Over the past few decades, an immense industry for the production and consumption of pornography has grown, with the increasing use of the VCR, the DVD, and the Internet, as well as the emergence of social attitudes more tolerant of sexual portrayals. Performers in pornography are referred to as pornographic actors (or actresses), or the more commonly known title “porn star” and are generally seen as qualitatively different from their mainstream counterparts. Amateur pornography has become widely popular and generally distributed via the Internet for free.

Pornography may use any of a variety of media, ranging from printed literature, photos, sculpture, drawing, painting, animation, sound recording, film, video, or video game. However, when sexual acts are performed for a live audience, by definition it is not pornography, as the term applies to the depiction of the act, rather than the act itself. Thus, portrayals such as sex shows and striptease are not classified as pornography.

In most countries pornography is considered and treated differently, both culturally and legally, from depictions of nudity in art or photography.

The word derives from the Greek πορνογραφία (pornographia), which derives from the Greek words πόρνη (pornē, “prostitute” and pornea, “prostitution”), and γράφω (graphō, “I write or record,” derived meaning “illustration,” cf. “graph”), and the suffix -ία (-ia, meaning “state of,” “property of,” or “place of”), thus meaning “a written description or illustration of prostitutes or prostitution.”

Una din marile placeri ale politicii infantile, ale politicii incapabile de a gestiona universul administrativ al unei tari este bucuria, adusa aproape de orgasm, a reformei. Incapacitatea de a întelege de ce lucrurile merg prost, de ce aceleasi institutii si aceleasi cadre normative eficiente la altii sunt deficitare la noi conduce la ideea simpla ca ele trebuie reconstruite de la zero. La urma urmei, daca nu putem conduce eficient diversele sectoare ale vietii sociale si nici macar repara institutiile deficitare, atunci pur si simplu le „resetam“, adica le refacem, redefinind permanent universul organizatiilor si politicilor. Incapacitatea de a conduce coerent si eficient o simpla organizatie naste în politicieni aspiratia de a construi si de a ctitori un întreg domeniu de activitate.

Marea dorinta a întemeierii se bazeaza, în realitate, pe un handicap sever legat de absenta unor minime competente de management. De aici dorinta politicienilor români de a reforma perment institutiile, de aici nevoia fiecarui ministru de a face reforma lui, dorinta sa reînfiinteze, sa desfiinteze, sa redefineasca total sau partial modurile anterioare în care se savârseau diverse activitati. În realitate, aceste reforme nu sunt deloc ceea ce pretind a fi. Aceasta pentru ca schimbarile se produc mult mai rapid decât ar putea produce ele efectele care sa le demonstreze eficienta sau ineficienta. De fapt, dorinta de reforma este legata si de altceva. De frumusetea secreta a numelui pe care îl poarta. A face reforma pare o îndeletnicire teribil de importanta, care da greutate unui politician, care sugereaza într-o maniera discreta ca reprezinta panaceul solutiilor miraculoase de salvare de la dezastrul din jurul nostru. Cu alte cuvinte, reforma, în sine, este un lucru bun, un titlu de noblete pe care orice politician trebuie sa-l poarte si sa se mândreasca cu el, sa-l puna pe perete ca pe o diploma care certifica performanta si înalta competenta. Marea problema este ca, de cele mai multe ori, iubitorii reformelor sunt mânati în lupta de redefinire a institutiilor si politicilor de un serios handicap produs din lipsa lor totala de competenta de a guverna. Din acest motiv, ceea ce propun ei nu reprezinta, de regula, decât alte moduri de a face aceleasi lucruri, adica, asa cum a intuit acum o suta de ani Caragiale, schimbarile lor sunt în realitate „pe ici pe colo“. În orizontul apropiat al lunii septembrie, Guvernul ne anunta ca urmeaza sa îsi asume raspunderea pe un pachet legislativ privitor la învatamânt. Desigur, înca nu stim exact forma finala, pentru ca doi ministri, asa este în coalitie, au pareri diferite despre ce trebuie facut. Fostul ministru Miclea si actuala ministra Andronescu au, în mod firesc, reformele lor personale în minte, ce nu par sa se împace. În perspectiva apropierii alegerilor prezidentiale care, probabil, vor însemna rapid si o schimbare, daca nu o remaniere severa a Guvernului, aceste reforme, atât de disputate, aproape sigur nu vor fi puse în practica, pentru ca un alt ministru, posibil, va veni cu o alta reforma, mai mândra si mai frumoasa. Personal, nu dau doi bani pe refomele propuse de domnul Miclea sau de doamna Andronescu. De ce? Pentru ca în realitate ele nu sunt decât interventii prostesti în sistem, ansambluri de masuri care nu au nicio baza reala, pentru ca nu schimba elementele de fundament ale sistemului, nu fac altceva decât sa încerce, mai mult euristic, sa schimbe diferiti parametri dupa modele fals occidentale.

