Biaya Haji Umroh Terjangkau Hubungi 021-9929-2337 atau 0821-2406-5740 Alhijaz Indowisata adalah perusahaan swasta nasional yang bergerak di bidang tour dan travel. Nama Alhijaz terinspirasi dari istilah dua kota suci bagi umat islam pada zaman nabi Muhammad saw. yaitu Makkah dan Madinah. Dua kota yang penuh berkah sehingga diharapkan menular dalam kinerja perusahaan. Sedangkan Indowisata merupakan akronim dari kata indo yang berarti negara Indonesia dan wisata yang menjadi fokus usaha bisnis kami.

Biaya Haji Umroh Terjangkau Alhijaz Indowisata didirikan oleh Bapak H. Abdullah Djakfar Muksen pada tahun 2010. Merangkak dari kecil namun pasti, alhijaz berkembang pesat dari mulai penjualan tiket maskapai penerbangan domestik dan luar negeri, tour domestik hingga mengembangkan ke layanan jasa umrah dan haji khusus. Tak hanya itu, pada tahun 2011 Alhijaz kembali membuka divisi baru yaitu provider visa umrah yang bekerja sama dengan muassasah arab saudi. Sebagai komitmen legalitas perusahaan dalam melayani pelanggan dan jamaah secara aman dan profesional, saat ini perusahaan telah mengantongi izin resmi dari pemerintah melalui kementrian pariwisata, lalu izin haji khusus dan umrah dari kementrian agama. Selain itu perusahaan juga tergabung dalam komunitas organisasi travel nasional seperti Asita, komunitas penyelenggara umrah dan haji khusus yaitu HIMPUH dan organisasi internasional yaitu IATA.

Biaya Haji Umroh Terjangkau

Saco-Indonesia.com - Kesennuma, Miyagi, Jepang, menjadi lokasi kesembilan dalam rangkaian proyek "Home For All" yang diinisiasi oleh arsitek Toyo Ito.

Saco-Indonesia.com - Kesennuma, Miyagi, Jepang, menjadi lokasi kesembilan dalam rangkaian proyek "Home For All" yang diinisiasi oleh arsitek Toyo Ito.

Hanya berjarak beberapa hari setelah musibah gempa dan tsunami di Jepang pada 2011, Ito memprakarsai pembangunan berbagai fasilitas umum di lokasi-lokasi dengan kerusakan terparah di Jepang. Kini, Yang Zhao berhasil merampungkan satu lagi fasilitas umum bagi penduduk Jepang.

Yang Zhao bekerja di bawah bimbingan Kazuyo Sejima dari SANAA. Zhao membangun di garis pantai Kesennuma. Daerah tersebut merupakan salah satu permukiman nelayan di barat laut Jepang. Zhao membuat sebuah struktur dari kayu dan beton yang bisa digunakan sebagai pasar, tempat berkumpul penduduk, bahkan area pertunjukan.

"Ini adalah tempat berlindung di mana para nelayan bisa beristirahat. Para istri bisa menunggu suami mereka kembali dengan hasil tanggapan dan terkadang menjadi pasar," ujar Zhao.

Strukturnya dibangun dalam bentuk heksagonal. Dinding beton di sekelilingnya berfungsi menyangga atap serta membuat tempat perlindungan ini memiliki beberapa ruang berukuran kecil.

Atapnya terbuat dari kayu berwarna cerah dan memiliki lubang berbentuk segitiga di tengah-tengahnya. Dinding beton di sekeliling tempat berteduh ini tidak menutup sekeliling bangunan. Bangunan tetap terbuka, dan mudah digunakan untuk berbagai keperluan.  
Tempat perlindungan ini juga memiliki ruang-ruang berukuran kecil. Salah satu ruang bisa digunakan sebagai dapur dan bisa ditutup dengan menggunakan pintu kaca. Sementara itu, ruang kedua dibentuk berdasarkan engawa, beranda tradisional Jepang. Ruang ketiga jendela atap.   "Pada waktu malam, bangunan berpendar dengan hangat dari dalam, seperti mercusuar, menunggu para nelayan kembali dari laut," ujar Zhao.
Sumber :www.dezeen.com/kompas.com
Editor : Maulana Lee

saco-indonesia.com, Tips Memilih Perlengkapan Bayi Menyambut detik-detik kelahiran sang buah hati juga merupakan momen yang

saco-indonesia.com,

Tips Memilih Perlengkapan Bayi
Menyambut detik-detik kelahiran sang buah hati juga merupakan momen yang sangat menggembirakan bagi orang tua, khususnya ibu yang akan melahirkan anak pertamanya. Beragam persiapan harus perlu dilakukan. Salah satunya adalah telah memilih perlengkapan bayi.

