The Auditor

At the end of the tax year, the Tax Office sent an inspector to audit the books of a synagogue. While he was checking the books he turned to the Rabbi and said: "I notice you buy a lot of candles. What do you do with the candle drippings?

"Good question", noted the Rabbi. "We save them up and send them back to the candle makers, and every now and then they send us a free box of candles."

"Oh", replied the auditor, somewhat disappointed that his unusual question had a practical answer. But on he went, in his obnoxious way: "What about all these biscuit purchases? What do you do with the crumbs?"

"Ah, yes", replied the Rabbi, realising that the inspector was trying to trap him with an unanswerable question. "We collect them and send them back to the manufacturers, and every now and then they send a free box of holy biscuits."

"I see!" replied the auditor, thinking hard about how he could fluster the know-it-all Rabbi. "Well, Rabbi", he went on, "What do you do with all the leftover fore skins from the cir cumcisions you perform?

"Here, too, we do not waste", answered the Rabbi. "What we do is save up all the fore skins and send them to the Tax Office, and about once a year they send us a complete dick."

A Lawyer's Kindness

One afternoon, a wealthy lawyer was riding in the back of his limousine when he saw two men eating grass by the road-side. He ordered his driver to stop, and he got out to investigate.

"Why are you eating grass?" he asked one man. "We don't have any money for food," the poor man replied. "Oh, well, you can come with me to my house, instructed the lawyer. "But, sir, I have a wife and two children with me!" "Bring them along!" replied the lawyer. He turned to the other man and said: "You come with us, too." "But I have a wife and six children," the second man answered. "Bring them as well" replied the lawyer.

They all climbed into the car, which was no easy task, even for a car as large as the limousine. Once underway, one of the poor fellows says: "Sir you are too kind. Thank you for taking all of us with you."

The lawyer replied: "Glad to do it. You'll love my place; the grass is almost a foot tall."

Hexaplet After The Twins

Indian Marxists and their evil designs

Author: Col (retd) Anil Athale

Col. (retd) Anil A Athale is a Fellow at the Centre for Armed Forces Historical Research. A former Joint Director (History Division) and infantryman, he has been running an NGO, Peace and Disarmament, based in Pune for the past 10 years. As a military historian he specialises in insurgency and peace process.


Karl Marx took a dim view of India and its heritage. Writing in the New York Tribune dated June 25, 1853 (quoted in Lewis S Feuer edited Marx and Engels Basic Writings, Anchor Books, NY 1959, pp. 474-481) he claimed that the ‘Golden Age’ of India was all myth and India was always a poor starving country. He further went on to admire and appreciate the British for destroying the Indian village industry and economy so that India could ‘modernise’. But to the Indian communists, the words of Marx are like commandments from God. Their devotion to the dead communism can be seen on the walls of Calcutta, possibly the only city in the world where you can find pictures of Marx, Lenin and Stalin displayed with pride. Following the footsteps of Marx, the Indian communists have deep hatred of anything Indian and are opponents of any kind of pride in Indian heritage. The communists also hold that India is not one nation but a ‘collection of nationalities’. Another major tenet of Indian Marxist’s orthodoxy is that for national reconstruction you have to first destroy the existing nation.

The communists have had many ideological splits. Communists in India are splintered into several groupings like the CPI, CPM, CPI (M-L), Maoists and the People’s War Group. But despite several ‘historical blunders’ that they keep committing with regularity, they have all remained steadfast to the twin agenda of weakening and destroying the existing Indian nation and obliterate the ‘bourgeois’ notion of pride in India’s past. Thus in 1942 the communists not just supported the British but also acted as their stool pigeons. Many underground revolutionaries were betrayed to the British secret police, who went on to hang them. George Orwell has written extensively on this subject and evidence of this is littered in declassified files of British India, now available at India Office Library and Records in London.