Modificarea structurii examenelor, introducerea de noi testari, modificarea  modului de desfasurare a bacalaureatului, obligativitatea extinsa sau nu a numarului de ani de scoala, ca si multe alte astfel de masuri nu au nicio legatura cu reforma sistemului si în niciun caz nu pot rezolva vreo deficienta importanta a învatamântului.
Marile probleme ale învatamântului românesc contemporan sunt multe, dar cea mai importanta dintre ele este legata de un lucru vital: de nivelul de calificare al resursei umane din sistem, totodata determinat de prabusirea standardelor de calitate. Incompetenta severa a unei parti consistente a profesorilor din România este reala. Competenta în scoala româneasca s-a insularizat, s-a restrâns în adevarate oaze în care au supravietuit directori performanti si cadre didactice dedicate si bine pregatite. În rest, numeri pe degete profesorii foarte buni dintr-o scoala. Dincolo de lumea scolilor si liceelor bune, exista un univers în care scoala nu are resurse umane capabile sa functioneze eficient. Faptul ca doamna sau domnii ministri considera ca trebuie date altfel examenele sau schimbate disciplinele sunt lucruri care nu pot avea niciun efect.
Exista mii de profesori suplinitori în sistem care nu sunt în stare sa ia examene de definitivat sau care obtin la nivel minim calificative ca sa poata preda. Am ajuns la situatia groaznica în care aproape niciun student de la facultatile care pot da profesori nu doreste, sub nicio forma, sa se faca profesor si, prin urmare, foarte putini tineri valorosi mai intra în sistem. Si asta de ani de zile.
De curând am avut ocazia sa ma uit pe chestionarele unei cercetari nationale realizate la nivelul tuturor profesorilor din România. Acesta avea multe întrebari deschise, la care profesorii raspundeau liber. Din zece chestionare, cel putin sapte aveau probleme grave, fie de gramatica, fie de gândire sau de întelegere a solicitarii din chestionar. Nu mai spun ca am gasit numeroase cazuri în care mai multi profesori dintr-o scoala au copiat unii dupa altii, adica au avut exact aceleasi greseli gramaticale.
Sistemul de învatamânt este, în realitate, în pragul metastazei. Efectele dezastruoase înca nu se vad atât de bine pentru simplul motiv ca efectele maxime ale schimbarilor din sistemul de învatamânt se produc la minimum zece-cincisprezece ani. Altfel spus, indiferent de ce schimbam astazi, vârful dezastrului va urma oricum în perspectiva urmatorilor ani.
La aceste probleme grave, raspunsul nu îl reprezinta introducerea sau nu a geografiei la bacalaureat sau introducerea unui examen dupa clasa a V-a sau orice astfel de masura. Aceste abordari seamana mai mult cu sfatul pe care i l-am da cuiva care are cancer sa nu mai stea în curent sau sa citeasca o carte sa mai uite de necaz.
Pentru ca ministrii nostri nu stiu unde este, de fapt, problema, simt nevoia sa se impuna printr-o abordare dramatica, ce sa poarte macar amprenta nobila a schimbarii eroice. Ei fac reforme.
Vom avea si în continuare parte permanent de reforme, tot mai multe si mai frumoase, care nu vor schimba în realitate nimic sau, poate, cel mult ceva, pe ici pe colo…

Pătrăşcanu was kept in detention until 1954, when he was executed, with Koffler, in Jilava, near Bucharest, after a show trial overseen by Iosif Chişinevschi. It is possible that he was tortured throughout the questioning conducted on direct orders from the Securitate’s Alexandru Drăghici, and he had one leg amputated for unknown reasons before his trial.

In preparation for the procedures, the Securitate took direct inspiration from the Slánský trials in Communist Czechoslovakia (where a team of Romanian officers had been sent to take notes) and, possibly, from the Soviet Trial of the Twenty One (which was allegedly used as template for Calmanovici’s fabricated confession).

Pătrăşcanu refused to be represented by a lawyer, and even to organize his own defense. Aside from some outbursts against the prosecutors, he stated:

“I have nothing to say, except [that I] spit on the charges brought against me.”

The actions taken against Pătrăşcanu and others signaled the start of a wave of arrests and prison sentences, including that of his wife, as well as those of Harry Brauner, Lena Constante, Petre Pandrea (who was Pătrăşcanu’s brother-in-law), Herant Torosian, Mocsony Stârcea, Calmanovici, Victoria Sârbu (who had been Ştefan Foriş’ lover), and Alexandru Ştefănescu. In preparation for the trial, the Securitate organized violent interrogations of political detainees (among others, the National Peasant Party’s Corneliu Coposu and the Liberal politician Bebe Brătianu) or suspects (Gheorghe Tătărescu, who testified against Pătrăşcanu and was the target of a sharp rebuke from the latter).

