Promo Paket Haji di Palembang 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.

Promo Paket Haji di Palembang 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.

Promo Paket Haji di Palembang

Haduhhh, kacamata saya jatuh dan retak! Kata mbak Nen, Mama kacamatanya kok ada kelap-kelipnya (haaa itu retakkkkk, Nak!”).

Saco-Indonesia.com.-Haduhhh, kacamata saya jatuh dan retak! Kata mbak Nen, Mama kacamatanya kok ada kelap-kelipnya (haaa itu retakkkkk, Nak! ”).

Mencari di Jerman susah karena memang hidung orang Jerman tidak sama dengan hidung saya. Modelnya juga Europe minded. Saya pengen yang mata kucing, panjang almond. Hiks, nasib.

Oh. Saya baru memakai kacamata pada umur 30 tahun, itupun serasa tersiksa. Kok ada yang nyantol. Meski hanya minus 1 dan minus 0,5, ini harus dipakai saat berkendara. Blereng … jarak jauh terasa kabur kalau kacamata ketinggalan.

Huh. Saya memang malas memakainya sehari-hari karena seperti ada yang mengganjal disudut mata dekat hidung. Ingin pakai lensa mata, takut. Banyak cerita yang tidak mengerikan terdengar di telinga saya.

Saya imbangi dengan memakan wortel mentah sebanyak-banyaknya. Yaaaa … jadi merasa seperti kelinci. Untung gang rumah kami tidak sempit. Bukan gang kelinci atau gang senggol.

Yaiy. Orang kedua yang memakai kacamata di rumah kami adalah anak sulung. Setelah saya periksakan di Augen Zentrum, pusat pemeriksaan mata di RS kota Tuttlingen (dengan rekomendasi dokter umum kampung kami), ditemukan bahwa ia plus 2. Walahhhh … kok sama dengan Eyang kakung di Semarang? Tapinya si kakek tahun ini telah menginjak umur 74 tahun. Dia waktu itu baru berumur 10 tahun ….

Akhirnya oleh dokter diberikan resep kacamata. Setelahnya, kami menuju toko optik di alun-alun kota. Disana berjajar beberapa toko yang menjual barang yang sama. Kami memilih salah satu rekomendasi suami, F.

Begitu memasuki ruangan, kami disambut dengan senyuman dan ucapan halus, “Was kann ich für Sie tun?“ (ingat kisah cara kakek Jerman membahagiakan nenek …). Artinya, ada yang bisa saya bantu?

Saya jelaskan maksud kedatangan kami dan memberikan resep. Si anak disuruh memilih bingkai kacamata mana yang ia sukai. Ia memilih yang berwarna kuning cleret hitam dari yang diperlihatkan di etalase nul tariff. Setelah dicoba, pas, si embak memberikan kertas pengambilan.

 

13708748392015238163

Kacamata gratis untuk anak Jerman dibawah umur 18

Disana tertera … NUL TARIFF alias GRATIS!

Wow, saya tanyakan lagi apakah benar seperti itu. Sekali lagi, si embak yang cantik tersenyum dan mengatakan memang ketentuan di Jerman seperti itu. Anak dibawah umur 18 tahun gratis. Bingkainya memang khusus, kalau permintaan khusus bermerk, lain soal.

Seminggu kemudian, kami mengambilnya. Anak kami mencobanya. Si embak lagi-lagi tersenyum ramaaaah sekali. Oooo … ini image bagus toko optik F, ya? Makanya kondang.

Setelah beberapa menit mencoba dan mematut diri di depan cermin, si embak membenahi bingkai agar pas melekat ditelinga.

Selesai.

Si embak menanyakan apakah mau dimasukkan etui tempat kacamata hadiah dari toko, atau dipakai saja. Si anak mengangguk dan mengambil kotak yang diberikan si embak.

Kata dokter yang memeriksanya, ini akan diuji selama 9 bulan, periksa lagi apakah masih sama atau berubah dan mengganti kacamata dengan yang baru atau tidak. Sekian lama, untung tidak tambah, malah lebih baik kondisi matanya.