Subhas Chandra Bose, who fought for Indian freedom and was no Japanese stooge, was denounced as fascist and vilified by the Marxists. In today’s communist-ruled Bengal, the towering contributions of Swami Vivekananda are a distant memory and sought to be pushed out of public memory. Neither is Aurobindo Ghosh remembered. All the three are inconvenient to Marxist ideology. The communists began their offensive against India right from the time of Independence. The Telangana armed uprising was a direct challenge to the newly independent nation. Unfortunately for the Marxists, under the efficient and ruthless Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the Indian police and armed forces crushed the rebellion with ease. The Naxalite uprising in 1970 met a similar fate. .

Most of the time, the communists mask their real agenda under a constant propaganda about their concern for poor. It is another matter that in their disclosure to the election commission most ‘champions of poor’ Communists happen to be millionaires several times over. (The Statesman, April 22, 2004. Somnath Chatterji’s declared assets exceed Rs 5 crore). The Marxists participate in and use the democratic process but constantly deride Indian democracy vis a vis Chinese one party rule. Marxists wear a mask of nationalism but the mask sometimes slips, as in 1962 during the Chinese attack on India when the Marxists came out openly on the side of the Chinese. On November 13, 1962 while replying to the discussions in the Rajya Sabha, Lal Bahadur Shastri pointed out that Jyoti Basu equated India with China during the war and called the Chinese aggression as provoked by Indian statements and “across an imaginary line called MacMohan line”. But the Marxists were not merely satisfied with words. Kalimpong town had become a den of Chinese spies. Every move of the Indian army was monitored and reported to the enemy. Like in 1942, the communists played a major role in helping the Chinese.

The long-time ideological opponents of Indian nationalism painted a frightening scenario when India tested nuclear weapons in 1998. They had greeted with a deafening silence each of the 45 declared nuclear tests carried out by China since 1964. How come that throughout this feverish pursuit by China of the means of nuclear deterrence, the Indian communists never showed the slightest anxiety about a possible outbreak of a nuclear war in Asia? The answer lies in their conviction that China's policy stemmed from genuine nationalism as distinguished from India's alleged pseudo-nationalism. The Chinese ideologues, until now, did not manipulate their admirers in India. This was dictated by Chinese pessimism about the future of the communist movement in India. More relevantly, the Chinese communists did not fail to notice that the CPM and the CPI did not have 10 per cent of the seats in the Parliament in the 13 General Elections held so far. But after the last elections which left a trifurcated verdict, the Marxists have gained a whip hand at the centre.

While it is difficult to reverse the nuclearisation that has taken place in India, the Marxists have found a way out. The Common Minimum Programme talks about changing the Indo-Israel relations. The allusion is directly to the defence relationship. It is through this that India had been promised the Falcon airborne system that would give India a decided advantage over China and Pakistan in air battles. China too wanted this system but the contract was cancelled under American pressure. Now by downgrading relations with US, the Marxists wish to cripple Indian defence and help China. In all their plans of spreading communism in India, the Marxists believe that the strong Indian armed forces are the biggest obstacle. Their hatred of the armed forces is seen through many petty acts that the West Bengal government regularly inflicts on the armed forces personnel. Presently the Indian army seems to be getting an upper hand over the Pakistani sponsored terrorists thanks to the infantry equipment and training co-ordination with Israelis. The Marxists hope that severing this link will automatically weaken the armed forces, their biggest adversary. The Cold War has been over for over a decade now. During that period, Indian and Soviet interests coincided and the two had a quasi-alliance for over 25 years. The Indo-Soviet Friendship treaty of 1971 stood the test of time.

In the new millennium India faces an unstable Pakistan to the west and a rising China that lays claims to the Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh to the north and east. And while Chinese naval expansion proceeds at a hectic pace, Beijing does not miss any opportunity to check/thwart India at all international forums. The US is concerned over the rise of China and its internal stability. It is interested in ensuring the rise of India to balance China in Asia. The US is also affected by Islamist terrorism and is fearful of Talibanisation of Pakistan.These basic and fundamental national interests of US and India converge and are likely to remain for most of 21st century. The US-India strategic partnership was hamstrung by the domestic American legislation that denied technology to India due to her non-adherence to NPT. The present nuclear deal is an effort to overcome that hurdle and forge a strategic partnership between the two. Technical experts, scientists and bureaucrats have worked for over two years to hammer out a successful treaty.