Berikut ini adalah tips untuk dapat memilih perlengkapan bayi dan kegunaannya:
1. Baju bayi
Pilihlah baju bayi yang telah berbahan katun karena selain lembut, katun juga mampu untuk dapat menyerap keringat dengan baik. Perlu juga menyediakan baju bayi dengan jumlah yang cukup (sesuai kebutuhan) karena baju bayi juga harus sering diganti untuk dapat menjaga kesehatan kulit bayi. Bayi baru lahir biasanya akan sering buang air kecil ataupun pup. Jadi baju bayi maupun popok yang dipakai sering kali basah atau kotor terkena air kencing bayi. Dalam hal membeli baju bayi tidak perlu yang mahal, yang terpenting adalah bayi nyaman memakainya dan telah terbuat dari bahan yang aman dan tidak berbahaya.

2. Sarung tangan bayi
Sarung tangan dan sarung kaki bayi diperlukan untuk dapat menjaga agar bayi tidak kedinginan. Selain itu juga menjaga agar kuku tangan bayi yang sudah panjang tidak melukai tubuh bayi. Disarankan dalam memilih sarung tangan bayi adalah sarung tangan bayi yang berbahan lembut dan tidak ketat untuk dapat menjaga kuku dan jari bayi.

3. Gendongan bayi
Menggendong bayi bisa dilakukan saat bayi sudah berusia beberapa bulan atau bayi sudah bisa menahan kepalanya sendiri. Aktifitas menggendong bayi juga akan sering dialami pada semua orang tua yang telah memiliki bayi. Jadi dalam menggendong bayi diperukan gendongan bayi yang berkualitas dan nyaman dipakai. Pilihlah gendongan bayi yang tidak membuat penggendong merasa nyeri dan memiliki bahan kain yang mampu menyerap panas bayi dan telah memiliki sirkulasi yang baik.

4. Perlak bayi
Perlak dapat digunakan sebagai lapisan tidur bayi sehingga kasur tidak akan basah atau kotor.

5. Kelambu/ kojong bayi
Pilihlah kelambu yang lebih panjang dari tempat tidur bayi dan usahakan kelambu selalu terpasang. Selain dapat melindungi dari nyamuk dan serangga lain, kelambu juga dapat ikut menjaga bayi untuk tidak kedinginan.

6. Popok
Popok bayi adalah perlengkapan yang wajib dimiliki pada setiap orang tua yang baru melahirkan bayi. Hal terpenting yang harus diperhatikan dalam hal memilih popok bayi adalah bahannya yang aman, kepraktisan dalam pemakaian, dan daya serap popok. Pemilihan popok yang baik akan dapat mengurangi resiko ruam kulit pada bayi. Bunda juga bisa memilih popok kain untuk si bayi. Popok kain murah banyak dijual di toko bayi baik offline maupun online.

Demikian beberapa tips sederhana memilih perlengkapan bayi. Semoga bermanfaat


Editor : Dian Sukmawati

WASHINGTON — The former deputy director of the C.I.A. asserts in a forthcoming book that Republicans, in their eagerness to politicize the killing of the American ambassador to Libya, repeatedly distorted the agency’s analysis of events. But he also argues that the C.I.A. should get out of the business of providing “talking points” for administration officials in national security events that quickly become partisan, as happened after the Benghazi attack in 2012.

The official, Michael J. Morell, dismisses the allegation that the United States military and C.I.A. officers “were ordered to stand down and not come to the rescue of their comrades,” and he says there is “no evidence” to support the charge that “there was a conspiracy between C.I.A. and the White House to spin the Benghazi story in a way that would protect the political interests of the president and Secretary Clinton,” referring to the secretary of state at the time, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But he also concludes that the White House itself embellished some of the talking points provided by the Central Intelligence Agency and had blocked him from sending an internal study of agency conclusions to Congress.

Photo
 
Michael J. Morell Credit Mark Wilson/Getty Images

“I finally did so without asking,” just before leaving government, he writes, and after the White House released internal emails to a committee investigating the State Department’s handling of the issue.

A lengthy congressional investigation remains underway, one that many Republicans hope to use against Mrs. Clinton in the 2016 election cycle.

In parts of the book, “The Great War of Our Time” (Twelve), Mr. Morell praises his C.I.A. colleagues for many successes in stopping terrorist attacks, but he is surprisingly critical of other C.I.A. failings — and those of the National Security Agency.

