I read today in a BBC story yet another account of how the "Harry Potter" books are still being challenged and banned in schools and libraries around the world: BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Australian college bans Potter. It absolutely amazes me that anyone bothers. You'd think they would learn. Rowling inserts a kind of commentary on book banning in "Phoenix" when she has the new Headmistress of Hogwarts ban a tabloid-like newspaper, The Quibbler, from the school. When she hears of it, Hermione just laughs and says she has done the one thing that would ensure copies of the newspaper were read by every student in Hogwarts.

The one statement from the BBC article I find kind of scary is the statement by the Principal of the school that:

"It has been widely publicized that many children have tried to cast spells as a result of reading the books, and that is not a view we want held ... As a mature reader I can see the difference between fantasy and reality but some children cannot and this is where it becomes dangerous."

I'm certain there are kids out there trying to cast spells, but even assuming they are seriously trying to practice witchcraft, doesn't this dolt think they will give it up after it doesn't work the first few times they attempt it? I think what is far more insidious about this statement by the Principal is the utter denial of the importance of imagination and play in childhood. Children fantasize; they play-act and pretend they are wizards, witches, Jedi Knights, Cowboys, Indians, race car drivers, or whatever else interests them and ignites their imagination. Occasionally, there are stories of children whose fantasy lives dangerously mingle with reality--Columbine might be an example--but it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that fantasy in itself is dangerous because children can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality. God knows, there are plenty of adults out there living in a dream world. This "protect the children" crap is just an excuse for zealots to get some attention for themselves and their tight, insular world view.

Last week, we had our first Code Red day in the Washington, D.C. metro area. Code Red does not refer to terrorism, but to the heat index and air quality. The heat is near unbearable. People are supposed to stay inside, immobile, as much as possible. It's a good reason to vege shirtless, or clothes-less, on the couch, drinking Pepsis and watching Fellowship of the Ring over and over until I am truly convinced of the rumor that Frodo and Sam are homosexual lovers. The hot weather also has the effect of bringing out girls and women in shorts and skirts. A great thing! you say. Oh yes, most of the time. However, I must say I've seen more hairy-legged women in the past few days than I saw both times I visited Paris. Well, I visited Paris in November both times, so maybe that isn't a good example, but the effects of all the anti-French war rhetoric haven't quite worn off so that was the first example that came to mind. Yesterday, on the bus home, I sat beside a woman whose legs probably hadn't seen a razor in a couple weeks, but the woman across from me looked as if she had joined NOW in 1968 and hadn't shaved since. Why is a hairy-legged woman so shocking? I admit, it won't be shocking to me for very long, considering how many I am seeing on a daily basis, but I don't think I will ever find leg hair or arm pit hair to be attractive on a woman. Perhaps men like smooth-legged women because men want there to be a clear distinction betwen how the body of a woman looks and feels and how the body of a man looks and feels. I admit, I found myself questioning whether the hirsute specimen I saw on the bus yesterday was indeed a woman. Hairy legs on a woman crosses the boundary of gender and calls into question our basic assumptions about men and women. I found myself unable to keep from looking at this person's legs throughout the bus ride home. I was disgusted by the sight, but I also couldn't help but look because the question weighed on me, "Is this a woman or man I am looking at?"