PUTTING SKIN IN THE GAME OF JOURNALISTS

[CITIZENS vs GAWKER and CITIZENS vs JOURNALISM]

Journalists as any guild, care about their peers and their community more than
the general public. Except that we cannot afford to have such a community
engage in a conspiracy against the laymen since they represent our interests, us
the lay crowd; they are supposed to stand for the general public against inner
circles of power. Journalism arose from the need to expose falsehood, take risks
in exposing matters detrimental to the public; in short, counter the agency
problem of the powerful. But, it is turning out, the journalism model can also
work in the opposite manner: members have been effective in escaping having
skin in the game only whistleblowers and war correspondents currently do.

So one can see how this severe agency problem can explode with the Gawker
story. The English tabloid machine came to the U.S. in full force with Gawker,
founded by a firm that specializes in dirt on the internet. By dirt I dont mean a
fraudulent transaction abetted by some power: no, the kind of dirt that takes
place in bedrooms (and even in bathrooms).

They sell voyeurism, predator voyeurism.

In other words they want to harm citizens by disclosing their private information
and posting their videos without their permission in the interest of selling
information. And without being accountable for it.

Gawker having posted a video of a celebrity having sex without his permission
incurred a monstrous judgment of $140 million. The suit will bankrupt Gawker.
Most of all, the judgment revealed that such a predatory business model will not
survive, not because it is immoral, but because it has tail risks. For America has
tort laws and a legal mechanism by which people harmed by corporations can be
compensated for it a mechanism that flourished thanks to Ralph Nader. It, along
with the First Amendment protect citizens by putting skin in the game of the
corporations.

Gawker is trying to make a First Amendment argument and unfortunately journos

appear to find this justified while normal citizens are horrified. Liberty in the
thoughts of the founding fathers was not about voyeurism, but about public
matters.
Gawker argued that because the person committing sex on the video they
posted was a public person, that it became a public matter exempted from
privacy protection. People failed to see that should that argument be true, then
next someone spying on any public figure should be allowed to post their
bedroom activity (including Hillary Clinton, Obama, anyone)... (Gawker has
ruined the lives of 21 year olds posting their sex tapes and their reaction was
outrageous; in one instance their lawyer Gaby Darbyshire e-mailed the woman
who was in a revenge sex tape, defending the video as completely newsworthy
and scolding her about how ones actions can have unintended consequences.)

Peter Thiel, a billionaire with a vendetta against Gawker funded a law suit.
Revenge motives perhaps, but this is how the market works: Gawker tries to
make money therefore they need to live with the risk of someone trying to make
money from their demise. (You make money from the demise of a 21 yo,
someone will make money from yours). I would have personally shorted Gawker
(if they were publicly listed) to make money from their collapse. And I am ready
to fund lawsuits against journalists who break some intellectual rules and distort
peoples positions (strawman arguments).

Any journalist who supports Gawker in the name of the First Amendments fails to
understand that they as a community are committing suicide because they are
trivializing the reasons behind the First Amendment and they make it conflict
with other fundamental rights. And a corporation trying to warp our sacred
values should go bankrupt. And anyone, like Peter Thiel, who accelerates such
bankruptcy, should be thanked.

The BMI is gradually losing importance as a health guide as it does not take into
consideration lean muscle mass.

Of much greater significance is the waist-hip ratio ,which is taken by measuring

our circumferences around the waist and hips(both measurements have to be
taken in standing posture).

The narrowest waist circumference (usually around the belly button) and the
widest hip circumference have to be taken.

In males any ratio over 0.9 is more and in females any ratio.over 0.85 is
considered to be more. The raised ratios suggest grave cardiological prognosis
and means that we have much more body fat(at the wrong places)than is
desirable.
We r basically 2 body types

A. Appleshaped when we have more abdominal fat.

B.Pearshaped when we have more fat around our thighs and hips.. both are bad.

SO TAKE YOUR TAPES AND TAKE TWO EASY TO MEASURE CIRCUMFERENCES

.....AND U CAN MODIFY YOUR EXERCISES AND DIET ACCORDINGLY TO KEEP
HEALTHY AND IN GOOD SHAPE.

And stay fit as much as possible not to "look good"but for your "cardiovascular
fitness" in the main and also to remain as much supple and active and energetic
as possible. We have to continue to make our own efforts and the "rest"is upto
God and destiny.

Recently a lot of talk in medical journals focusses on "fitness age"rather than

"chronological age" and as u age chronologically its also important to increase
physical and mental fitness,both of which are mostly inter-related and dependent
on each other to a large extent.

AND DO REMEMBER THAT THE SAME EFFORT WHICH KEPT YOU REASONABLY FIT
FIVE TO TEN YEARS AGO WILL HAVE TO BE DOUBLED TO KEEP YOU FIT NOW.

An introductory 5 minutes speech given in London at an event, by a young

professional of Indian origin. His name Dhritiman Biswas. He spoke extempore
and the points are reproduced here. The topic was a round table on: 'India - is it a
gigantic success or a colossal failure?'

This is what he said:

"Ladies and Gentleman, I am glad I am merely introducing the debate and not
participating as in my humble opinion the question itself is wrong. India, unlike,
many western paradigms cannot be analysed in black and white.. in linear
equations or algorithms such as this.... We hate test cricket yet are the No1 test
ranked country; our ranking in gender diversity is 134, yet the majority of our
bank CEOs, the most misogynist yet of industries are women; our health services
creak and crumble, yet 36 pct of all NHS consultants are Indians; we love
Bollywood tamasha, yet New York philharmonic sold out in 5 mnts in Calcutta in
1984; we struggle with illiteracy, yet are the largest English speaking country in
the world; we riot, fight and squabble, yet remain a thriving democracy whilst
Russia, Arabia, Brazil, Pakistan fall to authoritarianism...India is a concept
devised by the British and therefore in many ways a contradiction, a process , a
work in progress. Our poverty index suggests we are a hopeless failure, our
mobile usage however may allude to resounding success. Our private sector
defaults diabolically like Kingfisher but spectacularly turnaround JLR like TATA.
This question cannot be answered because it is the wrong question to ask. The
right question is - can India be allowed to fail? JP Morgan elegantly points to the
ruins of emerging markets and says India is a nice house in a bad street! I would
add further... The western world is founded on the principles of liberal, free
market, democracy... Outside the OECD and the western Anglo Saxon Protestant
world, literally in the entire globe there is one other example of this experiment
and that is India...we are the West and England's most natural ally... We speak
the language, sing Beatles songs, read Wodehouse and want to grow up to be
Sherlock. Despite our many failings we are a giant and a colossus and for the
sake of the world let's hope we succeed."