The recent Dumbledore revelation brought a new thought to mind.

"What are the views of the Wizarding Community in terms of sexuality?"

There are many questions to consider:
We are not aware of any fixed religion so do they condemn or support intercourse before marriage? What about homosexuality or even matters such as abortion etc. What effect can these things have on the wizarding world?
Is there a parody between our world and theirs on this topic?

In the wizarding world we see that being different is almost second nature. They are different to muggles so what is different to them? There are also then those few like Dumbledore, Harry and even Tom Riddle who are even outcastes in the strange world of magic.

It is unclear whether the Wizarding world knew about Dumbledore's sexuality and even if they did, how can we tell if they supported it or not? Dumbledore was seen as a great wizard and very respected but we see in Deathly Hallows he was also wildly criticized. Does this mean that it is merely an allegory to real life where some support it and other don't? We know that not everyone agreed with Dumbledore with his "Live life with love" motto. Perhaps this is how Dumbledore turned out the way he did. Never judging anyone because he had a different perspective. Does this change the wizarding world in any way?

I think that (just like in our world), it wouldn't matter in the least unless you made it so. What I am referring to is the way some people can make a big deal (sometimes HUGE) out of something that could really not be.
For example the fact that Harry Potter has magic in, which some people blow entirely out of proportion saying that it is evil twisted witchcraft etc. ect.

What do you think? Please feel free to add anything I haven't mentioned or that comes to mind.

Remember those Muggle adolescents that strive so much to be 'different' they end up all alike. Humans tend to identify with a group while differentiating themselves from the alternative. So while wizards will probably seek to differentiate themselves from Muggles, most of them would at the same time seek to conform to some wizarding mainstream.

As far as the social issues that seem wildly divisive to us, I think the wizarding community, as a whole, is a lot more tolerant than our own.

In some places, the fact that Harry dated Cho or that Ginny dated Dean would be intolerable. There don't seem to be racial tensions in the wizarding world-- it's goblin vs. wizard, not wizard X vs. wizard Y.

We know that the wizarding population, as a whole, is rather small. In some ways, they can't afford to be intolerant.

But isn't it two sides of the same coin? Isn't "species-ism" as bad as racism?

We're humans, so we identify with humans. We see humans of different races interacting and we say the wizard world is so enlightened. Yet the wizard world has its divisions, its hatreds and mistrusts, too.

And those apart from the wizarding mainstream may very well suffer alienation, as several examples in the series illustrate. The most obvious (and best developed) is Luna Lovegood. The average Hogwarts student not only dismissed her as "Loony," but many played pranks on her. This treatment was based on her being so very "different," and very little else. It's not as if Luna was herself behaving in a mean and confrontational way (quite the opposite, in fact: her serene good nature in the face of taunting and ostracism points up a remarkable strength of character, and I consider her to be the role model among the students). When Harry and others look beneath to see the real Luna and befriend her, it's a strong statement about inclusion and perception that Jo's making.

The wizarding world is also rife with its own internal predjudices, and I think it's deliberately being portrayed at a critical cusp on that matter. The "blood purity" faction versus the reformers, as it were...

I think it is so awesome someone started this topic, and I hope we'll be able to use it for more than just the gay thing as time goes on.

However, as to the gay thing, I think there are a lot of indicators that homosexuality in the wizarding world is viewed either similiarly to how it is viewed in ours -- a subject of controvery possibly receiving less press amongst wizards because they have bigger problems (i.e., Voldemort). Then again, we have bigger problems too and yet, look at all of this -- or, in fact even more negatively.

There are a few indicators for both theories.

First we have Rita Skeeter's aspersions on Dumbledore, which sound pretty much exactly like the aspersions gay people face today -- insinuations of child molestation and the like. Since Skeeter is one of the wizarding world characters that most closely maps to a muggle evil (tabloid press and irresponsible journalism) she's a good indicator that maybe the wizarding world is just as screwed up as our own on this topic.

Perhaps, though, it's even worse. The wizarding world is _small_. We see this in Hogwarts class sizes, the secrecy they keep from Muggles and the general fear they have of Muggle discovery. Also, note the lack of armies in the book.

This is a world with police forces, guerilla combat and espionage. This tells us wizarding Britain probably isn't large enough to have an army and also reinforces the general formality of wizarding society -- spying, after all, was it its height during the Elizabethan era because spying can only be successfully conducted in a corps a corps way in a formal society with rules that if adhered to mask identity and allegiances. A small world (and one that seems, from the named characters in the books, to have a significant male-female gender imbalance), and I would even argue, a dying world (wizards did not always live in secrecy and in fear), is going to be much more concerned with reproduction than our overpopulated muggle world. Birth is survival. How will homosexuality when practiced in lieu of a reproducing marriage be viewed? Probably dimly, although I'm sure there's an MPREG writer who can argue with me here.

All of this said, I do think there are also good arguments for the wizarding society being more tolerant -- as others have mentioned it seems like a rather secular world. Additionally, the gender imbalance I cited before could also be addressed by an acceptance of male homosexuality thus eliminating ugly competition for brides. And finally, of course, yes, the wizarding world is very much about people being unabashedly who they are.

I think it's really an unsolveable question and one we'll have to wait for answers from JKR on, but it opens some great lines of analysis.

Much food for thought, Racheline! I think your observation about the small population of the wizarding world is both astute and quite relevant. Small populations, and particularly those that might view themselves as threatened, tend to be rather less flexible in terms of departures from societal norms (think: small villages vs. big cities, for one over-broad example). It's as if there is an instinctual recognition of the fact that they cannot afford to lose members. While this might make toleration of homosexuality more likely (as a survival-positive adaptation to reduce competition for mates in a gender-imbalanced group), other less survival-critical departures from the norm would be less likely to be readily accepted, as they'd be seen, on some level, as a threat to group identity.

I think there are a number of ofther important ramifications of the small size of the wizarding world, particularly as it is seen (by its constituents) as at risk from the Muggle world. Most ofthose, however, would be more than a bit of a departure from the original topic of this thread, which I think has a lot of its own ground to cover...so I'll try and assemble my racing thoughts along these lines and start another thread.

Awesome, I look forward to it. This issue has been a pet fascination of mine for a while and was only enhanced by a roundtable on wizarding warfare I attended at Phoenix Rising. There are so many interesting hints about wizarding culture in the way their world conducts hosilities.

