hit-toques.com

Thursday, August 6, 2009

American film director John Hughes, noted for such movies as Sixteen Candles, Pretty in Pink and The Breakfast Club, died Thursday due to a heart attack.

A statement, released by his representative, said that he experienced the heart attack while on a morning stroll in Manhattan, New York. Hughes was born on February 18, 1950 in Michigan. He started his career as an advertising copywriter in Chicago. By the end of the 1970s he was a frequent contributor to the National Lampoon magazine.

In the 1990s, he made the Home Alone series, which became a box office sensation and turned Macaulay Culkin into a star.

In recent years, Hughes stepped back from the movie industry to spend more time with his family. He is survived by his wife of 39 years, Nancy, two sons and four grandchildren.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Toyota Motor Company announced they have formalized an agreement to develop an electric version of the RAV4 SUV with Tesla Motors.

In May 2010, Akio Toyoda and Elon Musk, leaders of Toyota and Tesla, respectively, announced they would work together on electric vehicles. The agreement formalizes this announcement and would allow Tesla to work with Toyota at an automobile production plant in California.

The plant will open 2011, when Tesla reopens it after it bought the Fremont, California plant. The plant was previously used by Toyota and General Motors, but was shut down when Toyota said it would not produce cars in California.

Tesla currently produces only a single model, the US$109,000 Roadster, although it is currently designing a second model, the Model S, which will be produced at the Fremont factory.

Analysts supported the move; John Boesel, CEO of a green-transportation trade group, said that “Toyota’s willingness to partner with Tesla to provide an electric version of one of the Japanese automaker’s existing vehicles suggests the partnership between the two companies is going to be a meaningful one.”

Following this announcement, Tesla’s shares rose $0.75, while Toyota’s fell $1.65.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

The Iranian police forces have faced criticism from Ayatollah Hashemi Shahrudi, the head of the judiciary who was appointed by Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for their re-invigorated campaign to do away with un-Islamic dress.

Ayatollah Shahroudi proclaimed, “Tough measures on social problems will backfire and have counter-productive effects.” Others have, of course, made it clear that un-Islamic dress can lead to moral corruption, engender innumerable vices, and hurt the Islamic character of the nation.

Some believe that no one had any issue with the creation of an Islamic atmosphere. The core of the matter revolves around the implementation of the Islamic dress code; additionally, heavy-handed measures should be shunned. For instance, Mehdi Ahmadi, information head of Tehran’s police, told Al Jazeera: “Some citizens may complain about the way the law is being enforced but they all agree with the plan itself.”

According to one student, “You simply can’t tell people what to wear. They don’t understand that use of force only brings hatred towards them, not love.” Nevertheless, Hojatoll-Islam Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi, Iran’s interior minister who is in charge of policing, prognosticated positive feedback from the populace when he said, “People are unhappy with the social and moral status of the society. They expect that the fight against social insecurity be properly implemented.” Thus, Hujjat al-Islam Pour-Mohammadi re-iterated the necessity of proper implementation and methodology towards the restoration of morality in the Islamic Republic. Islamic officials and religious people affirm that this is indispensable to promote righteousness, curb sin, and bring open sinners to justice.

Following the Islamic Revolution in 1979, hijab became mandatory in Iran for every woman including foreigners after over 98% of citizens voted for an Islamic government. Women may face caning up to 74 strokes for failing to observe hijab. In this recent crackdown, the authorities have arrested many citizens throughout the country. Not only have women been taken into custody for their hair being uncovered on their foreheads and tight clothes that show body shapes, For men they need to cover from knee to their waist as according to Sharia. Even a foreign journalist was detained because the photograph on her press card was indecent.

It has not been clear whence the directive for the re-newed clampdown emanated. Some have blamed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while Gholam Hossein Elham, the government spokesman, stated to reporters, “The police work as agents of the judiciary to confront crimes. The government as an executive body does not interfere in the affairs of the judiciary.” The following pre-election speech seems to corroborate this latter statement:

Saturday, August 26, 2006

The International Cricket Council announced on Friday that controversial Australian umpire Darrell Hair has offered to resign from the ICC Elite Umpires Panel with effect from 31st August if he is paid a sum U.S $500,000 to do so. Hair is currently involved in a dispute with the Pakistan side after he penalised them for ball-tampering during their Test against England at the Oval. The Pakistan team subsequently refused to come out of the pavilion, resulting in their forfeiting the match to the home side. The issue soon snowballed and both the Pakistani captain Inzamam-ul-Haq and Hair came under criticism, the former for bringing the sport into disrepute and the umpire for his alleged bias against players from the Subcontinent.

The ICC’s chief executive Malcolm Speed told a press conference that copies of Hair’s letter had been forwarded to both Doug Cowie (the Council’s umpire manager) and the Pakistan Cricket Board. The umpire asks, in his letter, for “a one-off payment to compensate for the loss of future earnings and retainer payments over the next four years, which I believe would have been the best years I have to offer ICC and world umpiring.” Speed, however, said that neither he nor David Richardson (the ICC’s General Manager) believed that the episode was motivated by any “dishonest, underhand or malicious intent.” on Darrell’s part. He also expressed surprise at the contents of the letter and that he felt the issue had been “marked by a series of unfortunate and entirely avoidable overreactions.”.