The Blonde & Golf Balls

A man entered the bus with both of his front pockets full of golf balls and sat down next to a beautiful, (you guessed it), blonde.


The puzzled blonde kept looking at him and his bulging pockets.



Finally, after many such glances from her, he said, 'Its golf balls'.



Nevertheless, the blonde continued to look at him for a very long time, deeply thinking about what he had said.



After several minutes, not being able to contain her curiosity any longer, she asked;



'Does it hurt as much as tennis elbow?'

The Hindu Rate Of Wrath

Outlook Magazine| Nov 10, 2008

Opinion

The Hindu Rate Of Wrath

When the Mahatma's cowards erupt in fury, it hurts. It isn't terror.

Francois Gautier



Is there such a thing as 'Hindu terrorism', as the arrest of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur for the recent Malegaon blasts may tend to prove? Well, I guess I was asked to write this column because I am one of that rare breed of foreign correspondents—a lover of Hindus! A born Frenchman, Catholic-educated and non-Hindu, I do hope I'll be given some credit for my opinions, which are not the product of my parents' ideas, my education or my atavism, but garnered from 25 years of reporting in South Asia (for Le Journal de Geneve and Le Figaro).

In the early 1980s, when I started freelancing in south India, doing photo features on kalaripayattu, the Ayyappa festival, or the Ayyanars, I slowly realised that the genius of this country lies in its Hindu ethos, in the true spirituality behind Hinduism. The average Hindu you meet in a million villages possesses this simple, innate spirituality and accepts your diversity, whether you are Christian or Muslim, Jain or Arab, French or Chinese. It is this Hinduness that makes the Indian Christian different from, say, a French Christian, or the Indian Muslim unlike a Saudi Muslim. I also learnt that Hindus not only believed that the divine could manifest itself at different times, under different names, using different scriptures (not to mention the wonderful avatar concept, the perfect answer to 21st century religious strife) but that they had also given refuge to persecuted minorities from across the world—Syrian Christians, Parsis, Jews, Armenians, and today, Tibetans. In 3,500 years of existence, Hindus have never militarily invaded another country, never tried to impose their religion on others by force or induced conversions.

You cannot find anybody less fundamentalist than a Hindu in the world and it saddens me when I see the Indian and western press equating terrorist groups like SIMI, which blow up innocent civilians, with ordinary, angry Hindus who burn churches without killing anybody. We know also that most of these communal incidents often involve persons from the same groups—often Dalits and tribals—some of who have converted to Christianity and others not.

However reprehensible the destruction of Babri Masjid, no Muslim was killed in the process; compare this to the 'vengeance' bombings of 1993 in Bombay, which wiped out hundreds of innocents, mostly Hindus. Yet the Babri Masjid destruction is often described by journalists as the more horrible act of the two. We also remember how Sharad Pawar, when he was chief minister of Maharashtra in 1993, lied about a bomb that was supposed to have gone off in a Muslim locality of Bombay.


I have never been politically correct, but have always written what I have discovered while reporting. Let me then be straightforward about this so-called Hindu terror. Hindus, since the first Arab invasions, have been at the receiving end of terrorism, whether it was by Timur, who killed 1,00,000 Hindus in a single day in 1399, or by the Portuguese Inquisition which crucified Brahmins in Goa. Today, Hindus are still being targeted: there were one million Hindus in the Kashmir valley in 1900; only a few hundred remain, the rest having fled in terror. Blasts after blasts have killed hundreds of innocent Hindus all over India in the last four years. Hindus, the overwhelming majority community of this country, are being made fun of, are despised, are deprived of the most basic facilities for one of their most sacred pilgrimages in Amarnath while their government heavily sponsors the Haj. They see their brothers and sisters converted to Christianity through inducements and financial traps, see a harmless 84-year-old swami and a sadhvi brutally murdered. Their gods are blasphemed.