Except that the wizarding world, and especially the blood-purists within it do not seem to be concerned about reproduction. There were quite a few people who died single or otherwise childless in the Black family. Nobody complains that Madam Bones should have married and had children rather than gone into the Ministry - and she held the second highest position in the Ministry. People complain about what Rita Skeeter writes but nobody suggests that marrying and having children would have been a better career move for her. It seems Bathilda Bagshot was another unmarried career woman (in wizarding academia). And while Molly and Arthur Weasley had 7 children, uncle Bilius wasn't married and it seems that neither was aunt Muriel (Prewett?). Among those that do have children, the current trend seems to be towards small families. I don't think a few gay people make much of a difference when wizards, and especially the purebloods among them, just don't seem to be very inclined to breed in the first place. Also, notice that by Harry's year purebloods are a minority. Wizarding society is composed of mostly half-bloods and enjoys a constant influx of Muggle-borns (who mostly marry half-bloods and purebloods, leading to another half-blood dominated generation).

Concur with this: have always been struck by how many of wizard-kind seem not to marry or reproduce -- a considerably higher proportion, it would appear, than among Muggles (mostly -- adherents of the Catholic Church, maybe a special case). And as Oryx says, those who have families, tend to have small ones -- the Weasleys are exceptional. No hint of "drives for people to reproduce more", as seen in various parts of the Muggle world (the very last thing that it needs, IMO -- anyway...). If wizard-dom had anything against gay people, I don't see it being for this reason.

Have often mused, concerning the matter of "tabs being kept on" whenever a wizard child is born: it's reported, via the special quill for the purpose (I think -- am unclear on the precise details), and "come the time", the letter from Hogwarts (Beauxbatons ... fill in as appropriate..) is duly sent out. Wonder whether this is somehow linked with "whoever...whatever..." exercising more control over wizard-kind's conceiving new members, than is the case for non-magic folk, with whom, mostly, "it happens because it happens". Is it perhaps pre-ordained and "plotted", how many wizard children will be born in a particular year -- the couples concerned have, as it were, no say in the matter? Just a few vague random thoughts -- like Oryx, I've frequently been struck by the wizarding world's seeming low reproductive rate, and its seemingly not being an issue therein, whether from "pro" or "con" point of view.

Ron was the only one from whom we hear that if wizards don't marry Muggles they might die out - also in line with his family being the rare large one. Perhaps the Weasleys are the only ones among the purebloods with understanding of demographics?

I agree, and much of this idealogy is reflected - quite ironically in my opinion - in the Ministry of Magic itself, or, more specifically, in the "Fountain of Magical Brethren":



Clearly, a half-hearted and all-too common attempt at the magical symbolic version of "brotherly love" is on display in the "state capital," so to speak. I'm sure I don't have to go into too much detail regarding the placing of the non-human members of the magical community in relation to both the witch and erect-wand wielding wizard, right? But if I do, let me know.

It's a farce. It's a sham. House-elves are the equivalent of slaves, Goblins looked upon as no better than the Jewish community is looked upon at times (but they sure are good with money, right)? Centaurs are those crazy loonies whom no one should pay attention to, waxing poetic nonsense about how bright Mars is.

And, naturally, the witch is described as beautiful....I mean, with that mighty wizard's wand pointing so high up, she'd have to be, right?

So yes, it's rather nice that Rowling showed us that interracial dating and friendships are so unremarkable in this world that no mention or reference is made to that aspect of it - but she's making it quite, quite clear that the social inequality she presents in this fountain is her version of all our own social inequalities - racism naturally included.

That's why I found it equally fascinating that this farce of a message was destroyed in that last battle - it was the end of the show. The farce came crumbling down. There was no need for pretending at that point. So I was highly "amused" when I read Rowling's description of the new, rebuilt "symbol of society" at the MoM:



Of course, Harry has a closer look at those "thrones," and realizes that they're piles of humans grotesquely pressed together holding up the might of the Ministry. Yes....I almost forgot about their hatred of non-magical peoples too. The "snatcher state" (or ss....hah) had descended on the wizarding world.

There are many more examples of course of social inequality throughout the novels, and most of them reflect all that has happened and all that may still happen in our own world. This is one of my favorite parallels of the books to our culture....frighteningly raw, yet honest.

Ron's a lovely guy, but -- pretty well universally agreed -- not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Maybe he doesn't realise that it's not up to the parents, and is controlled by some "higher power"? (Not propounding that "this is how things obviously are" -- just indulging in "what-ifs".)

Perhaps.

Or perhaps Arthur and Molly just plain love kids, love the family life, and have no interest in further peopling the world or making sure purebloods don't die out.

Or perhaps Molly is simply a fertile-Myrtle....

Picture got, from a reference in DH, that they greatly fancied having a daughter -- after numerous sons... (let's take it, re hypothesis which I've floated, that whatever "powers above" regulate the number of wizard kids born, have -- for whichever reasons -- ordained that the Weasleys may have lots of them) -- something of a parallel to my own maternal grandparents. During and after the World War 1 era (my grandfather was then on the "elderly" side -- married late -- plus, he had tuberculosis, of which he died ten years later -- so he stayed at home, no serving in the armed forces -- but he was still able to procreate, during those dreadful years) my grandparents -- who, both with interesting careers, had married but not originally intended to have children at all --ended up having five children -- four sons, finally a daughter (my mother). Had it not been so, I wouldn't be around, to bore people with posts on TSL... anyway -- just random musings...

"TSL" -- sorry, I meant "TLC" -- Ron isn't the only intellectually-challenged person around here...

Another random thought: One reason the population of Wizarding Britain needs to mantain its numbers is the troubled relationships with other intelligent magical species. If the balance between wizards and goblins changes too much, who is to say there won't be another rebellion? But we see in DH that Dirk Cresswell, from the Goblin Liason Office was Muggle-born. Which means that as long as wizarding society remains open to the natural influx of Muggle-borns the breeding habits of purebloods are endangering neither the continued existence of the British magical world nor its continued dominance over other beings.

The speculation that there is a bit of magical genetic engineering is interesting. However, one slight chink in the works might be that there hasn't been a mention of the Grangers of the world, who pop out a 'miracle' genius wizard like Hermione. Of course, they are not all necessarily geniuses, but as Rowling points out, the 'magic gene' is recessive and may appear seemingly out of nowhere from a long line of muggle relations on both sides. This seems to suggest that the system might be more a monitoring system than an engineering one, since the Ministry would have to be engineering muggles as well. But we do know that the Ministry goes through phases of autocratic obsession - however, it seems a little Naziesque.

Also, reproduction rates in Europe in general are much lower than in the Americas. I am not so sure that the low rates of reproduction are that different than is currently the case in Britain. I know that the rate of reproduction in Germany is 1.3 children per woman. I think this is the lowest in Europe now, but most European birth rates are much lower than the U.S. rate.

One other factor is that for wizards, there is a certain unstated prejudice against wizards marrying muggles. Few do. This really limits the options for marriage if they are searching first in the wizarding communities and only rarely (if at all) in the muggle communities. It makes finding a suitable mate much more difficult in some ways. These are just a few other factors to throw into the pot.

