Much of our time spent alive is wasted.

We fight over fictional lines in the sand. We bicker over ideas about the unknown that every single one of us thinks that we know. Philosophy can make you think, but all in all, its just fiction. Its advice from which we pick and choose. Advice is ultimately flawed based on the time from which it came in relation to the time that it is applied.

So what if we're just one small part of a huge chain reaction? Does there have to be a philosophical reason for everything? Is it necessary to ask impossible questions to appease the voided brain? It would be arrogant for anyone to assume to know why we're here. Imaginary friends made up by our ancestors will never answer those questions, and yet so many of us assume that they could.

The fact that those mythical deities are made by ancient cultures should be enough to show that the questions they raise are just as imaginably answerable. By assuming that there are deities, we assume that there is a purpose.

Each follower of every imaginary being wants to fight for what they feel is right based on nothing but the comfort they obtain through "faith". Souls become battlegrounds. Ultimately, we end up fighting over something that only exists in the minds of others. Souls aren't things that magically enter you when you're born, and exit toward the sky when you die; souls exist only in the minds of those that you've contacted. Souls exist only in the chemical memories of any being that can remember.

Tear us into pieces, molecule by molecule, and that is all you'll have: molecules.

We're all just a tiny part of one huge chemical chain reaction.

I almost never do this, but I thought ~Mister-Kent had a good one in his journal. Here goes!

1. WITNESS PROTECTION NAME: (mother & father's middle name)
-Ann Meade

2. NASCAR NAME: (first name of your mother's dad, father's dad )
- Maurice Donald

3. STAR WARS NAME: (the first 3 letters of your last name, first 2 letters of your first name)
- Looji

4. DETECTIVE NAME: (favorite color, favorite animal)
- Green Lion

5. SOAP OPERA NAME: (middle name, city where you were born)
- Meade Evans

6. SUPERHERO NAME: (2nd fav color, fav drink, add "THE" to the beginning
- The Orange Bloody Mary

7. FLY NAME: (first 2 letters of 1st name, last 2 letters of your last name)
- Jilo

8. GANGSTA NAME: ( fav ice cream flavor, fav cookie)
- Pumpkin Oatmeal Raisin

9. ROCK STAR NAME: (current pets name, current street name)
- Spanky Second

10. STRIPPER NAME: ( name of your fav perfume/cologne, fav candy)
- Armani Andes

11. PORN NAME: (1st pet, street you grew up on)
- B.J. Clay

Hello everyone!

I have great news... THE ADOLESCENT AMPUTEE CAMP PROGRAM IS BACK!

A former counselor found a way to bring funds into the camp, and as far as I know, the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh will be the primary financial backing!

The money that I've raised was hardly a drop in the bucket as far as what the camp needed to come back, but I'm going to find a creative way to use it (sports equipment, camping gear, books for the kids, camp food, etc.). I really appreciate the fact that many of you have bought prints to support the camp!

Thanks again!

Jim

As all of you know, the United States is in the midst of primary elections. Its an awful time to be an American who even watches a shred of television, as we're bombarded by the media with all kinds of garbage about each campaign. Bias in the different media outlets is revealed, as each bit of coverage exposes vulnerability in the opposing party.

While this kind of bombardment is hard to take, its even harder to take the stance of most Americans on the "issues" seriously. More than ever, a politicians religious view has taken hold in many peoples decision on whether or not to support that particular candidate. One might ask "why is this a problem?", and its hard to pinpoint the exact answer as to why, simply because there isn't just one answer.

First of all, given the many religious paths that the free-willed American is offered, how can the right path be accurately determined? In a country that takes pride in a court system that only holds true when the right evidence is presented, how can we apply the same scrutiny to religion? The truth is that we can't. Religion is not a thing that can be true based on substantial, empirical evidence. Religion is a personal matter, and its the kind of matter that cannot be measured in any material way. Based on the fact that it is like this, how can one apply a personal reality to that of a political candidate, and judge them as such? Our own court system will not allow judgment based on faith, which lacks evidence to back it in the first place. Based on the aforementioned, no single person has the authority to judge a persons morality, character, ideals, or tendency based solely on religion.

