I am fairly anal about preparing for live shows — not in the sense of reading up a lot of stuff, but of identifying broad themes I want to talk about and keeping the related links and such ready to hand.
Today was totally unscripted — and turned out to be fun. I’ve also been experimenting with bringing more voices onto the program — this is a round the year exercise and if it’s just me, fairly soon I’m going to be heartily sick of you guys and you of me
So — appreciate thoughts/suggestions etc. And as always, themes/questions/relevant links for tomorrow, when I am back live.
For centuries, art historians have been troubled by Mona Lisa’s enigmatic smile – but, according to one doctor, her cholesterol levels were more worrying.
For Dr Vito Franco, from Palermo University, she shows clear signs of a build-up of fatty acids under the skin, caused by too much cholesterol.
He also suggests there seems to be a lipoma, or benign fatty-tissue tumour, in her right eye.
Spotted this post on my friend Bhaskar Dasgupta’s blog that details the latest instance of ‘Hindu’ ire. A series of clips:
It is absurd to refer to the episode of Radha-Krishna in the context of a case related to pre-marital sex. Sri Krishna, Bala Krishna was only 10 years of age when he left Brindavan for the Gurukulam in Sandeepani Ashram. The episode of Radha-Krishna occurred when Sri Bala Krishna was a child 10 years of age.
Krishna left Vrindavan for Mathura at the age of 10 years and 7 months according to Bhagavata Purana.
What is wrong with our educational system that even learned judges should refer to a seven-year old Shri Krishna and his being a darling of humanity and who enthralled Radha and other Gopikas has NOTHING to do with pre-marital sex since he was in Brindavan only until he was seven years of age.
Does a seven year old darling of Brindavan become an example of pre-marital sex in jurisprudence?
Why does all of this put me irresistibly in mind of Shahid Afridi? [And I hope I am not offending any "Hindu" sentiments here -- even Afridi is not mythology].
Courtesy the Telegraph [and courtesy my friend Siddhartha Vaidhyanathan on Twitter], a great read on Lionel Messi that goes beyond the player and looks at the nature of greatness itself:
The argument that a player cannot be considered great until he claims a World Cup winner’s medal is rendered nonsense by the portfolios of Ferenc Puskas, Alfredo di Stéfano, Johan Cruyff and George Best. Tell me they couldn’t play, that they did not redefine the parameters of the game. Greatness is not measured in silverware but in the memory.
Just one of several bits in that piece that reminds you of the on again, off again argument whether Sachin can really be called the greatest, without a World Cup to his name. There are other bits in the Messi piece that reminds you of SRT. Like, so:
His diminutive, beautifully balanced frame benefits from a low centre of gravity that affords acute changes in direction and keeps him upright when the big lads pile in. For an anatomically challenged male he is not without strength. These are the technical elements.
Messi has another dimension that is harder to measure. His awareness and understanding of space is preternatural; he is Pythagoras with a paint brush, all angles and vision.
And then there is the primal hunger that drives him, and the courage to take a chance.
This places him alongside the likes of Tiger Woods, Michael Schumacher, Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, athletes whose desire to win can be considered a pathology, a kind of insanity, a life dedicated to nothing but balls, spikes, water and wheels. At least Messi’s obsession has not put a scowl on his face.
