Thanks Chris, That is in essence my current worldview - another reason for me to read this book.

I don't see where the author stretched at all. "Ignoring evil has consequences" and "Resisting evil" are part of liberal thought.

Also, I remember George Will on ABC saying how great it was that kids were reading and Rowling had made so much money.

The thing he ignored was that Rowling wrote the first book while she was on the dole. If it weren't for socialism, she might not have had the time to write the book.

Is it "socialism" or a safety net? Great for Rowling, but for every Rowling who uses her time being supported to great effect, what about those who don't do dick? That is what welfare reform is about - providing for the most needy but discouraging a long-term reliance on the system. A very delicate balance to be sure.

Natalie -- a part of liberal thought? Ummm . . . Ok. Except for the use of violence part of resisting evil . . .

We could play this game all day long:

Dumbledore actually represents Bush because he is willing to stand firm and go it alone, damn the consequences, while The Ministry of Magic is the U.N. trying to reassure everyone that everything is fine, never mind the crackpot America.

Professor Umbridge is actually the embodiement of hide bound busy-body governmental agency thinking.

The diversity at Hogwarts exists b/c to get in requires wizarding skill and being human. That's it. There is no quota, there is no affirmative action, etc. Skill and ability get you through Hogwarts and if you don't pass your O.W.L.'s you don't get to be a wizard. And, everyone has to pass the same test, there are no differing standards.

And on and on . . .

Face it, despite years of Thatcherism and the third way, the England of Bush's pal Blair is still steeped in democratic socialism. On many issues, Blair would be to the left of Dean.

And I don't see any provisions in welfare reform for allowing single mothers to spend their days in a cafe writing a book that will someday create far more wealth and jobs than any of Bush's tax cuts.

Chris, I'm with you. Reading the article from TAPPED, I had to wonder if the author read the same book I did. Dumbledore and his fellow Order of the Phoenix members can't convince anyone at the Ministry of Magic that Voldemort is alive and that he has (or is seeking) a deadly weapon that could end the world as they know it. The Daily Prophet paints Dumbledore as dangerous and power hungry. Professor Umbridge won't allow the practice of any real defensive skills in her Defense Against the Dark Arts class, instead assigning topics such as negotiation. When I read the book I found myself wondering if Rowling had written the entire thing within the past year, it seemed so influenced by the events leading up to war with Iraq.

Oh, and Cornelius Fudge? He's got to be none other than Chirac. He does his best to sabotage Dumbledore while portraying himself as morally superior. And yet, you're never sure whether he's just a dupe of Voldemort and his Death Eaters or an active conspirator.

Well, I am not down with violence for any reason. Perhaps Rowling is a liberal Demublican. As for affirmative action, this liberal progressive radical anti-jingoist is opposed vehemently to it.

The great works of art allow one to project ones own interpretation. Art and many books are much like Rorscharch tests.

One can interpret Harry Potter on many levels and in many ways. As I read it, the main criticism is for bureaucracy and bureaucrats. The author uses the convention of power corrupting.

I cannot read this as either liberal or conservative. Rather I interpret the book as a condemnation of the bureaucratic mindset. Overinterpretation of Harry Potter resembles overinterpretation of the Bible. One can find support for ones own views - but that is not necessarily what the story means.

Clearly, the struggle between good and evil occupies center stage in these books. The latest seems (IMHO) to criticize those who would excuse evil (or close their eyes to evil). But then, I may well be seeing that for which I am looking.