The Indo-US nuclear deal is opposed by Pakistan, China and al Qaeda. It is indeed surprising that some Indian political parties with frozen mindsets, opportunism or ideological anti-national orientation are also opposing this deal. A canard is being spread that an economically powerful and nuclear weapons armed India is thus likely to be subservient to the US. India has withstood its ground in worse times. It appears that these political forces are more concerned about the interest of China rather than their own country. It is time the Indian citizens raised their voice and nullified the evil designs of parties who had sided with the enemy when our jawans were dying on the Himalayan border in 1962.

The views expressed in the article are the author's and not mine.

I just found this article very interesting & wanted to share it with our readers.

Uterine Washing for Increased Success In IVF?

The results of a new study have suggested that broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy, in the form of intravenous administration plus intra-uterine lavage, could help increase the chances of a successful IVF pregnancy in couples who have had one or more failed IVF cycles. Researchers from the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research and the New York Presbyterian Medical Center’s MacLeod Laboratory, in New York, USA, conducted the small retrospective study to investigate whether giving broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy to couples after a failed IVF cycle would help improve the chances of achieving a successful pregnancy in the next IVF cycle.

The study was conducted after “two decades of favorable experience with antibiotic therapy, initially given orally, later administered intravenously with uterine lavages, both in terms of reversing infertility and improving pregnancy outcome.”
In their paper published in the Internet Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, the researchers report the analysis of 52 consecutive couples (mean age of the women 38.5 years) treated between January 2002 and April 2004. All of the couples had a history of primary or multiple failed IVF cycles. Before initiating the antibiotic therapy both partners in each couple underwent antibody testing, bacterial testing (including for Chlamydia) and culturing. The result of the culture studies did not affect the recommendation of antibiotic therapy.

The women in each couple received the following: 10 days of intravenous clindamycin at the full therapeutic dose, plus five intra-uterine lavages (with a combination of ampicillin, gentamicin, fluconazole and metronidazole for one hour, followed by filling the uterine cavity and cervical canal with a metronidazole-containing gel) performed on consecutive days in the first five days of intravenous therapy. The antibiotic treatment was completed with a three-week course of oral doxycycline. The men received intravenous clindamycin (although half declined and were given oral co-amoxiclav as a substitute) and a three-week course of oral doxycycline. Overall there were two cases of mild diarrhea, which responded to treatment, and no other complications were seen.

The outcomes in the antibiotic-treated patients were compared with those of three historical control groups, derived from previously published studies of couples in conventional repeat IVF cycles. In each comparison, the antibiotic-treated group was found to have a significantly higher standardized delivery rate – these rates were from 33.8-46.1 percent in the antibiotic-treated group, compared with 6.4-22.8 percent in the three control groups. The researchers discuss the outcomes in detail in the full paper. For example, the only pregnancy-related complication in the antibiotic-treated group was one cases of pre-eclampsia. They emphasize that further research is required, and conclude: “These findings suggest that a certain number of failures during IVF cycles are due to an intra-uterine infection that could affect the course of the pregnancy, the mode of delivery, and cause maternal and fetal complications.”

I shudder to think what could be lapped up by the "failed IVF" patients if anecdotal reports based on a single clinic's experience finds its way into the front pages of daily newspapers. This was a retrospective "experience-based" study with no scientific value, but has found itself in all the leading dailies globally because the editors want a catchy byeline!

