Rent a husband for an hour

Check this out.

Moscow City Hall want to rent ‘husbands’ to perform ‘men’s jobs’ in local households. The hired “husbands” would be available to perform tasks traditionally viewed as a man’s job in a Russian household, such as replacing a leaky tap or putting up shelves,

“Husband For An Hour Moscow” is one of several dozen companies which promise “young and strong men with a huge set of technical skills,”

“You’ve just spent a long time in a store selecting a new light fixture for your hallway to perfectly match your new decor,” the company’s online statement reads. “But you’re a beautiful woman with a killer manicure, and you’re not ready to get intimate with a buzzing and horribly vibrating drill. Who can come to your aid?” “Assertive men, who’ll call themselves your husband for an hour, are on their way to your home,” the ad reads.

We generally call these men ..plumber, electrician, technician, carpenter, contractor, window guy..etc

Maybe something is lost in the translation…or way more is being advertised here..


Reference

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/10/moscow-announces-plans-for-rent-a-husband-social-service

Join a jihadi group and get your throat slit by a friend

Yesterday, I mentioned briefly why it’s not a good idea to become friendly with fanatics or radical Muslim/Fundamentalists. Just because someone claims to be your brother/sister in Islam, it doesn’t mean you want to spend your time with the craziest. Don’t even acknowledge their stupidity by seriously considering anything they say. Just walk away.

Today, another video appear that shows a young kid from the ISIS/ISIL group shooting unarmed Palestinian guy –straight at his head.

A video released Tuesday showed Mohamed Musallam, 20, wearing the disturbingly familiar orange jumpsuit of an Islamic State captive. He was shown admitting under obvious duress that he was an informer for Israeli intelligence before he was shot in the head by a young boy. The Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, alleged that he had been sent to Syria “as an agent for the Israeli Mossad” to gather information on the group.

By now, you have probably realized that ISIS/ISIL doesn’t really conduct trial or call witnesses or have judges that look into the allegations. Even worse they don’t even have a proper executioner of law. As can be seen in this latest video, the executioner is a young kid, who’s very much on a fast track to become a sadistic animal when he grows-up.

Interestingly, Mohamed Musallam travelled to Syria to join this barbaric group.

Ahmed and his father suggested that Mohamed Musallam was most likely lured by Islamic State recruiters or brainwashed by other Palestinians in their East Jerusalem neighborhood who were loyal to the group’s philosophy.

“They promised him girls and money,” his father said.

References

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/world/middleeast/family-of-palestinian-man-killed-by-isis-say-he-wasnt-spying-for-israel.html

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/international/europe/2015/03/official_man_boy_in_is_killing_video_are_french_citizens

Radical Islam is not only bad for your health but also

The fanatics (radical Muslims/Islamic fundamentalists) are dangerous to your life, health and wellbeing because no matter how nice they appear to you initially, eventually they will turn vicious, if you still refuse to be convinced by their smart/stupid arguments/reasoning. Just like other human emotions, it’s very hard to control or curb it. When someone loses it, they tend to go overboard.

Recently, we have seen images of ISIS/ISIL destroying historical artifacts from ancient Iraqi cities.

On Friday, the group razed 3,000-year old Nimrud and on Saturday, they bulldozed 2,000-year old Hatra – both UNESCO world heritage sites. Isil currently controls about a third of Iraq and Syria. The Sunni extremist group has been campaigning to purge ancient relics they say promote idolatry that violates their fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law.

I generally don’t buy into this idea that as soon as you see a sculpture or painting or a strange looking historical artifacts, you will immediately start worshiping it. That’s purely a dumb speculation. What's even dumber is to think that a 4000 year old monuments or artifacts are even being used for any religious purposes when the ancient civilization no longer exists.

We are not only facing problems with people who subscribe to very extreme interpretation of Islam but even regular folks can't get away from many of Islam's small contradictions about which gods can be worship and which gods/goddesses cannot be worship.

According to Islam, Jesus son of God, and also god incarnate and his mother, Mary wife of God and mother of God, can be worship. So you can build your churches and put their images/pictures/idols or sculptures on altars and do whatever you see fit. Christianity is not the only religion that is protected under Islamic theology. Judaism, Zoroastrians, Sabeans, Mandeans and a few other ancient religions (which have not been named or clearly defined in literatures) have also earned the status of being a protected faith. Again, the status confers on these faiths are extremely arbitrary. It’s not based on deep analyses of religious dogma or anything of that nature. I’ve read some of the reasons and found them to be utterly unconvincing. I have posts on this here.


Reference

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11458343/Third-ancient-site-of-Khorsabad-attacked-by-Isil-as-coalition-strike-on-Syria-oil-refinery-kills-30.html

Jihadi John

Most of the news media based in the UK and also elsewhere are covering stories about Jihadi John, the Internet personality associated with the ISIS/ISIL terror group. Jihadi John wearing a face-covering appeared in a series of high quality videos (with audio) showing him beheading, burning alive and cutting the throats of his victims (mostly made up of hostages) for fun or for whatever imaginary reasons he thinks people across the globe should be punished for.

Recently, the real identity of this personality has been uncovered by Washington Post and then BBC. Those who knew him or have worked with him are interviewed. Based on some of the glowing responses from the people who describe him as gentle, hard worker, honest, someone who keeps to himself and away from trouble, Jihadi John has been very busy throughout the years, building a common man persona.

Most people are a very bad judge of human character. Even when a psychopath like Jihadi John are revealed to them, they still, in the state of complete denial, cling to their level of comfort – of what they know about someone/something as opposed to seeing the reality that is right in front of them.

Not getting a job because of hijab/headscarf

I'm following this news about a woman who was not offered a job at a big organization in US (Abercrombie & Fitch) because she was wearing a headscarf.

Of course the lawyer, to defend his client (the organization), said that their so-called look policy is religion-neutral policy and that the company didn't discriminate the woman because of her religion.

Why is this case so interesting?

The government believes that the burden should be on the employer, because the employer here — to take the first step in a job interview, because the employer has superior knowledge, knows the work rules. And if the employer senses, perceives, understands or knows that there could be a religious issue, the employer should just bring it up and start what Congress intended, a dialogue with the job applicant, to see if there was a religious issue, and is there a need for an accommodation? Otherwise, if you put the burden on the employee or job applicant, as the lower court here did, they’re reluctant to bring religion up in a job interview.

I also agree with the following opinion that the employers should be the first party to open the discussion over something that can be considered sensitive/private/very personal to the candidate

he really simplified this and said, look, why can’t an employer just say — for one of the hypotheticals, you have somebody wearing a beard in front of you, why can’t an employer just say during the interview, we have a work policy that excludes beards? Do you have a problem with that? It doesn’t draw religion into it right away. But it gives — then the onus shifts to the job applicant to say if he or she does have a problem with it.

What the following person describe is so very true at least in western countries. We have strong anti-discriminatory laws to give equal opportunity to folks in the matter of employment, but still so many good candidates don't get the same level of consideration for the job.

An employer’s responsibility is not to bury their head in the stand when they are on notice that a potential employee will need a reasonable accommodation from them to work for them. So, for example, in this case, there were supervisors, employees who recognized the young woman’s head scarf as a hijab, and that a hijab is a religious garment. Instead of engaging in a dialogue with her at all, or asking her, do you think you’re going to have any problems doing this job, here is our look policy, they basically decided to avoid the issue altogether and not to extend her a job offer, even though otherwise she seemed to be a good candidate.

Reference
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/supreme-court-weighs-religious-freedom-affects-business-dress-codes