So sometimes, enough is enough.At some point, after years or even centuries of submitting like sheep to slaughter, Hindus—whom the Mahatma once gently called cowards—erupt in uncontrolled fury. And it hurts badly. It happened in Gujarat. It happened in Jammu, then in Kandhamal, Mangalore, and Malegaon. It may happen again elsewhere. What should be understood is that this is a spontaneous revolution on the ground, by ordinary Hindus, without any planning from the political leadership. Therefore, the BJP, instead of acting embarrassed, should not disown those who choose other means to let their anguished voices be heard.

There are about a billion Hindus, one in every six persons on this planet. They form one of the most successful, law-abiding and integrated communities in the world today. Can you call them terrorists?



(The writer is the editor-in-chief of the Paris-based La Revue de l'Inde.)

Sardarji Jaago!!!!

We had a Sikh ruler (Maharaja Ranjit Singh) who was even feared by the Afghans and there is a Sikh leading India now who cannot proceed against Pakistan without taking permission & approval from the West and then a nod from Ma’am Sonia. Somewhere a Pakistani told me that India is not US and they are not Georgia to be run over that easily. This same stigma has made our leaders a group of eunuchs. India has existed for more than 5,000 years without the help of any Western power. We are more than capable of dealing with terrorism and the domestic problems. All we Indians need is self belief…..Yes! Self belief. The days of the “Raj” robbed us of that and twisted our way of life. We are 20% of mankind; everyone must remember that. They need us more than we need them. God bless India!

Jai Hind! Jai Maharashtra!

The Ethics of Stem Cell Research: A Hindu view

What does it mean to protect 'the sanctity of life?' This is the question
that for Hindus, as for those in other religious traditions, lies at the
heart of debate on whether embryonic stem (ES) cell research is ethical.
It could be argued that embryos in the early process of fertilisation
have only a 30 per cent chance of becoming a full human being, so why not
use them for the potential benefit of existing human beings, for 14 days,
and then destroy them? After all, it is not thought that in these early
stages cells are sufficiently developed to feel any sensation or anything
that could be called 'pain.'
Furthermore, we are told, the benefits of stem cell research could be
radical. Each ES cell has properties of a regenerative nature, which can
transform itself into any cell required, meaning it is pluripotent. Thus
these cells could potentially be used to treat illnesses that we currently
do not have a cure for. It is a compelling argument; when scientists tell us
that in embracing this technique we could reduce the hideous effects of
motor neurone disease, stroke, heart disease, multiple sclerosis and cancers
of various sorts, who would dare be 'inhuman' enough to suggest this end
does not justify the means?
And, as we are quite used to using animals for scientific research,
where is the harm in extending that use to human life, especially human life
at a primordial stage?
On the face of it, such an argument would be quite wrong. The Hindu
Vedas dictate that all life is sacred, including animal and plant life. It
is this precept that lies at the heart of the Hindu doctrine of non-violence
or ahimsa. We believe that respect for life is a prerequisite; by showing
love to all creatures, all living things, we likewise show our love towards
God, who is in all things. All things are God's creation and therefore we
must respect all of it, as we love all of God.
However, there is a paradox in this view. The law of nature rules that
we must kill in order to survive. Human beings only live and continue to
breathe by consuming the plant and, in most cases, the animal life around
us. All of Creation works by taking one life for the survival of another.
The ancient Rishis, or divine sages, resolved this paradox by referring
to the various stages of evolution of consciousness that we share. They
believed plants were at the lowest level of consciousness. Animals then
followed, and finally humans were placed at the top of the evolutionary
tree. In creating this hierarchy, the Rishis ensured life itself was
protected, but within the laws of creation. So, what really matters is that
we protect the highest level of consciousness even if we have to kill the
lower levels in order to do so.
In Hinduism the soul passes through many species - one ancient scripture
suggests as many as 8.4 million species - until it finally evolves to the
highest level consciousness, in the form of a human being. It is this human
birth that can then bring about salvation from the cycle of rebirth and
finally end up with God.
So, to be born human is to achieve the highest value within the process
of reincarnation. The human life we experience, the only life which offers
us the chance to achieve ultimate and final union with God, is of an even
greater value. Recognising this value, Hinduism developed the ancient
systems of Yoga and Ayurveda to alleviate illnesses and prolong healthy
life.
Modern science works on the same quest. Medical research aims to help a
person's longevity. In Hinduism all human life is evolving towards God,
regardless of belief or non-belief, and that makes it much more valuable
than the embryonic cell at a primordial stage, where it has no sensation.
The difference is in the degree of consciousness. Further, if there is no
shortage of reproducing such cells then surely we must be prepared to
sacrifice a few for the greater good of helping the existing life, in itself
a noble value for all our salvation?
- By Anil Bhanot, General Secretary, The Hindu Council