Soon after Mr. Morell retired in 2013 after 33 years in the agency, President Obama appointed him to a commission reviewing the actions of the National Security Agency after the disclosures of Edward J. Snowden, a former intelligence contractor who released classified documents about the government’s eavesdropping abilities. Mr. Morell writes that he was surprised by what he found.

Advertisement

“You would have thought that of all the government entities on the planet, the one least vulnerable to such grand theft would have been the N.S.A.,” he writes. “But it turned out that the N.S.A. had left itself vulnerable.”

He concludes that most Wall Street firms had better cybersecurity than the N.S.A. had when Mr. Snowden swept information from its systems in 2013. While he said he found himself “chagrined by how well the N.S.A. was doing” compared with the C.I.A. in stepping up its collection of data on intelligence targets, he also sensed that the N.S.A., which specializes in electronic spying, was operating without considering the implications of its methods.

“The N.S.A. had largely been collecting information because it could, not necessarily in all cases because it should,” he says.

The book is to be released next week.

Mr. Morell was a career analyst who rose through the ranks of the agency, and he ended up in the No. 2 post. He served as President George W. Bush’s personal intelligence briefer in the first months of his presidency — in those days, he could often be spotted at the Starbucks in Waco, Tex., catching up on his reading — and was with him in the schoolhouse in Florida on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when the Bush presidency changed in an instant.

Mr. Morell twice took over as acting C.I.A. director, first when Leon E. Panetta was appointed secretary of defense and then when retired Gen. David H. Petraeus resigned over an extramarital affair with his biographer, a relationship that included his handing her classified notes of his time as America’s best-known military commander.

Mr. Morell says he first learned of the affair from Mr. Petraeus only the night before he resigned, and just as the Benghazi events were turning into a political firestorm. While praising Mr. Petraeus, who had told his deputy “I am very lucky” to run the C.I.A., Mr. Morell writes that “the organization did not feel the same way about him.” The former general “created the impression through the tone of his voice and his body language that he did not want people to disagree with him (which was not true in my own interaction with him),” he says.

But it is his account of the Benghazi attacks — and how the C.I.A. was drawn into the debate over whether the Obama White House deliberately distorted its account of the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens — that is bound to attract attention, at least partly because of its relevance to the coming presidential election. The initial assessments that the C.I.A. gave to the White House said demonstrations had preceded the attack. By the time analysts reversed their opinion, Susan E. Rice, now the national security adviser, had made a series of statements on Sunday talk shows describing the initial assessment. The controversy and other comments Ms. Rice made derailed Mr. Obama’s plan to appoint her as secretary of state.

The experience prompted Mr. Morell to write that the C.I.A. should stay out of the business of preparing talking points — especially on issues that are being seized upon for “political purposes.” He is critical of the State Department for not beefing up security in Libya for its diplomats, as the C.I.A., he said, did for its employees.

But he concludes that the assault in which the ambassador was killed took place “with little or no advance planning” and “was not well organized.” He says the attackers “did not appear to be looking for Americans to harm. They appeared intent on looting and conducting some vandalism,” setting fires that killed Mr. Stevens and a security official, Sean Smith.

Mr. Morell paints a picture of an agency that was struggling, largely unsuccessfully, to understand dynamics in the Middle East and North Africa when the Arab Spring broke out in late 2011 in Tunisia. The agency’s analysts failed to see the forces of revolution coming — and then failed again, he writes, when they told Mr. Obama that the uprisings would undercut Al Qaeda by showing there was a democratic pathway to change.

“There is no good explanation for our not being able to see the pressures growing to dangerous levels across the region,” he writes. The agency had again relied too heavily “on a handful of strong leaders in the countries of concern to help us understand what was going on in the Arab street,” he says, and those leaders themselves were clueless.

Moreover, an agency that has always overvalued secretly gathered intelligence and undervalued “open source” material “was not doing enough to mine the wealth of information available through social media,” he writes. “We thought and told policy makers that this outburst of popular revolt would damage Al Qaeda by undermining the group’s narrative,” he writes.

Instead, weak governments in Egypt, and the absence of governance from Libya to Yemen, were “a boon to Islamic extremists across both the Middle East and North Africa.”

Mr. Morell is gentle about most of the politicians he dealt with — he expresses admiration for both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama, though he accuses former Vice President Dick Cheney of deliberately implying a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq that the C.I.A. had concluded probably did not exist. But when it comes to the events leading up to the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq, he is critical of his own agency.