Well, it is aprejudice for some (those who won't even marry a Muggle-born ,agical person) but it also seems to be a matter of avoiding complications. How does a wizard/witch tell the Muggle partner about hir magical status (and the possibility of having magical offspring)? It seems the solution is not to tell before it's too late - as we saw Merope, Seamus' mother and Dean's father, possibly also Eileen Prince. And more often than not it ends badly (not a huge surprise when a marriage involves hiding something so significant).

Off the main topic of point here, but these seems to be the place to put this:

Was, or was not, the Ministry of Magic in the Crouch\Umbridge times supposed to be an attack of British government itself?

Are we ever told whether it is Hagrid's mother or father who is a wizard? I think it was his dad, but I don't recall exactly. Of course it seems not to have been his mother, but I don't remember knowing whether Hagrid's father was a wizard or a muggle.

And to LuvCrookshanks: I think it was more general, but based somewhat on the government of contemporary England. This is just my view... I think Rowling recently said the there were parallels in the series with Nazi regime. This reflects a time when a faction of the political system really takes control over all the government and the people. I have read a few posts about how it might be compared to the Thatcher era and I can see perhaps a little parodying in Umbridge and in the complicity that Fudge has in Voldamort's rise to power. I don't know that Rowling has ever directly stated that she is commenting on the British government itself. But, there is the depiction of the British government in the series directly though the prime minister. He is certainly also a bit of parody, but it doesn't really demonize him. He seems more like a 'good old boy' just trying to maintain his position and good name with the least disruption possible... a muggle counterpart to Fudge. So making the British government Rowling's Nazi parallel doesn't really work completely. I would think there are elements of Rowling's criticism in her depictions, but perhaps not a single character in its pure form. But I do think that the Umbridge/Thatcher parallel works on some levels.

Isn't Fudge supposed to be a bit of Neville Chamberlain? Not sure if Crouch Sr, Scrimgeour or Thicknesse were supposed to refer to specific historical people.

I always thought some of the books published in the Tony Blair era reflected his general ineptitude and carelessness.

Actually, my first thought was that the muggle prime minister seemed to be depicting Tony Blair to some degree...but for me, not being a Brit, I don't really know the inner politics of the country well enough to make that claim. There did seem to be a certain sort of opportunism in Rowling's character that could be said to reflect him. But its probably better for the Brits on the thread here to comment more conclusively on that.

Random thoughts from a Brit -- though certainly no politics buff or scholar: I've been inclined to feel that in the politicians (Muggle or wizard) featured in the books, JKR is, in the main gently, lampooning the "politician" breed as a whole, rather than particularly the British kind thereof, or individual British ones of same. I'd reckon that ever since human society came to be, the "ruled" have been grumbling about their rulers being nincompoops and/or self-seekers and/or villains. It has, I think, been generally found that in the main -- with exceptions -- the intellectually and morally best of mankind, tend not to home in on politics, career-wise... so that many of those who do, are -- to quote Humpty Dumpty -- rather "unsatisfactory persons".

yea i beleive that a lot of the harry potter story echoes things in real life ie; love,youth,genocide,greed, social ignorance, the hunger of the press to break down the heroes they built up.

I think that's a pretty accurate analysis. To me, JKR didn't seem to be indulging in any politicking or point-scoring in her depiction of the Muggle prime minister; rather, she seemed to be showing how ineffectual the most "powerful" man in the country seemed to be when faced with a series of unimaginable catastrophes caused by dark magic, all of which he struggled to understand, and as we see - he singularly failed to understand what was happening, or why - and more importantly, couldn't think of an effective way to deal with the crisis. In JKR's typically even-handed style, wizard politicians don't get much good press in her series either - just look at Cornelius Fudge. The best that could be said for Rufus Scrimgeour was that he was a more effective leader than Fudge was - DD certainly knew that Scrimgeour would not be fooled by the likes of LV - but that's not saying much.

I found this press release, Law Professor: Harry Potter Has Hidden Message, very interesting. It is another example of someone softening JKR's political message by shifting the blame from elitists and racists onto bureaucracy and big government. The law professor in question claims to see a libertarian theme in HP. (He didn't specify if this was a leftist libertarian or a rightist libertarian theme.) The professor is well-meaning and sympathetic to many of the themes presented in HP, but I have little patience for the Libertarian Party, which seems to me peppered with Xenophilius Lovegoods.

You can read Prof Barton's essay Harry Potter and the Half-crazed Bureaucracy.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is a completely different perception of government and the civil service in Britain than there is in America. So I find Prof Barton's appeal to an Anglo-American experience rings false. One can see this in the very curious experience that former House Leader Tom DeLay had in Britain when he warned that, if a Democrat won the White House in 2008, they'd install universal healthcare. There was thunderous applause. Which wasn't really what he was expecting. See here.

I also find Barton assumes things not in evidence. He assumes the Wizarding World is undemocratic, but I don't. I think it's still on an ancient parliamentary system. It is, after all, a very small world. And Barton has a dislike of all government, which is not what I feel coming from JK Rowling. Government can be good or bad; it rather depends on the collective strength of its members.

Although there are points of agreement in libertarian philosophy and what is the underpinning of JKR's message in HP, they are really far from compatible. Indeed, reading the Libertarian Party's manifesto makes me cringe --I can't think of anything less likely to fly in Britain. And I don't see that JKR has presented a devasting critique of all government. That's never been her message. And Barton's conclusion is undermined by the Epilogue.

In the "Is HP great literature" forum there are many pages showing comparisons of the HP series to Nazi history, including Harry's lightning scar resembling the SS lightning symbol; comparing Hitler to VD; and the occult search for objects of power. In her interviews, JKR acknowledges using that model for evil. Clearly, Umbridge is a tyrant in stage two of the tyrant's game book, where they move from charm and lies to terror as the main means to control their followers. However, the lies never end under a tyrant, for example dying people in the Communist Gulag wrote letters to Stalin begging for help, they could not believe that Uncle Joe could know about the Gulag when in fact Stalin personally selected their names and marked these same people for death. The corruption of normal government functions, like the legal system is typical and touched on in the lies broadcast about Sirius and Umbridge's desire to use poisons to extract information. Estimates of Stalin's purges range from twenty to thirty million murdered; many endured torture and then show trials. In "Is HP great lit" post 48, I am guessing that Umbridge's Slytherin locket is the part of the soul associated with Touch or the Heart, Ab . In that case, the show trial where Umbridge is wearing the locket touches on the heart of a tyrant.