Belu Zilber, the first of the group to give in to Securitate pressures and confessed to the charges, was verbally attacked by Pătrăşcanu inside the courthouse — Pătrăşcanu notably accused him of having invented the entire conspiracy account. Records of their various interrogations show that both he and Calmanovici identified Emil Bodnăraş as the main instigator of their downfall.

In 1946-1947, he was nevertheless a member of the Tătărescu-headed Romanian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, and, in fact, one of the signatories of the Peace Treaty with Romania. According to Belu Zilber, during this time, he read Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon (a glimpse into forced confessions alluding to the 1936-1937 Moscow Trials, the book was banned throughout the Eastern Bloc). The attitudes he expressed in Paris were considered nationalist by his Soviet overseers, and he himself complained to jGheorghiu-Dej about the party’s suspicion surrounding his diplomatic activities.

He was progressively marginalized inside the Party: his texts became subject to censorship and, on public occasions, his name was mentioned after those of less significant politicians. The Communist press virtually ceased referring to Pătrăşcanu as “comrade”, and used instead the more distant formula “Professor Pătrăşcanu”, at the same time as Gheorghiu-Dej’s speeches on combating internal currents of the Party. The VIth Party Congress in February 1948 did not confirm his Central Committee membership, and in the months following the event, he was removed from government office.

Belu Zilber claimed that, having himself been subject to suspicion and marginalization, he had attempted to warn Pătrăşcanu of the change in climate, and had asked him to consider fleeing the Eastern Bloc — only to be stiffly refused. Zilber was eventually arrested in February 1948, on suspicion that he had been a Siguranţa Statului agent infiltrating the party.

Madonna booed in Bucharest for defending Gypsies…

Associated Press – August 27, 2009 1:13 PM PDT

U.S. singer Madonna, center, performs during her concert in Bucharest, Romania, Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2009. The concert is part of Madonna’s Sticky and Sweet Tour. (AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda)Associated Press

BUCHAREST, Romania – At first, fans politely applauded the Roma performers sharing a stage with Madonna. Then the pop star condemned widespread discrimination against Roma, or Gypsies — and the cheers gave way to jeers.

The sharp mood change that swept the crowd of 60,000, who had packed a park for Wednesday night’s concert, underscores how prejudice against Gypsies remains deeply entrenched across Eastern Europe.

Despite long-standing efforts to stamp out rampant bias, human rights advocates say Roma probably suffer more humiliation and endure more discrimination than any other people group on the continent.

Sometimes, it can be deadly: In neighboring Hungary, six Roma have been killed and several wounded in a recent series of apparently racially motivated attacks targeting small countryside villages predominantly settled by Gypsies.

“There is generally widespread resentment against Gypsies in Eastern Europe. They have historically been the underdog,” Radu Motoc, an official with the Soros Foundation Romania, said Thursday.

Roma, or Gypsies, are a nomadic ethnic group believed to have their roots in the Indian subcontinent. They live mostly in southern and eastern Europe, but hundreds of thousands have migrated west over the past few decades in search of jobs and better living conditions.

Romania has the largest number of Roma in the region. Some say the population could be as high as 2 million, although official data put it at 500,000.

Until the 19th century, Romanian Gypsies were slaves, and they’ve gotten a mixed response ever since: While discrimination is widespread, many East Europeans are enthusiastic about Gypsy music and dance, which they embrace as part of the region’s cultural heritage.

That explains why the Roma musicians and a dancer who had briefly joined Madonna onstage got enthusiastic applause. And it also may explain why some in the crowd turned on Madonna when she paused during the two-hour show — a stop on her worldwide “Sticky and Sweet” tour — to touch on their plight.

“It has been brought to my attention … that there is a lot of discrimination against Romanies and Gypsies in general in Eastern Europe,” she said. “It made me feel very sad.”

Thousands booed and jeered her.

A few cheered when she added: “We don’t believe in discrimination … we believe in freedom and equal rights for everyone.” But she got more boos when she mentioned discrimination against homosexuals and others.

“I jeered her because it seemed false what she was telling us. What business does she have telling us these things?” said Ionut Dinu, 23.

Madonna did not react and carried on with her concert, held near the hulking palace of the late communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu.

Her publicist, Liz Rosenberg, said Madonna and other had told her there were cheers as well as jeers.

“Madonna has been touring with a phenomenal troupe of Roma musicians who made her aware of the discrimination toward them in several countries so she felt compelled to make a brief statement,” Rosenberg said in an e-mail. “She will not be issuing a further statement.”

One Roma musician said the attitude toward Gypsies is contradictory.

“Romanians watch Gypsy soap operas, they like Gypsy music and go to Gypsy concerts,” said Damian Draghici, a Grammy Award-winner who has performed with James Brown and Joe Cocker.