Mr. Morell concludes that the Bush White House did not have to twist intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s alleged effort to rekindle the country’s work on weapons of mass destruction.

“The view that hard-liners in the Bush administration forced the intelligence community into its position on W.M.D. is just flat wrong,” he writes. “No one pushed. The analysts were already there and they had been there for years, long before Bush came to office.”

Imagine an elite professional services firm with a high-performing, workaholic culture. Everyone is expected to turn on a dime to serve a client, travel at a moment’s notice, and be available pretty much every evening and weekend. It can make for a grueling work life, but at the highest levels of accounting, law, investment banking and consulting firms, it is just the way things are.

Except for one dirty little secret: Some of the people ostensibly turning in those 80- or 90-hour workweeks, particularly men, may just be faking it.

Many of them were, at least, at one elite consulting firm studied by Erin Reid, a professor at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business. It’s impossible to know if what she learned at that unidentified consulting firm applies across the world of work more broadly. But her research, published in the academic journal Organization Science, offers a way to understand how the professional world differs between men and women, and some of the ways a hard-charging culture that emphasizes long hours above all can make some companies worse off.

Photo
 
Credit Peter Arkle

Ms. Reid interviewed more than 100 people in the American offices of a global consulting firm and had access to performance reviews and internal human resources documents. At the firm there was a strong culture around long hours and responding to clients promptly.

“When the client needs me to be somewhere, I just have to be there,” said one of the consultants Ms. Reid interviewed. “And if you can’t be there, it’s probably because you’ve got another client meeting at the same time. You know it’s tough to say I can’t be there because my son had a Cub Scout meeting.”

Some people fully embraced this culture and put in the long hours, and they tended to be top performers. Others openly pushed back against it, insisting upon lighter and more flexible work hours, or less travel; they were punished in their performance reviews.

The third group is most interesting. Some 31 percent of the men and 11 percent of the women whose records Ms. Reid examined managed to achieve the benefits of a more moderate work schedule without explicitly asking for it.

They made an effort to line up clients who were local, reducing the need for travel. When they skipped work to spend time with their children or spouse, they didn’t call attention to it. One team on which several members had small children agreed among themselves to cover for one another so that everyone could have more flexible hours.

A male junior manager described working to have repeat consulting engagements with a company near enough to his home that he could take care of it with day trips. “I try to head out by 5, get home at 5:30, have dinner, play with my daughter,” he said, adding that he generally kept weekend work down to two hours of catching up on email.

Despite the limited hours, he said: “I know what clients are expecting. So I deliver above that.” He received a high performance review and a promotion.

What is fascinating about the firm Ms. Reid studied is that these people, who in her terminology were “passing” as workaholics, received performance reviews that were as strong as their hyper-ambitious colleagues. For people who were good at faking it, there was no real damage done by their lighter workloads.

It calls to mind the episode of “Seinfeld” in which George Costanza leaves his car in the parking lot at Yankee Stadium, where he works, and gets a promotion because his boss sees the car and thinks he is getting to work earlier and staying later than anyone else. (The strategy goes awry for him, and is not recommended for any aspiring partners in a consulting firm.)

A second finding is that women, particularly those with young children, were much more likely to request greater flexibility through more formal means, such as returning from maternity leave with an explicitly reduced schedule. Men who requested a paternity leave seemed to be punished come review time, and so may have felt more need to take time to spend with their families through those unofficial methods.

The result of this is easy to see: Those specifically requesting a lighter workload, who were disproportionately women, suffered in their performance reviews; those who took a lighter workload more discreetly didn’t suffer. The maxim of “ask forgiveness, not permission” seemed to apply.

It would be dangerous to extrapolate too much from a study at one firm, but Ms. Reid said in an interview that since publishing a summary of her research in Harvard Business Review she has heard from people in a variety of industries describing the same dynamic.

High-octane professional service firms are that way for a reason, and no one would doubt that insane hours and lots of travel can be necessary if you’re a lawyer on the verge of a big trial, an accountant right before tax day or an investment banker advising on a huge merger.

But the fact that the consultants who quietly lightened their workload did just as well in their performance reviews as those who were truly working 80 or more hours a week suggests that in normal times, heavy workloads may be more about signaling devotion to a firm than really being more productive. The person working 80 hours isn’t necessarily serving clients any better than the person working 50.

In other words, maybe the real problem isn’t men faking greater devotion to their jobs. Maybe it’s that too many companies reward the wrong things, favoring the illusion of extraordinary effort over actual productivity.

Artikel lainnya »