Someone should write the Tyrants Game Plan Book, Machiavelli's Prince is the closest but getting out of date, for example media manipulation-lies would expand from printing to other media. The suppression of minorities, such as werewolves and Lupin, and then extending later, to women and children, is also part of this typical pattern. The Nazi's used Jewish people to induce terror in all their citizens. If you study Nazi, or tyrants', history you can see that JKR recreated many of those processes from history in her series. My guess is that the foibles in the early 1930's of the aristocratic leaders, von Hindenburg and von Papen, might compare to the ineptitude under crisis with the MoM and Muggle leaders. There were powerful business and military interests that supported Hitler, they saw themselves as gaining much and being able to control Hitler, similar I imagine to Lucius and the Death Eaters.

Strangely, it appears to me that she did skip Goebbels' intense perversion of the German language. The joke at the time was that if Goebbels had been Napoleon's Propaganda Minister we would all never know that Napoleon lost at Waterloo. Goebbels destroyed many ancient words with deep meaning by corrupting them into tools for the Nazi religion.

I read the material via the links you provided davidenglish, thanks. Interestingly enough, this paragraph struck me as a prfound (and, sadly, scary) parallel to the American government under the current Bush Administration:


Except instead of truth serum, they use waterboarding....

For the most part, I found Barton's essay to be less than enlightening. However, I don't think I would see it as "another example of someone softening JKR's political message by shifting the blame from elitists and racists onto bureaucracy and big government," primarily because I don't think he either softens or sharpens anything JKR has to say. I believe Baron goes off on his own tangent. Barton seems to be creating his own message largely by (as you pointed out, Davidenglish) assuming "things not in evidence" and then by projecting meanings into those absences, a kind of combination the argumentum ad ignorantum and simple begging the question.

He claims that Rowling has created a "scathing portrait of government" in principle, assuming that a negative portrayal of the Ministry of Magic should be seen as an attack on all governments. He points out that Rowling has removed all of the ordinary protections imposed on "public choice" government (free press, elections, separation of legislative and judicial functions, etc.) and then interprets the horrors of the MoM as an indication that Rowling finds those traditional protections meaningless. It seems to me that the same evidence could be interpreted to mean she finds those very protections to be absolutely vital.

I am also troubled by the automatic assumption that the MoM reflects Anglo-American government. While it is obvious that abuses and corruptions exist, the plain truth is that there is a free press that seriously investigates and challenges almost every minute action of the government daily. Free elections do exist and are closely monitored by media, down to exhausting and even ludicrous video images of individual ballots with "hanging chads." Further, the counted ballots are left open to public scrutiny, as in the famous Florida case in which even the New York Times (no friend of the current administration) had to admit months later that the count had been correct. Further, the extension of the MoM monitoring of underage wizards to the claim that Rowling is portraying constant government surveillance of all its citizens seems a bit much. Judicially issued warrants are still required (though perhaps too easily obtained in some cases).

Some of Barton's logic seems very odd. For example, he writes:

The Libertarian Party claims to be the fastest-growing political parting the in United States. After reading The Half-Blood Prince, I am much more convinced.

I am sorry, I do not see how anything in the fictional wizarding world gives statistical evidence for what is happening in the real political world.

Barton happily quotes Thoreau, "That government is best which governs least," assuming first that Rowling agrees and that second that she would accept Thoreau's extension "That government is best which governs not at all." Thoreau could happily accept that idea because he was a Transcendentalist, that is a pantheist who sees every human soul as informed by a single consciousness, the Oversoul. That universal consciousness produces a uniform conscience, which Thoreau believed every person has. Thus external law is only an expedient. While there has been much debate about the nature of Rowling's Christian beliefs, I have no evidence from either her statements or from the texts that she has been trying to construct a Transcendentalist manifesto of some kind or that she believes human society could function without laws or government of any kind.

No, I believe Barton to be incorrect in assuming that HP is an argument for libertarianism, unless we can first agree upon some very narrow definition of that term. I do not see Rowling as opposed to government in principle, only to bad government.

There is much more about Barton's essay I would like to discuss, but I am afraid it will have to wait. I am already running behind schedule.

Thank you davidenglish for bringing up the subject.

-----
edited to fix some of my obviously stupid spelling

For Oxymoronic - All but one of your statements are not true; I think the military tried truth serums but they don't work. As far as I can determine from critical analysis of the news all of your other statements are all false. Furthermore, it is clearly silly to say that the government is watching all U.S. citizens, please learn the basics about computer technology. After thinking about it I mostly agree with Bush and his actions. However, torture, including waterboarding, should never be allowed. The prisons appear to be as fair as possible although the internees should never be held indefinitely without trial. The difficulty is that evidence from intelligence sources is a hard problem. Revealing intelligence sources could lead to mass murder on a global scale.

Please consider this: If you were President Bush and had to defend the American people from terrorist Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) what would you do?

The Al Quaeda murdered about three thousand citizens in NYC, that is a declaration of war. Since the intelligence community failed the U.S. in Iran and those radical ayatollahs took power, there is a greater problem of deterring radical governments from obtaining WMD and using them. It's wonderful to say you don't like Bush's strategy and tactics but you then have to say what you would do instead and support your stand with facts.

The Islamic world fails to stop these radicals, who will? Who will show the ethics, courage, and intelligence of Snape, DD, and HP and his friends? For a government it is relatively easy to build atom bombs and place them in the U.S. but you have provided no means to prevent that. If you learned anything from the experience of Hitler and Stalin, you should at least think about how the characters in the HP series organized and fought for their world's survival.

Bottom line: don't complain like a young kid unless you provide adult and responsible solutions. Also, please carefully sift facts from your quoted speculations which are saleable complaints against authority figures.

P.S. I just read your other posts and noticed that you recently joined Leaky Lounge and are under age thirty. In response to your comments there, the "Is HP Great Lit?" forum argues that the HP series is also for adults.

Well, I'm not sure how Pres Bush fits into the Potterverse. However, I would point out that alQaeda was not a country and so it's attack on 11 Sept 2001 must be called a terrorist crime rather than a declaration of war. Afghanistan's Taleban government did provide alQaeda with a refuge, but that's a different matter.

What Voldemort is up to is best termed a Civil War. It's one part of the Wizarding World fighting another. This is partly why Voldemort prefers to pull strings rather than make an open show of his authority. He doesn't want anyone to clearly identify an enemy that can be opposed.

Of course, the Muggle-born Registration Commission does resonate with our world. We need only look back to the Blacklists and the HUAC of the 1950s to see a similar abuse of power. Or the USPatriot Act and warrantless wiretapping today. The violation of human rights always comes with noble sounding spin and the Umbridge-like reasoning that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Sounds fine, right? Until the next decree changes what's okay or a crime or whatever.

