Time Travel, JFK, And Buffy The Vampire Slayer?

     More examples of how art can make us think, bring up questions about the nature of life and reality itself.  I just finished reading Stephen King's "11/22/63."  It was about someone trying to go back in time and save Kennedy.  The main premise was that you can't really do that, that the universe has an order to it, a way things are just supposed to go, and if you mess with it, the very planet itself could come apart.  an interesting thought.  Is this true?  Even if God exists, would he or she be that controling with his/her creation?  The deistic god would have simply set the earth in motion and then let it progress as it would.  But then, in this theory, does there have to be any god at all?  Stephen King didn't mention one.  It was more like a scientific thing, a law of physics or the law of gravity or thermodynamics that states energy can't be created or destroyed that it can only change forms-well, you get the idea.
     We all hate to see bad things happen to good people, and it would be sooo tempting to try and prevent many of the tragedies of our time if we could.  If you could stop 9/11, for example, would you risk unraveling reality to do it(especially considering all the neocon fearmongering, erosion of civil liberties and two wars that have taken place since because of it)? What about the Titanic?  In that case much GOOD came from the tragedy.  Enough lifeboats were required to hold every passenger and there had to be a radio operator on duty 24/7 after that just to name two things.  Obviously, we can't change history, but it does spark a great debate about why bad things happen, and how maybe we should just learn and progress from them rather than bemoan our bad luck.  I think that was the bigger point of King's story, because invariably, all the people the main character tried to help did just fine, even triumphed, despite the limitations caused by the great tragedy in their life.
     The second idea comes from buffy the vampire slayer of all things.  It's about love-the whole buffy/riley romance.  Riley never felt that she really loved him and people like spike agreed.  they felt buffy chose Riley just because he was dependable, safe, compared to someone like Angel, but that eventually she would want someone more exciting.  does exciting equal bad, and does nice and stable equal boring?  it CAN, and often does I think.  My crush qualifies.  He was funny and exciting to be around, but he had serious issues.  now, Robert Downey is a "bad boy" who reformed.  Totally charming, funny, sexy and exciting, but seemingly moral now.  My love, steve had a quirky, funny, very passionate, naughty side, but he was also relatively stable and VERY nice.  Riley though?  He was sooo serious and intense-yep, nice and dependable, but yes, he WAS boring.  I would have ended up going for spike too lol.  A bad boy, but nice too and very funny-like Damon as opposed to Stefan in "The Vampire Diaries."
                                                                    I rest my case lol