Morality and character are derived from the brain, and the only way to measure this is by actually looking at the candidates history of moral decision making. Faith in a higher power does not always equate to justifiable and moral behavior. People of faith are just as likely (if not more likely, based on the number of supposed faithful) to commit an immoral act against modern societal moral standards. Of course, one can look at those who are void of any religious practice and accuse them of the same (Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin), yet, the same people who recognize those faults, refuse to recognize the dogmatic following that those non-religious leaders had. They were authoritative gods to those who followed them. In essence, these leaders took advantage of "faith".

In our modern world, the judgment of a person based on religious belief is ultimately wrong. We are a secular nation, a nation of people who are not restricted of their beliefs based on an authoritative and biased theistic government. If we continue to base our judgments on such trivial matters, we fail in obtaining a truly free society, and instead we obtain right wing theocracy. The incorporation of religion and government should never be allowed, or we may end up like Iran.

I may sound paranoid, but there are millions of others who are in the same boat as I am, and its sinking fast. Everyone has freedom to practice religion, and everyone has freedom from religion.

The practice of religion is not a justifiable means for judgment.

This is my last semester at Slippery Rock University, and I'm actually taking two photo classes (digital imaging and art photography). The digital imaging class is meant for beginners, and is a nice technical review for advanced/intermediate photographers. The art photography class is wonderful, but contains people who just started into photo as well as people who've been around it for quite a while (like me).

Both of these classes share a common peer: newbs. "Newbs" are the type of people who come from many different realms of beginner attitudes.

1. "Nature Newb": The Nature Newb is the arrogant prick who usually believes that "nature is the only art", the guy/girl who spends a whole weekend at a local nature reserve documenting all of the flowers and neat looking rocks within walking distance of the parking lot for said natural area. Their photos are almost always composed dead center, with little thought towards spacial separation and composition. The good side of this newb is the fact that he/she has strong ambition, and has enough of an open mind to, at least, heed advice given in critique.

2. "I like it straight from the camera" newb: This person is of the impression that photographs that come straight from the camera are fine without post processing. Some of these newbs have poor to decent understanding of how cameras work, while almost all of them have no appreciation for darkroom work, which REQUIRES post-processing. Most of them use digital cameras and are lazy for not wanting to edit the photographs.

3. "I have no freakin' clue how to use this thing, but I love taking pictures!" newb: This person isn't harmful at all, but tends to rely way too much on automatic functionality of the camera system they possess. They're easy to spot, as they come in with the camera around their neck with the mode selector on full auto, programmable, or one of various "scene" modes. Many of them obtain decent results, yet they treat photography like that of a whimsical snapshot. Halfway between the nature guy and the "straight from the camera" guy, this person has a stereotypical approach to photography, assuming that "capturing the moment" is far more important than being technically adept.

4. "The Kodak/HP/Gateway Kid" newb: This person is the one who somehow got sold on buying a piece of shit. Not only are they they ultimate combination of the aforementioned, they are also fanboys/fangirls of the garbage camera that they possess (much like a person who uses a Mac). They swear up and down that their beginner level Kodak/HP/Gateway camera is the most amazing thing ever made for photographers, until it breaks.

5. "The Old Guy" newb: This is usually one of those really cool, generally nice kind of guys who has some if not a lot of technical experience, but for some odd reason, he can't apply that technical level to the digital realm of photography. He has usually wasted tons of money on the best and latest equipment, but couldn't use google if his life depended on it. He relies on his peers for technical knowledge, but has no clue how to ask the right questions to get the answer he wants. He should've just stuck with film.

6. "The film/digital only" newb: This person has religious devotion to either of the two mediums, and has no appreciation for the opposing medium. They believe that their format of photography is the only type of photography. They both are technically/aesthetically sound in their respective fields, but their lack of respect for the opposing medium leaves them looking like an arrogant, close-minded tool.

7. "The nerd" newb: All in all, this guy is pretty cool, but he knows way too much about everything except art. They can operate any camera, tell you exactly what it is and how it works, and while they have some fun and interesting approaches based on their technical knowledge, they have no clue how to compose an image or adjust tones properly.

8. "The high contrast/solarizing/sepia tone ALWAYS" newb: This newb is just plain lazy. He/she may be technically adept and have a good eye/sense of composition, but they boost the contrast WAY too high, solarize everything, or put photoshop filters on photographs to avoid showing any amount of technical understanding. Much like the "straight from the camera" person, this person is just as prone to pulling it straight off of the camera or doing in camera editing.

Cheers to another year of newbs!

Later!