Consider a comparison between Harry's trial before the Wizengamot and the kangaroo courts at Gitmo. Harry's rights were being trampled. An Afghan-Canadian is finally being tried at Gitmo where he's been held for five years. But the preliminary hearing revealed serious flaws in the system. And the whole contentious issue of whether the accused was a lawful or unlawful combatant, and whether he was too young to be considered responsible at all brings the possibilty of justice into question.

Arbitrary rule, which is what Voldemort stands for, cannot be tolerated. It subjugates all to the whim of whomever sits in judgement. It presumes guilt rather than innocence and celebrates irrationalism and prejudice. It is the hallmark of tyranny. And it is why we have Bills of Rights that insist on presumption of innocence, due process and various liberties.

The famous British legal expert William Blackstone said "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer." The Prussian statesman Bismarck inverted this concept preferring that "ten innocent suffer rather than one guilty escape."

I think we can all see where Jo stands with the tales of Sirius Black, Stan Shunpike, Harry's detentions with Dolores, and her support for Amnesty International. Torture is always based on the presumption of guilt and there's no remedy for the innocent who suffer torture since the crime was committed with the permission of the State.

I'd say the words of Dumbledore's spirit in King's Cross should alert us to the problem of careerism in government. Those who crave power are seldom the ones who should wield power. There is something far more like Athenian democracy or the Viking Althing in the Wizenmagot than there is Whitehall or White House.

I would have listened to the intelligence given to me from the prior administration, which had open files on potential terrorist threats - and might have proven effective in preventing the tragedy that happened over six years ago. I also would have never instigated or authorized or turned a blind eye to the "outing" of a CIA agent because her family ties disagreed with an agenda that I wanted to pursue. I certainly wouldn't make it more difficult for Americans to travel abroad and make them targets for retaliatory measures which that agenda propogated, so I would seek to make amends with the United Nations towards those efforts. And, if I was found to be in grievous error, I would also admit my mistakes and offer formal apologies with no pardons for those who ill-advised me and profited by using my Office as justification for their actions. I would also offer my resignation and pay retribution to the best of my ability. Hopefully, that would initiate the recovery of "good will" in the world, where we could get our former allies back on our "side" - so that we could all move forward in an effort eliminate the threat of WMD worldwide - not just for Americans.



Perhaps not all Anglo-American government...but quite possibly that segment which idealizes the Ayn Rand philosophy of Objectivism.

momwitch, I think Terrence was erroneously attributing the views of Prof Barton to Oxymoronic. I certainly don't agree with Terrence's rationalization of current foreign policy by invoking a series of implausible "what ifs". That just makes us as bad as the baddies.

I certainly thought that Prof Barton's attributing those abuses to a central African country was unfair. Indeed, as you and Oxymoronic point out, we sometimes need to look in the mirror before casting the first stone.

Fudge and Scrimgeour are not painted as evil men in Harry Potter. Neither is the Muggle Prime Minister. They are meant to represent the corrupting influence of Realpolitik that forever trades in expediencies and maintaining the status quo.
Well, the quote here is from wordsaremagic. However, I wasn't troubled by the implication that Jo has been criticizing our Western democracies, but that the government of Britain and America should be considered one. There are great differences between the two English-speaking countries.

BTW, I do agree with you about Ayn Rand. She's definitely Grindelwald's man through and through. For the Greater Good!

Read up Terrence - the military has tried quite a few things, not the least of which were attempts at brainwashing and electric shock therapy. If you like, please send me a PM and I'll suggest some reading material you may or may not find helpful. It's clear to me where your politics lie, just like it has been made clear to you where my ideaology lies.

I have to ask - are you aware, truly aware of what is happening in the United States? Warrentless wiretapping into civilians' lives and requests for immunity to those who "helped" this administration because they KNOW the activity is criminal behavior - otherwise, why request immunity? Read up before spouting such hyperbole.


Well, there we go, don't we. 'Nuff said. If I were President Bush, I should resign in shame and fly off to all the property I purchased in Venezuela as to avoid prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Defending the country from extremists is NOT an excuse to destroy the constitution and murder thousands of innocent civilians for Black Gold.



I did learn a lesson from Hitler and Stalin - and Voldemort too, for that matter. And I think Americans - and people the world over - need to fight for our world's survival. Against our version of Voldemort here in America.

Let me tell you something....if most 'young kids' knew about what was happening in their world the way I do - if they bothered to read, speak, listen and dig for the truth underneath the propoganda machine that is the MSM, we'd be a lot better off.


What a laugh! Thanks for that. There are other great books besides HP of course....perhaps you should read some of those, uh, adult books as well...?

Thanks, David. I took Terrence's question as a rhetorical one, but where I would actually respond using one of the ways which might be a qualified defense by reducing the threat. The "good will" of the American people has been seriously compromised in the past 7 years - beginning on November 7, 2000, and that will not be regained through increased bullying tactics. I have always "supported our troops", but not the policies which put them in danger. People (in my opinion) should only fight for other people , not for self-serving ideologies - and this seems to be one of the biggest problems that we face in this conflict: the inability to separate the politics from the people.

To me, this seems very significant in the Harry Potterverse: the desire to be "in control" in the face of contradicting realities, which compromises the security of All.

Well, to bring this back to Harry Potter, there's the Greater Good and then there's the Greater Good.

One major problem with society, both in the Potterverse and our real world, is that the same platitudes are used by Left and Right, liberal democrat and conservative monarchist. And yet the reality that follows is totally different.

Consider this story that says 20% at NYU would sell their vote for an iPod touch. Admittedly, we're talking flippant college kids, but it disturbingly echoes events at Hogwarts during DH.

Most of us live our lives without being affected by government or business in any meaningful way. The manufacturing of goods & services, the maintainence of law & regulations just seems to hum in the background like a PC's operating system. It's when things go wrong or they affect us personally that we suddenly see where we've built the foundation of our society.

Take Nazism, which forms an underlying source for the HP saga. There's a kind of self-righteous 20/20 hindsight that makes us believe we wouldn't let it all happen again. And yet one only has to read archival newspapers to see that it didn't seem so obvious to the general public back in 1938.

Eleanor Roosevelt worried that the American people might be attracted to Fascism because, she said, Americans like things that get the job done. And Fascism and Nazism, from an economic perspective, sure looked like they got things done.

Chamberlain, who I think is much maligned, had a tough time in 1938. Hitler had a good case about the rights of the German-speaking people in the Sudetenland. (Wilson was warned that it would cause civil strife if that area were given to Czechoslovakia back in 1919.) Chamberlain began preparing for war in March 1939 when Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia.

