Rowling's Sixth Potter Novel Named 'Book of the Year' in U.K.

Proving that her boy wizard hasn't lost his magic, J.K. Rowling's ``Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,'' won the WHSmith Book of the Year prize at the 17th annual British Book Awards.

Alan Bennett, 71, the actor, author and playwright renowned for his deadpan wit, was named Reader's Digest Author of the Year.

Rowling and Bennett were among a dozen authors to be honored at a swanky, televised dinner for 1,200 guests at London's serene Grosvenor House hotel. Lauren Bacall, Richard E. Grant, and other book-loving celebrities presented the gold trophies, shaped like the nib of a fountain pen and giving the awards their nickname, the ``Nibbies.''

More

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Need to do homework

No one has ever proven that terrorists used library materials or equipment in support of their activities.

Welcome to LISNews, but take heed before pecking out any declarations around these parts before doing your own research.

  • Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it was revealed that three hijackers had visited the Delray Beach Public Library, FL. On April 28, 2005, Kenneth Wainstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, told the House Judiciary Committee that people using Internet accounts registered to two hijackers ordered airline tickets for September 11 via public access computers in the library of an unnamed state college in New Jersey.

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) countered by saying "it is not news that the hijackers used libraries because this has been known for years." Added Gregory T. Nojeim, associate director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, "The bipartisan SAFE Act that has been introduced in Congress would narrowly tailor this provision to investigating terrorists, not innocent Americans."(Library Journal, 6/1/05)

As for the ACLU's work with ALA, I would be interested in working with civil libertarians like yourself in Second Amendment rights. Particularly for those librarians working late shifts in dangerous locales that simply wish to protect themselves.

  • "SISTER FIGHTS BACK She's pistol-whipped, but escapes carjacker THE SUSPECT QUEENS SCHOOL LIBRARIAN ATTACKED NEAR SITE OF PRIOR DAY'S RAPE (Daily News, 1/14/2005)

ACLU? I think not.

The ACLU whores out one's personal information ( see this ).

Remember too that it was the ACLU who defended the rights of the Nazis to march through Skokie, a town in which one in six residents was a victim of the Shoah.

I'm all for our Constitutional rights, and I'm in favor of free enterprise, but when it offends, upsets, and annoys others I must draw the line. If the ACLU is they type of people with whom you wish to associate then so be it, but don't be surprised when many people shun you.

Think for yourself don't let groups do your thinking for you.

Re:ACLU? I think not.

That's a mighty broad list. I suspect that most of us are not going to be saying much of anything to anyone. The good news is that I won't have to accidentally turn on the 700 Club; the President will no longer be able to give press conferences; and ALL advertising, and advertisers, will disappear.

Since the above will never happen, you'll have to show me the exception clause in the First Amendment for annoying, offensive and upsetting speech.

Re:ACLU? I think not.

I'm all for our Constitutional rights, and I'm in favor of free enterprise, but . . .

Anyone who says "I believe in X, but . . . ", does not believe in X. If you believe in free speech then you believe in freedom for speech you do not agree with or do not like as well. I know that bivariate topologists can't understand this factor, but it is possible to protect speech about a viewpoint while not agreeing with that viewpoint.

. . . when it offends, upsets, and annoys others I must draw the line.

Except that there is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere. And what offends you does not necessarily offend others. Plus, those others are probably a lot better at dealing with "offense" than you are, and it is not your place to decide what is offensive, upsetting, or annoying to them. They can do that for themselves; in keeping with your following statement.

Think for yourself don't let groups do your thinking for you.

You mean groups like the American right-wing and the ultra-conservatives who ursurp your right to choose when and how and with whom to have sex? Or the ability to control your own reproductive faculties? Or what to read? Or what you are allowed to say about the government and the president?

The ACLU does everything it can to maintain a level playing for the disaffected and minority groups, and that is why its detractors and the politico-religious right-wing hate it. Yes, they make the occassional mistake. But I can forgive them that. The above mentioned elements go out of their way to fuck up everything for everybody. And the ACLU has taken cases on behalf of religious groups that I would shit all over. They are non-partisan.

What its detractors hate most about the ACLU is that it will not bullied into allowing bullies to intimidate everybody. Get over it.

And you might try looking at the Ninth Amendment instead of just the first two. Try walking away from that piece of pop subculture.

Re:ACLU? I think not.

The ACLU has ceased "whor[ing] out one's personal information", as you would see if you read the follow-up to the story you posted. Note that this change occurred in December of 2003.

Re:ACLU? I think not.

I read the whole thing a year or so ago, but they still did it. The fact that they stopped is good, the fact that they did it in the first place is bad.

Re:ACLU? I think not.

I never said people can't say what they may, I said I won't listen.

Re:ACLU? I think not.

The Second Amendment is my favorite!

Re:ACLU? I think not.

Ah, so instead of being uninformed, you were lying.

You said, "The ACLU whores out one's personal information" when you knew for a fact that was not true. It has not been true for more than two years. "Truthy" maybe, but not true.

Re:ACLU? I think not.

"I'm all for our Constitutional rights, and I'm in favor of free enterprise, but when it offends, upsets, and annoys others I must draw the line."

Then I misunderstood you, the above quote was a little ambivalent. My apologies, and I'm glad to see that you don't wish to ban speech that "offends, upsets, and annoys others..."

Re:ACLU? I think not.

Whores - whored it is a matter of semantics. I knew they did it because my brother who does not share my political views joined the ACLU. They misspelled his name and he is still getting junk mail with the incorrect spelling. It was not a common misspelling, but making the first letter of our last name into a second middle inital.

So since the mail is still coming with that error that was started by the ACLU I find the present tense perfectly acceptable.

I also think UPS sucks and smashes packages, but I didn't get one from them today. Should I have used sucked and smashed?

Re:ACLU? I think not.

My apologies, and I'm glad to see that you don't wish to ban speech that "offends, upsets, and annoys others..."

Then we agree this to be an example of short haired, yellow-bellied, sons of tricky dicky trying to mother hubbard soft soap the...eh, some people ; )

Re:ACLU? I think not.

I absolutely agree. I have some major problems with hate speech legislation.

LOL, are you sure, however, that you're not confusing me with Fang? 'Cause I'm not from, nor do I live in, Canada.

Re:ACLU? I think not.

are you sure, however, that you're not confusing me with Fang?

No confusion at all RedCard. You're the libertarian free of Maple leaf myopia.

Re:ACLU? I think not.

So do I, but that fact is inconvenient for some people, so they ignore it.

How's that "flag desecration" constitutional amendment thing coming along, by the way?

Re:ACLU? I think not.

It depends.. if you think they are still sucking and smashing packages, then your statement would be correct. If they did it in the past, but are no longer, then the statement is false. It is more than an issue of semantics. To say that someone is still doing something, when they are not, is making a false statement. For instance:

The President drinks himself silly.

The President drank himself silly.

One statement is true, by the President's own admission. However no matter how I personally feel about the man, I don't think he drinks anymore. To accuse him of doing something that he did in the past, and rectified, is being dishonest.

If it wasnt' important, our language wouldn't worry about verb tenses.

Syndicate content