The Frozen Embryo Transfer

Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET)

If you have recently gone through infertility treatments or if you are considering undertaking IVF, you may be wondering what will happen to any extra embryos that are created during the procedure. If you and your partner have extra embryos that are not used during initial IVF procedures, these embryos can be frozen and then transferred to your uterus at a later date. Known as frozen embryo transfer (FET), this procedure has helped many couples facing infertility achieve pregnancy.

What is Frozen Embryo Transfer?
This procedure takes embryos that have been frozen for a period of time and replaces them into your uterus after they have been thawed. FET is a relatively non-invasive procedure, which is why many couples choose to have it performed. It can be successfully performed on women who are experiencing either natural or controlled menstrual cycles.

Why Choose Frozen Embryo Transfer?
Many couples choose to have FET performed if they have had extra embryos remaining from an initial IVF cycle. Some couples do not like the idea of destroying embryos simply because they are "left over" from an IVF cycle. Other couples know or suspect that they will need to do IVF again in the future and prefer to freeze their embryos in order to make future IVF cycles less stressful physically for the female.

In order to perform IVF, numerous embryos are created in order to ensure that healthy and viable embryos are available for transfer. Many couples decide to freeze some of these embryos in order to allow them the opportunity to get pregnant again in the future or for use in a later IVF cycle.

Embryo Freezing
The FET procedure involves having your embryos frozen, or cryopreserved. The freezing procedure is as follows:

Your embryos are placed inside of special glass vials, that look much like straws.
These embryos are then mixed with a special solution, called cryoprotectant. This cryoprotectant prevents ice from forming in between the cells of your embryo. The glass vials containing the embryos are then inserted into a controlled freezer filled with liquid nitrogen.They are cooled slowly until they reach a final temperature of -196° C.

Embryo Thawing
Before FET can take place, your embryos must be thawed after the freezing process. When your reproductive endocrinologist decides it is time to begin the FET procedure, your embryos will be removed from the freezer and thawed.

The embryos are allowed to thaw naturally, until they come to room temperature.
The embryos are then steeped in four separate solutions to help remove any cryoprotectant used during the freezing process.
Your embryos are then warmed to body temperature (37°C) and mixed with a small amount of culture medium.


The Frozen Embryo Transfer Procedure

The FET procedure is actually fairly straightforward.

Before Embryo Transfer
Before your embryos can be thawed and transferred, you and your reproductive endocrinologist need to decide how many embryos to transfer into your uterus. The number of embryos transferred will directly impact the success rate of the FET procedure. Typically, between three and four embryos are transferred during each FET procedure.

Your health care provider will then monitor your body in order to determine the best time for the embryo transfer. We usually give oral estradiol tablets to prepare the uterine lining. The thickness is measured on ultrasound scan. Your embryos will be thawed the day before your FET procedure.

The Transfer
The actual transfer of the frozen embryos is painless and straightforward, and only takes about 15 minutes.

A catheter is inserted through your cervix and into your uterus.
The embryos are injected into the catheter and deposited in your uterus.

After the Transfer
After the transfer your reproductive endocrinologist will likely have you continue any fertility medications that you may be using. Twelve days after the FET procedure, you will return to your clinic for a pregnancy test.