Constant vigilance is required. But we cannot suspend law, abrogate rights, or behave in an arbitrary and unjust way. Voldemort comes to power by committing crimes. It's through threats and intimidation that he succeeds.

Could Hitler have been stopped in 1938? One has only to look at the sudden fall of France in 1940 and wonder what would have happened in a Battle of Britain without the help of the Enigma machine.

Justice and Equality are always relative. There are no absolutes. That's one of the lessons of Harry Potter. We must judge every situtation on its merits. And the underlying princples upon which we base our judgement must be one of respecting everyone's rights.

Slytherin House has a right to exist. It just doesn't have the right to eclipse the other three houses. And it should be recalled that Hitler first tried to expel the Jews, but none of the Western democracies would take them. That is to our shame. And reveals that Slytherin's Way lies just beneath the surface in most societies.

The reason HP is framed as a fight between Slytherin and Gryffindor is because both these sides act on faith. Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, representing Reason and Good Works, are unlikely to have behaved with such absolute certainty as either Voldemort or Harry do.

And, ultimately, that's the lesson of HP. Harry, having survived to adulthood and vanquished his nemesis, unites the four Houses by ditching the Stone, hiding the Wand and embracing the Cloak. It's the lesson of Mother Love; which is why the final line of the Epilogue echoes the moral philosophy of Julian of Norwich: All is Well.

Can you expand on this? How do you see the Hallows and his decisions about them, symbolically? The choice of a preferred Hallow and what that says about character is fascinating to me-- and yet I always feel like there is a bit more below the surface that I'm not quite grasping. It sounds like you're onto something interesting though. I'd like to read more about how you see each choice relating to a moral philosophy.

I'll try. The trio form a psyche as in Ego, Superego and Id, or, Tripitaka, Monkey and Pig. Ron is tempted by the Wand, Harry the Stone and Hermione the Cloak. What does the Wand represent? Brute force, dominance, paternal authority. It's very masculine, combative and antisocial. And Dumbledore, having been humbled by the incident of Ariana's death, is able to tame the wand. The Stone represents the comfort of the womb. It's maternal overprotection, nostalgic, reactionary. It tempted Dumbledore as well as Harry, both of whom have suffered great loss. The Cloak represents both security and freedom. The wearer of the Cloak can escape harm and travel unhindered. The Cloak can protect family and friends. It tempts Hermione, who is the force of reason in the books, she's the only female, and she values the peace and stability needed to learn, to reason, and to make the right choice.

Harry is pure of heart. That doesn't mean he's wise or lacking in the emotions of arrogance and impatience. He's often emotionally conflicted. But whenever presented with the actuality of events, Harry is fair, just and merciful. He doesn't want to impose his will on others. Which is what the Wand and the Stone do; they represent paternalism and maternalism. The Cloak represents a Third Way. It's the way of community, of family, of nurturing love.

Now, as for Julian of Norwich, who is the author of one of the first works in English by a woman, I feel I should merely quote from two passages:For more, see Julian of Norwich.

How does this mesh with Harry's enjoyment of Cruciating Amycus without any reflection about where he might be going from there? Or Hermione's constant attempts to impose of her will and her thinking on others - from house-elves to her parents?

Since you all, except for momwitch, ignored my question I will repeat:

If you were President Bush and had to defend the American people from terrorist Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) what would you do?

That was not a rhetorical question. Since Al Quaeda represents the thinking of radical Islamic groups and this is the second time that Islamic extremists have physically attacked the U.S. within U.S. territory, I think it is prudent to examine the likelihood that they are continuing to escalate and thus, trying to use Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), for example an atom bomb. They killed about as many people as the Japanese did in Pearl Harbor. Since this is a world wide threat, what does it take for us all to take prudent measures that respond appropriately to the probabilities of attack?

For Momwitch, Clearly good will is important. However, as we learned in Vietnam and the Pacification efforts there, there is no substitute for a military response to military aggression. Yes, there is an immensely important issue of treating the Islamic world fairly and conveying honest good will to other peoples and religions; but also, there is a radical minority within that group that has declared war on the U.S. IMO the Al Quaeda declaration of war is a serious threat that can only be answered with a military response.

From Davidenglish: "momwitch, I think Terrence was erroneously attributing the views of Prof Barton to Oxymoronic. I certainly don't agree with Terrence's rationalization of current foreign policy by invoking a series of implausible "what ifs". That just makes us as bad as the baddies."

Generally you always have fascinating points of view which we all appreciate. However, Oxymoronic did say that Barton's quote applied to the U.S. I just referred to the quotation. I don't think the threat of radicals using WMDs is so implausible.

From Davidenglish: "And it is why we have Bills of Rights that insist on presumption of innocence, due process and various liberties."

Clearly, we all have to balance rule by law and defense of our country. The question is do we have to adjust how we do that due to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and changing technologies? Isn't this the same problem that the wizarding world faced with VD's greater powers?

Davidenglish: "However, I would point out that alQaeda was not a country and so it's attack on 11 Sept 2001 must be called a terrorist crime rather than a declaration of war. "
Due to modern communications technology, WMD, and global travel ease the Al Quaeda is the equivalent of a virtual country. They have a leader, national goals and philosophies, organization, funding sources, citizens, education. So what if they move from one physical place to another?

Bush's point is that this is NOT a criminal situation where you wait for the crime to be committed and then find and punish the guilty. With WMD the crime could be millions of dead citizens. The funding of Al Quaeda always bothers me, besides some rich, radical Saudi Arabians where does all that money come from? How can terrorists guarantee benefits to widows and orphans of suicide bombers? I think that Bush had a good response in going after their funding mechanisms, quite difficult in the Middle East. The attack on their funding raises obvious legal issues that all of us should consider.

Now, we all strongly condemn Bush breaking the existing law with the government's telephone call monitoring. However, given the changes and volume of modern communications how much do the prior laws still work? Clearly, police can walk down the street and if they see a crime being committed they are allowed to act, but nowadays we live in a virtual world of communications. Our postings here have no legal rights for privacy so we all accept any possible monitoring of these. Is it so clear that telephone calls can not be statistically monitored by computers? Where are the new limits to set into law? What can be done with technology anyway - seems limited to me in terms of invading my privacy. These issues need to be solved and folks complaining that they don't like Bush distracts from the problems to be fixed and delays our response to provide for the safety of our children. Adults solve problems and complain of past misdeeds so as to indicate better, future solutions. We all agree that some past responses were not correct and complaining should help to stop those behaviours, but where are the replacement behaviours? We have to propose the solutions or unlike HP, we fail. Perhaps, the Order of the Phoenix is lacking thoughtful members in our Muggle world.