“But there has been a wave of aggression against Roma people in Italy, Hungary and Romania, which shows me something is not OK,” he told the AP in an interview. “The politicians have to do something about it. People have to be educated not to be prejudiced. All people are equal, and that is the message politicians must give.”

Nearly one in two of Europe‘s estimated 12 million Roma claimed to have suffered an act of discrimination over the past 12 months, according to a recent report by the Vienna-based EU Fundamental Rights Agency. The group says Roma face “overt discrimination” in housing, health care and education.

Many do not have official identification, which means they cannot get social benefits, are undereducated and struggle to find decent jobs.

Roma children are more likely to drop out of school than their peers from other ethnic groups. Many Romanians label Gypsies as thieves, and many are outraged by those who beg or commit petty crimes in Western Europe, believing they spoil Romania’s image abroad.

In May 2007, Romanian President Traian Basescu was heard to call a Romanian journalist a “stinky Gypsy” during a conversation with his wife. Romania’s anti-discrimination board criticized Basescu, who later apologized.

Human rights activists say the attacks in Hungary, which began in July 2008, may be tied to that country’s economic crisis and the rising popularity of far-right vigilantes angered by a rash of petty thefts and other so-called “Gypsy crime.” Last week, police arrested four suspects in a nightclub in the eastern city of Debrecen.

Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia also have been criticized for widespread bias against Roma.

Madonna’s outrage touched a nerve in Romania, but it seems doubtful it will change anything, said the Soros Foundation‘s Motoc.

“Madonna is a pop star. She is not an expert on interethnic relations,” he said.

Nu e rău să fie asemenea concerte, dar puţină logică în organizare nu ar strica. Deşi Bucureştiul zumzâie cu mult prea mulţi decibeli peste limita normală, acum va urla de-a binelea în zonele cele mai afectate de poluarea fonică.

Nu e cazul să fim împotriva concertelor, dar nu ar strica ca edilii de pe la noi să ia seama şi la modul lor de organizare prin alte colţuri de lume, unde astfel de manifestări au loc undeva în afara centrelor urbane, tocmai pentru a se evita astfel de neajunsuri, dar şi pentru mai multă siguranţă pentru cei doritori.

Dar cine să gândească?

Dacă s-ar mai organiza şi un concurs de formula unu la acelaşi interval orar, ceva mai încolo de spaţiul rezervat concertului, am avea încă un record pe care nu doar că l-am atinge, dar şi l-am suporta cu toţi nervii, câţi mai sunt sănătoşi.

Dar poate că un astfel de eveniment, ca cel al concertului, e exact ce au nevoie locuitorii Capitalei, asemenea celor care sunt supuşi la o bombardare fonică imensă: pentru a evita să tâmpească din cauza zgomotului, urlă şi ei cât pot de tare.

În rest, nervi de oţel în trafic şi timpan din piele de bou să avem!

The word ‘drawing’ is used as both a verb and a noun:

• Drawing (verb) is the act of making marks on a surface so as to create an image, form or shape.
• The produced image is also called a drawing (noun). A quick, unrefined drawing may be defined as a sketch.

In simplistic terms, drawing is distinct from painting, perhaps more so in the Western view; East Asian art, which generally only uses brushes, has historically made less distinction between the two. Critics may praise a painter’s ability to draw well, meaning that the shapes, especially of the human body, are well-articulated, or a drawing may be considered painterly.

Adding confusion, similar tools and media may be used in both tasks. Dry media normally associated with drawing, such as chalk, may be used in pastel painting. Drawing may be done with liquid media applied with brushes or pens. Similar supports likewise can serve both: painting generally involves the application of liquid paint onto prepared canvas or panels, but sometimes an underdrawing is drawn first on that same support. Drawing is generally concerned with the marking of lines and areas of tone onto paper, but watercolor painting uses a paper support. Traditional drawings were monochrome, or at least had little colour, while modern coloured-pencil drawings may approach or cross the boundary (if there is one) between drawing and painting.

The term drawing suggests a process and intent that is distinct from the traditional act of painting. While there are drawings that are finished artworks, drawing is often exploratory, with considerable emphasis on observation, problem solving and composition, often as a means of preparation for a painting. In contrast, traditional painting is often a means of execution or finishing an artwork. It is fair to note that modern painters often incorporate methods of drawing in their painting process, particularly in the early stages of a painting….

A small amount of material is released onto the two dimensional medium which leaves a visible mark—the process is similar to that of painting. The most common support for drawing is paper, although other materials such as cardboard, plastic, leather, canvas and board, may be used. Temporary drawings may be made on a blackboard or whiteboard, or indeed almost anything. The medium has also become popular as a means of public expression via graffiti art, because of the easy availability of permanent markers.