Lights In IVF Clinics May Damage Embryos

A study has found that exposure to the 'harsh' cool-white fluorescent lighting commonly used in fertility clinics, research labs and most office environments could be particularly damaging to an embryo's healthy development. A joint team of researchers in Hawaii and Japan conducted the study on mouse embryos and found that certain types of light exposure are more damaging to embryo development than others.
The study also indicates that mammalian embryos, which develop in dark wombs, lack a protective mechanism that other animals, such as amphibious frogs or fish which lay external eggs, possess in order to cope with exposure to light. These results were published last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
Sunlight and cool-white fluorescent office light, which is blue-white in appearance, were the most detrimental to the mice embryo development while warm-white light, which is typically used to illuminate homes and residential environments and has a yellow-white colour, was significantly less damaging, according to Dr. Ryuzo Yanagimachi, a retired reproductive biology specialist involved with the University of Hawaii study in collaboration with Manami Takenaka and Toshitaka Horiuchi of the Prefectural University of Hiroshima. They found that even reducing light-exposure to ten seconds for direct sunlight and to a few minutes for blue-white light, still caused damage to the embryos in the study.
It appears that the light stimulus triggers a stress response in the embryos that hampers their healthy development. When exposed to light, the embryos produced increased levels of radical oxygen which is toxic to cellular development, explained Dr. Yanagimachi. He added that the study has lent support to his belief that light is a neglected environmental factor in embryo development.
The researchers suggest that labs which deal with human and animal embryos would improve their success in embryo development if they (1) replace 'harsh' office lighting with 'softer' warm-white light bulbs for illumination, thereby reducing damage to reproductive materials when they are unavoidably exposed to light in the lab, and (2) generally attempt to minimise light exposure as much as possible during each stage of embryo development that is manipulated outside of the uterus including during egg extraction, sperm insemination and fertilisation.
These are lessons to learn. I had heard this from a senior Professor at Vancouver in 1992 & when I set up my laboratory in Mumbai, we had the warm yellow lights put all across the clinic in opposition to the architect & the turn-key IVF specialists!

Rabin's killer given go ahead to father a child

Israel's High Court of Justice has ruled that Yigal Amir, the assassin who killed Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, will be allowed to father a child using artificial insemination (AI). Amir was jailed for life without parole following the murder and married Larissa Trimbobler by proxy in 2004. The prison does not allow conjugal visits. The case was brought as former Knesset Members Neta Dobrin and Ronen Tzur petitioned against the ruling by the Israeli Prison Service that would allow Mr Amir to father a child. Their petition was rejected, allowing Mr Amir and Ms Trimbobler to proceed with AI treatment. Amir, an ultra-nationalist Jew, has shown no regret for shooting Rabin in an effort to stop the handover of Israeli land in any peace deals with Palestine. Trimbobler, a divorced mother of four, emigrated to Israel from the former Soviet Union and has visited Amir in prison every two weeks for several years.
In their unanimous ruling Justice Ayala Procaccia wrote, 'Amir was and is one of the most widely condemned criminals in the Israeli national consciousness, if not the most widely condemned...Nonetheless, he, like all prisoners, has basic human rights that were not appropriated from him when he went to prison'. The ruling found that restrictions placed on Amir were related to his loss of freedom after being sentenced to life, other restrictions on his human rights may also be inherent in this loss of freedom. Any further restrictions that may be applicable were to be based on the interests of state security or other considerations of vital public interest. 'Beyond these, however, Amir is entitled, as is every prisoner, [to all the other] basic rights.' wrote Justice Procaccia.
As the Israeli Basic Law on Human Dignity and Freedom, which includes the right to a family, was not restricted by Amir's sentence then the court found that he has as much right as any other Israeli to start a family. A right provided by the basic law can only be withheld on the basis of a law or specific authorization, if the act is in accordance with the values of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, only for a worthy cause and only if the action taken is balanced. It was judged that to deny Amir a family would not meet these conditions.
The decision was greeted with dismay by Yossi Lahmani, the director-general of the Rabin center. He commented, 'The court should have understood, as the last bulwark of democracy, that this was not a technical-medical decision about inseminating a lady who, by all accounts, is eccentric and decided to become pregnant from the detestable killer, but a fundamental and special decision that distinguishes this 'shooter in the back of the nation' from other killers.'
The case mirrors the recent British case of Kirk Dickson, also serving a life sentence for murder, who has been denied the right to use AI to impregnate his, much older, wife. Mr Dickson, whose wife will be 51 when he is first eligible for release in 2009, took his case to the European Court of Human Rights claiming that the Home Office refusal to allow him access to fertility treatment breached his right to found a family and his right to family life provided in the European Convention on Human Rights. His appeal was rejected by a bare majority. As part of the ruling the court found that the nature of the crime committed and the welfare of any child that may be conceived under the circumstances must be taken into account.
Any Comments?