Back to HP -
Symbols of the Hallows - From "Is HP Great Lit? Post 48"

The part of the soul for the Resurrection Stone might be "hearing" - Bargaining stage of grief resolution;

the Cloak could be "understanding" - Acceptance stage;

and the Wand is not a Horcrux, but we all agree stands for believing in the Aggressive Control of Death - the initial Denial stage.

Why, Terrence, I couldn't agree with you more! Our version of the Order is most definitely lacking "thoughtful" members of society. I'll leave you with this....

Did you ever stop and ask yourself why extremists attacked the U.S. in the first place?

Now, to the topic at hand. Oryx, I cannot 'speak' for David of course, but perhaps Harry's act of defending his Head of House falls into the category of his arrogance and impatience where he lets his emotions take full control.

I'm not sure this nullifies David's claim of the purity of Harry's heart, nor do I necessarily think you're implying that. This is the part of Harry's character that happens to fascinate me the most, actually.

On one hand, David makes the claim that Harry is fair, just and merciful, which I'm inclined to agree with, because overall, this is who the character of Harry Potter is, and why he's so special.

But I rather like the fact that Rowling throws in those flaws of the human condition for ALL her characters. Can it be argued then that because of Harry's impatience and emotions - and his acts as a result - he should not be labeled as fair and just?

The problems with his act are that he was not really criticised for it when he should have been (in fact once he explains himself he is *praised*), and that we never see him thinking over it. After all was said and done did he still think it was the right thing to do? When he becomes head of the Auror office and goes on to revolutionise it, does he let his underlings get away with torturing suspects because they were insulted or otherwise carried away by emotions? Though I can see Harry becoming a good enough Auror, why should I believe that as a leader of the office he would be any different than all those who came before him? Where do I see the character development that justifies such trust?

To Terrence:

How about letting the UN inspectors do their work? But too bad for Bush, they were going to expose the absence of WMDs and that was not what he wanted, so he went and undermined their work by starting the war. Bush=Scrimgeour? Nah, that would be a compliment to him.

From Oryx: "How about (Bush) letting the UN inspectors do their work? But too bad for Bush, they were going to expose the absence of WMDs and that was not what he wanted, so he went and undermined their work by starting the war. Bush=Scrimgeour? Nah, that would be a compliment to him."

As I remember it at that time, the point made by Secretary of State Rice was that Saddam Hussein had forbidden any more United Nations (UN) inspections and we could not verify whether Iraq was making WMDs. In fact, subsequent information showed that Saddam did believe Iraq was making WMDs and I don't think we will never know anything other than: after the war the inspectors found no WMD or related manufacturing facilities. However, we all know that Bush's administration managed to bury Rice's key point in their subsequent misinformation about WMDs and facilities existing, rather than using the legal point that Saddam broke his agreement with the U.S. about allowing UN inspections. When Saddam forbad UN inspections, the UN failed to act, as did many European countries at that time. It turned out that Russia was selling forbidden weapons to Saddam so at the time they had a reason to discourage closer investigation.

"The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions." Motto of the American Actuaries.
"Veritas" meaning truth is the motto of Harvard.

I am including these to say that we need to look at facts, not speculations, and of course, I am glad to hear from you when I am incorrect or need to think more. If only DD was here to add his opinions and observations!

From Oxymoronic: "Did you ever stop and ask yourself why extremists attacked the U.S. in the first place?"

It is possible that these Islamic radicals are quite similar to Death Eaters in that they revile the fact that their rulers do not control and dictate our behaviour. As in HP, it is always a question of how do you define evil and then respond to the problem of evil. The underlying issue is the evolution of a global economy, culture, and the competition as that global world is evolving.

It's a nonsensical question. Do you mean if I were President? Or do you want me to channel GW Bush and predict his behaviour?

The problem with defensive posturing is that it often belies ones real objectives. Consider the pamphlets of the MoM ridiculed at the beginning of HBP. Like the equally absurd precautions mentioned by Homeland Security, they offer utterly useless advice in an attempt to persuade that something is being done and that the situation is well in hand. The arrest of Stan Shunpike and soliciting Harry's endorsement are both actions of image rather than substance. They are hollow and defend nobody.
Well, in the weeks after 9/11, thoughtful people were browbeaten into not discussing root causes and non-military solutions. In much the same way that Fudge and Umbridge browbeat the Daily Prophet and many wizards & witches into not asking questions about Voldemort, Cedric's death, Harry's credibility, Dumbledore's sanity, etc.

We also learned in HP that the interests of the Wizarding World are often compromised by the interests of the ruling elite, many of whom are closet Death Eaters. This is true in real life, where we know that, after the first Gulf War, the White House and Pentagon were warned that leaving troops in Saudi Arabia would provoke anti-American sentiment and lead to terrorist attacks against America, but US interests in the oil producing nation trumped national security concerns. Failure to play honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict also contributed to America becoming a target.

BTW, just to be provocative, what was America doing occupying Hawaii? It wasn't a state in 1941 and the people of Hawaii had been dispossessed of their nation. Indeed, the largest ethnic segment of the population was Japanese. And I'm not sure what the reference to Vietnam serves. Why was America in Vietnam? Why was Indochina handed back to France at the end of WWII instead of becoming independent? And "pacification" is such a quaint euphemism for terrorism when committed by the military.
Voldemort could not rise to power without followers. And those followers were respected members of the Wizarding World. It is by not rejecting the underlying principles of the Death Eaters that the MoM remains open to subversion and corruption. This is why Dumbledore opposes the restriction of rights of magical creatures, the use of Dementors, and the tolerance of Dark Arts.

Has the current President come down hard on Saudi Arabia for sponsoring alQaeda? Nope. Not at all. Are US ports carefully inspected and all containers inspected and sealed at the point of origin and inspected again when they arrive in port? Nope. Not at all. Is there any attempt by the State Dept to answer the question "why do they hate us" and attempt to resolve genuine concerns troubling people? Nope. Not at all.

Indeed, there is a strong resemblence here to the behaviour of Fudge. A grotesque denial of what is truly wrong with the Wizarding World and how best to respond to it. Fudge, just as Bush has, instead embarked on a campaign to silence dissent and to cover up MoM's failures to deal competently and intelligently with the threat.

That's such a funny statement. Who are "we all"? Has Bush been impeached? Has the warrantless wiretapping stopped? Does the current government intend to stop? No, no, no. Instead, we have spin and the kind of heroic facade that Scrimgeour thinks is necessary before any real action can be taken. And it really doesn't provide us with security or liberty. As Ben Franklin said, "Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither"Again, who is this "we" who "all agree"? Frankly, I don't see these three analogies for the Hallows at all. Who proposed that the Wand was a Horcrux? I don't understand that at all.