***

Wah, asyik ya? Jika asuransi yang dipilih orang di Indonesia bisa meng-cover semua bea kesehatan untuk anak-anak dibawah umur 18 tahun. Saya tidak tahu apakah di tanah air juga demikian untuk kacamata anak-anak …. Kompasianer di tanah air pasti lebih tahu.

Meski nul tariff, saya sarankan anak-anak yang perempuan untuk mencintai matanya dengan membaca di tempat yang terang, banyak makan wortel (saya iris kecil-keciiiiiiiiiiil dalam lumpia atau sup yang dimakan), jus jeruk campur wortel (instan) dan makanan-minuman-buah-sayur yang mengandung vitamin A lainnya. Namanya anak-anak … susah dari awalnya, semoga terbiasa. Mari jaga mata kita. (G76)

Editor;Liwon Maulana

Sumber:http://lifestyle.kompasiana.com/catatan/2013/06/11/pelayanan-kaca-mata- anak-gratis-563978.html

Terdakwa mantan Deputi Bidang IV Pengelolaan Aset dan Moneter Bank Indonesia (BI), Budi Mulya telah membantah sebagai pihak yang memutuskan pemberian Fasilitas Pinjaman Jangka Pendek (FPJP) kepada Bank Century.

Terdakwa mantan Deputi Bidang IV Pengelolaan Aset dan Moneter Bank Indonesia (BI), Budi Mulya telah membantah sebagai pihak yang memutuskan pemberian Fasilitas Pinjaman Jangka Pendek (FPJP) kepada Bank Century.

Sebagaimana, yang telah didakwaan oleh jaksa penuntut umum KPK. Dalam eksepsi yang telah dibacakan oleh penasehat hukumnya, Luhut Pangaribuan telah menyatakan dalam dakwaan disebutkan kalau Budi selaku Deputi Gubernur BI telah menyalahgunakan wewenang dalam jabatannya secara bersama-sama dengan Boediono selaku Gubernur BI.

"Siti Fadjriah selaku Deputi Gubernur Bidang VI, mantan Deputi Bidang VII, Budi Rochadi,Robert Tantular, dan Harmanus H Muslim telah memberikan FPJP kepada Bank Century Rp689 miliar," ujarnya saat membacakan eksepsi di Pengadilan Tipikor Jakarta, Kamis (13/3/2014).

Sekaligus telah menetapkan bank tersebut sebagai bank gagal berdampak sistemik. Padahal, bank itu tidak memenuhi persyaratan untuk mendapatkan FPJP. Tetapi, tetap diusahakan dengan merubah aturan.

Bedasarkan dakwaan diatas, menurut Luhut, dakwaan itu adalah menyetujui pemberian FPJP dengan merubah aturan.

"Padahal terdakwa tidak memiliki kewenangan itu. Dakwaan itu juga tidak dapat menguraikan secara detil apa yang dilakukan terdakwa," tandasnya.

Dalam hal ini, menurut Luhut, dakwaan yang dilayangkan kepada Budi adalah sumir.

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.”

WASHINGTON — During a training course on defending against knife attacks, a young Salt Lake City police officer asked a question: “How close can somebody get to me before I’m justified in using deadly force?”

Dennis Tueller, the instructor in that class more than three decades ago, decided to find out. In the fall of 1982, he performed a rudimentary series of tests and concluded that an armed attacker who bolted toward an officer could clear 21 feet in the time it took most officers to draw, aim and fire their weapon.

The next spring, Mr. Tueller published his findings in SWAT magazine and transformed police training in the United States. The “21-foot rule” became dogma. It has been taught in police academies around the country, accepted by courts and cited by officers to justify countless shootings, including recent episodes involving a homeless woodcarver in Seattle and a schizophrenic woman in San Francisco.

Now, amid the largest national debate over policing since the 1991 beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles, a small but vocal set of law enforcement officials are calling for a rethinking of the 21-foot rule and other axioms that have emphasized how to use force, not how to avoid it. Several big-city police departments are already re-examining when officers should chase people or draw their guns and when they should back away, wait or try to defuse the situation

Artikel lainnya »