes in a classic divide-and-conquer or, more accurately, a divide-and-control maneuver. Today, these exacerbated natural divisions in society are compounded by the current ubiquitous presence of firearms. October 24 saw government aligned militias, finally, proclaiming victory over Gaddafi loyalist militias in Bani Walid, a Gaddafi loyalist hold out. It had taken them an entire year.

That Bani Walid was won by government-aligned militia, not by the government military force, is an important distinction, reflecting the weakness of the central government. Only two hours west of Bani Walid is the city of Misurata, transformed in the past year into a de facto city-state by all the violence. Visitors are greeted by a formidable wall of checkpoints and a ready view of armed militias guarding the city borders.

One year after Gaddafi, Libya has defied critics’ fears of a civil war. But with a weak civil society marred by tribal and regional factionalism, Zeidan and his government must focus strengthening the foundations of civil society and reconciliation. Calls a year ago to form various Truth and Reconciliation Committees, inspired by the South African focus on accuracy and healing, should not be forgotten. The process of reconciliation is just as important of an antidote to decreasing violence as law enforcement, both in the long and short term.

Recently the International Criminal Court has asked that Libya not grant amnesty to Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, former heir-apparent. While Zeidan and his government might be tempted to grant amnesty to past perpetrators, the process of reconciliation requires thinly balancing the need for a country to forget and move on, and the need for a country to remember.

Reconciliation on a more national, or collective, level is essential for a country to come to terms with its past. The role of “TRCs” lies in their ability to introduce to society a respect for the rule of law. By creating peace and stability through the rule of law, reconciliation will be a key component to a successful transition to democracy for Libya.  Hence, it is important that Zeidan does not extend amnesty to Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and that he allows the ICC to continue their inquiries.

The recent Libyan focus on individual trials as a way of reckoning with the past should be supplemented by a strategy to include all stakeholders of the conflict. Since Libya faces the danger of factionalism, TRCs should focus on “group sessions” where tribes come together in a safe space to have meaningful dialogue.

Four decades of repression and violence will not die overnight; it will be a long process, surely dented by a few setbacks here and there. But it is important to start the process now.