Well, I'm glad to hear you want to be corrected. It would help if you had your timelines correct and did not confuse the first Gulf War with the second. And that you didn't replace Secretary of State Powell with Rice. Or that you didn't fabricate what the UN inspectors said or were allowed to do in the first two months of 2003.

This kind of rewriting history to make Bush look fair, just and merciful is just not right. It's like George Lucas reediting Star Wars to have Han Solo not shoot first. It's like Fudge & Umbridge leaning on the Daily Prophet to plant stories about Harry's delusions and Dumbledore's senility.

Memory modification is an important theme in the Harry Potter books. It is principally used to protect the Secrecy Act, but it was used abusively by Lockhart on so many and by Crouch Sr on Bertha Jorkins. Is the use of memory modification by the current President for our protection or his?

Davidenglish on Hallows - "Again, who is this "we" who "all agree"? Frankly, I don't see these three analogies for the Hallows at all. Who proposed that the Wand was a Horcrux? I don't understand that at all." From an earlier post:
"What does the Wand represent? Brute force, dominance, paternal authority. It's very masculine, combative and antisocial."

I took your comment to mean that the wand stood for aggressive control of Death, since the point of the Hallows was to control Death.

The reason I said the Wand was not a Horcrux was in the "Is HP Great Lit Post 48 analysis of Soul Parts" I tried out soul-symbols for the other Hallows since they were also Horcruxes. OK, most interesting that you don't believe the Post 48 symbols.

It is NOT nonsensical to ask: How would you, Davidenglish, solve this problem if you were President? I almost always find that role-reversal helps me to think through problems from other people's situations. After that analysis, it is clearer how we all can work together. The great value of reading novels is that you can see other people's experiences, perceptions, and responses. Those differences are the heart of the HP series.

After 9/11 it became clear that the CIA had been following AlQuaeda and had evidence of their guilt and immediate retaliation was required. The lack of ensuing discussion and analysis may not be so much Bush's fault but a media issue during a war. Similar to wizarding media, our media has to compete for money to survive.

A necessary function of government is to control and apply stress within a society. Reagan was an effective leader to a large degree because he made us feel safe; there are studies on his non-verbal communication and stress reduction. Don't demean efforts to reduce stress; it is a major key to governing a country. Sometimes those efforts do have some value in and of themselves. I wonder if JKR does an adequate analysis of those political characters and their world.

However, this begs the question of whether the Bush administration is responding effectively. I already mentioned the attack on AlQuaeda finances and the question: where does all this money come from? That to me is an effective initiative, although the public might feel safer with physical fences at the border. Virtual economic fences are better.

From Davidenglish: "And "pacification" is such a quaint euphemism for terrorism when committed by the military."

Historically, 'Pacification' was a term from Johnson's administration to define a plan to teach democracy and improve economies at the village level in Vietnam. The point of mentioning this was that Johnson did not separate out military, political, and economic issues in Vietnam and the results were disastrous.

No one will agree with me but the key reason that the U.S. was in Vietnam was the same reason for Korea, to control Chinese and also, Russian, expansion. When I chatted with a couple of ex-South Vietnamese military leaders they gave that as a major but subtle reason.

For good or ill, the U.S. economy is an oil based economy. President Carter warned about that and then no one worked on it. The financial elite and Middle Eastern rulers' interests are entangled in the U.S. economy. As a nation we have to work with allies in the Middle East. The rulers of Saudi Arabia apparently allow within their sovereign domain financial supporters of radical terrorist Islam. These are dictators but I don't see the Middle East figuring out how to transition to a democratic government without a huge effort, so we have to work with them.

On wiretapping - Bush's credibility with the American people was damaged greatly by those revelations. American presidents lead from a 'bully pulpit' and that damage has been most painful to Bush. Since the wiretapping is by necessity classified, it is difficult to know what is happening and how it has been affected. However, there is still debate about how to adjust laws relative to technology and enforce laws in classified situations. I tend to believe that the elected leaders at the time felt that the violations were absolutely required to protect the citizens and in the future as a citizen I plan to pursue them for more on that issue. Any investigation has to be responsible; impeachment is not a possible idea since it would be dangerous to expose to the public who did what and why.

We all love Ben Franklin and the Founding Fathers, but IMO if you are dead the question of freedom is moot. WMDs and modern technology might require that we rethink exactly how to protect freedom.

Just noticing your latest post just above this - OK, Davidenglish, I will check my memory against the historical facts. Thanks for the corrections.

And what had Iraq to do with Al-Qaida before the US invasion? If Al-Qaida is your problem then why divert effort elsewhere?

Terrence, you are a caution. I just have to roll my eyes at your image of a stress-reducing Reagan. I suppose you know Oliver Sacks famous story about Reagan? I can't help thinking that being fed pap is not really comforting in the long run. After all, Umbridge gave the same sort of comforting, stress-reducing speech at the Sorting Feast and yet Hermione decoded it and saw that it really meant tons of stress to come.

"After 9/11 the CIA...."? Heavens, the CIA knew about Osama bin Laden and alQaeda for years. The GOP griped when Clinton tried to kill ObL with cruise missiles. And the current President promptly told the CIA to stand down when he took office. He didn't think there was a threat. This is no different that Fudge insisting that the return of Voldemort must be all in Harry's head.

I'm sorry, but it's not possible to pin the lack of discussion on the media. Bush was quite clear, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists". The media followed the White House's lead. And this is no different than what Fudge wanted and put pressure on the Daily Prophet to achieve.

I'm not surprised that Vietnamese ex-military leaders should portray themselves as victims. They certainly wouldn't want to point out that they terrorised villagers, fixed elections, and let the US GIs do all the grunt work. I understand that ex-military leader who is in that famous photo shooting out the brains of a handcuffed Vietcong escaped to America and set up an antiques shop.

And that reminds me of Mad-eye Moody's comment on those Death Eaters who pretended they'd been Imperiused. Vietnam was not about containment. It was about Vietnam's oil and gas reserves. We know that Lucius Malfoy wasn't Imperiused; he was a loyal follower of Voldemort and he expected to gain from the new world order.

Pacification is older than Johnson. Indeed, the word was borrowed from the brutal suppression of Algerians by the French. It's a word even older than that, and usually is an empire's euphemism for a war of terror against an indigenous population. It is what the young Grindelwald and Dumbledore, and then Voldemort's Death Eaters planned for the Muggle population.

I'm very sorry to hear you dismiss the Founding Fathers so easily. It is the Purebloods in HP who fear that they will become extinct if they do not oppress Muggles, Muggle-borns, house elves, and other magical creatures. Having an economy based on fossil fuels is no excuse for the enslavement of foreign peoples or the overthrow of their native governments. And installing a puppet like Thicknesse does not make it okay.