Success Rates of Frozen Embryo Transfer

The success rates of FET really depends upon a variety of factors, particularly maternal age and the number of embryos transferred. Typical success rates are around 20% per cycle. It is important to know that not all embryos will survive the freezing and thawing process though. About 70% of embryos survive cryopreservation, and this can sometimes impact the success rates of FET. This makes it important to freeze and thaw a number of embryos when performing the FET procedure.

What They Hate About Mumbai

By SUKETU MEHTA
Published: November 28, 2008 in the NY Times

MY bleeding city. My poor great bleeding heart of a city. Why do they go after Mumbai? There’s something about this island-state that appalls religious extremists, Hindus and Muslims alike. Perhaps because Mumbai stands for lucre, profane dreams and an indiscriminate openness.

Mumbai is all about dhandha, or transaction. From the street food vendor squatting on a sidewalk, fiercely guarding his little business, to the tycoons and their dreams of acquiring Hollywood, this city understands money and has no guilt about the getting and spending of it. I once asked a Muslim man living in a shack without indoor plumbing what kept him in the city. “Mumbai is a golden songbird,” he said. It flies quick and sly, and you’ll have to work hard to catch it, but if you do, a fabulous fortune will open up for you. The executives who congregated in the Taj Mahal hotel were chasing this golden songbird. The terrorists want to kill the songbird.

Just as cinema is a mass dream of the audience, Mumbai is a mass dream of the peoples of South Asia. Bollywood movies are the most popular form of entertainment across the subcontinent. Through them, every Pakistani and Bangladeshi is familiar with the wedding-cake architecture of the Taj and the arc of the Gateway of India, symbols of the city that gives the industry its name. It is no wonder that one of the first things the Taliban did upon entering Kabul was to shut down the Bollywood video rental stores. The Taliban also banned, wouldn’t you know it, the keeping of songbirds.

Bollywood dream-makers are shaken. “I am ashamed to say this,” Amitabh Bachchan, superstar of a hundred action movies, wrote on his blog. “As the events of the terror attack unfolded in front of me, I did something for the first time and one that I had hoped never ever to be in a situation to do. Before retiring for the night, I pulled out my licensed .32 revolver, loaded it and put it under my pillow.”

Mumbai is a “soft target,” the terrorism analysts say. Anybody can walk into the hotels, the hospitals, the train stations, and start spraying with a machine gun. Where are the metal detectors, the random bag checks? In Mumbai, it’s impossible to control the crowd. In other cities, if there’s an explosion, people run away from it. In Mumbai, people run toward it — to help. Greater Mumbai takes in a million new residents a year. This is the problem, say the nativists. The city is just too hospitable. You let them in, and they break your heart.

In the Bombay I grew up in, your religion was a personal eccentricity, like a hairstyle. In my school, you were denominated by which cricketer or Bollywood star you worshiped, not which prophet. In today’s Mumbai, things have changed. Hindu and Muslim demagogues want the mobs to come out again in the streets, and slaughter one another in the name of God. They want India and Pakistan to go to war. They want Indian Muslims to be expelled. They want India to get out of Kashmir. They want mosques torn down. They want temples bombed.


And now it looks as if the latest terrorists were our neighbors, young men dressed not in Afghan tunics but in blue jeans and designer T-shirts. Being South Asian, they would have grown up watching the painted lady that is Mumbai in the movies: a city of flashy cars and flashier women. A pleasure-loving city, a sensual city. Everything that preachers of every religion thunder against. It is, as a monk of the pacifist Jain religion explained to me, “paap-ni-bhoomi”: the sinful land.

In 1993, Hindu mobs burned people alive in the streets — for the crime of being Muslim in Mumbai. Now these young Muslim men murdered people in front of their families — for the crime of visiting Mumbai. They attacked the luxury businessmen’s hotels. They attacked the open-air Cafe Leopold, where backpackers of the world refresh themselves with cheap beer out of three-foot-high towers before heading out into India. Their drunken revelry, their shameless flirting, must have offended the righteous believers in the jihad. They attacked the train station everyone calls V.T., the terminus for runaways and dreamers from all across India. And in the attack on the Chabad house, for the first time ever, it became dangerous to be Jewish in India.

