A Romanian philosophy lecturer has been accused of indecent, immoral and behaviour unworthy of a member of the faculty when he posted nude pictures of him and his wife on their shared blog [click the picture to go there, site is in Romanian.] The mass-media picked up the �story� and television crews assaulted him before he was supposed to talk to the dean about this situation. It seems that the main issue had to do with his blog being linked from the lecturer�s University page and this could have given the impression that, in some way, his views on nudism were an official position of the University.
Let it be told that I do not know either this lecturer nor - at this point - the content of those pictures, as pressures from the faculty prompted him to remove them from his blog post. This is irrelevant to the topic anyway. Why I support Gramo [and if you would like to do the same, use the picture above and link to his blog and read more at netoo] is because of the mentalities involved in this mess, especially those of both the news editor and those of the mass-media [as far as I have managed to perceive them.]
There have been copyright violations [the CC license under which those pictures have been published does not allow commercial use,] invalid claims regarding what the pictures� content was as well as generally bad technological references in regards to where those pictures were stored, how access was made etc
A lot of issues were centred around the lecturer�s role, as a member of the faculty, to uphold a morally adequate behaviour that would be exemplary to his students. It is thus inferred that his nude pictures and pro-nudist attitude are morally questionable and negatively influencing his students. It is thus proved that the powers that be are clueless as to what the role of an instructor should be in a society that needs intellectual progress and a change of mentalities as badly as Romania does. I have read positive comments about this lecturer in the original article�s comments from people that have appreciated the education they have received from �Gramo-boy�. I also happen to strongly and effervescently believe that exposure to new ideas and concepts, while occasionally offensive, is necessary for evolution and progress at the micro- and macro-social levels. I do not know whether the editor of the article was bitter for not being able to so openly express herself - after all, many people have repressed their wishes for a reason or another - or simply the unlucky possessor of a very retroactive mindset. I think those that have sided against this lecturer are losing track of what education really entails and what the distinction between private and public life is. Please spare me the �linked from the University�s website� argument; does my page - hosted under my account at my University - reflect in any way the views of the institution, or even those of the undergraduate student body? Do you need to have a degree to be able to tell the difference, or were the students and peers of this lecturer able to distinguish what exactly that blog was meant to represent?
And why is nudism immoral?
It is easier to call upon the writer of this article and say she has communist views than to sit down and think about what is happening and how you can take part in changing the �status quo�. I am glad to see the response throughout the Romanian blogosphere [I think I have first read about this at Zoso but Nihasa's post from today is what prompted me to write this piece] and to see that more and more people begin to challenge the outdated mentalities under which they were educated. It helps to show - if at all needed - that even despite these mentalities, people that are able to think for themselves still come about and try to do something positive.
so we have these devices with lights in them in a bunch of major US cities: Boston; New York; Los Angeles, California; Chicago, Illinois; Atlanta, Georgia; Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Austin, Texas; San Francisco, California; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. and so people get all frightened and scared, in Boston, that they may be bombs. only in Boston. not NY, where 9/11 took place or anywhere else, for two weeks; but one morning, in Boston, somebody got all scared and called 911. and they brought in the bomb squad. which, after destroying one of the devices, was still unable to admit that they were just circuit boards with batteries, a light sensor and LEDs. I mean, don’t the bomb squad people undergo electronics training? or do they just send in their little robot to perform the ‘blowing up’ of the device hoping no biochemical agents are present?