The terrorists’ message was clear: Stay away from Mumbai or you will get killed. Cricket matches with visiting English and Australian teams have been shelved. Japanese and Western companies have closed their Mumbai offices and prohibited their employees from visiting the city. Tour groups are canceling long-planned trips.

But the best answer to the terrorists is to dream bigger, make even more money, and visit Mumbai more than ever. Dream of making a good home for all Mumbaikars, not just the denizens of $500-a-night hotel rooms. Dream not just of Bollywood stars like Aishwarya Rai or Shah Rukh Khan, but of clean running water, humane mass transit, better toilets, a responsive government. Make a killing not in God’s name but in the stock market, and then turn up the forbidden music and dance; work hard and party harder.

If the rest of the world wants to help, it should run toward the explosion. It should fly to Mumbai, and spend money. Where else are you going to be safe? New York? London? Madrid?

So I’m booking flights to Mumbai. I’m going to go get a beer at the Leopold, stroll over to the Taj for samosas at the Sea Lounge, and watch a Bollywood movie at the Metro. Stimulus doesn’t have to be just economic.

Suketu Mehta, a professor of journalism at New York University, is the author of “Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found.”

IVF success set to drop under single-embryo policy

IVF success rates will fall by up to 20 per cent because of a UK government policy designed to cut the number of damaging twin pregnancies, research has suggested.

An initiative to limit multiple births by persuading IVF patients to use only one embryo at a time will cause a “significant reduction in treatment success”, according to an analysis of a clinic’s patients.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority strategy, which aims to cut the twin birthrate by 2012 from one in four to one in ten, would in practice reduce the IVF success rate at St Mary’s Hospital in Manchester from 21 per cent to 17 per cent, the study found.

Daniel Brison, of the University of Manchester, said that the strategy was right to encourage single-embryo transfer because a multiple birth was the greatest IVF risk to mothers and babies, but its implementation needed to be backed by better NHS access to IVF, especially for follow-up courses using frozen embryos.

About a third of NHS trusts do not offer frozen back-up treatment and 85 per cent do not provide the three full cycles that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends.

“Single-embryo transfer is the right way forward, but we have to fund more than one cycle,” Dr Brison said. “It is very difficult to ask patients to accept any reduction in success rates if they have only one shot. Embryo freezing is also crucial, as is careful selection of patients who are suitable for a single embryo.”

IVF produces a higher rate of twins and triplets because multiple embryos are often used to maximise the chances of pregnancy. Such babies, however, are more likely to be stillborn, die in their first year, suffer disabilities or be born prematurely. There are also risks to mothers.

In the study, published in the journal Human Reproduction, Dr Brison and his colleagues Stephen Roberts and Cheryl Fitzgerald constructed a model of what would happen to their clinic’s success rates under the single-embryo strategy.

To achieve the target of 10 per cent multiple births, about 55 per cent of patients would have to have single-embryo transfer. The current rate is about 10 per cent. This would bring the success rate down by about 20 per cent. If women were selected carefully, the decline would be slightly smaller but the live birthrate would still fall to 18.5 per cent.

The paper suggests ways that women could be selected, including analysis of their embryos as well as their age and hormone levels. Such measures would be essential to limit the policy’s impact on pregnancy success, the scientists said.

The St Mary’s success rate is below the national average of 31 per cent for women under 35 who use their own fresh eggs. It is an NHS centre with a waiting list of up to three years, so couples with a good prognosis often conceive spontaneously while waiting for treatment, leaving the clinic to treat harder cases.

Professor Peter Braude, of King’s College London, led the group that drew up the single-embryo strategy. He said that patients could be chosen who would not be disadvantaged by the policy.

“It doesn’t reduce pregnancy rates in women who are most likely to get pregnant, and who are also most likely to have twins,” he said.

“We have never said that a single embryo is right for every woman and the 10 per cent target is an aspiration. A very small proportion of patients give rise to most of the twins and by identifying them, we can reduce multiple births but not the pregnancy rate.”