Even though I taped the Fox airing of "Obsession" I also bought the video. Give me a n opportunity to purchase this video also and I will.
And now CNN is blocking the showing of the Palestinian "Micky Mouse."

There's a lot of muddled thinking going on here. I shall try to disentangle some of the messiness.

This is not censorship. Censorship is the active prevention of somebody else's expression. I'm not defending the action -- I think it is wrong of PBS to refuse to show this film. But let's not muddy the waters by resorting to knee-jerk terminology. It's wrong, but it's not censorship.

"the profoundly illogical view that now that we've been attacked, we should suddenly be more, not less, sympathetic to our enemies:"

I do not perceive any such view among any significant political groupings. I suspect that what is perceived to be sympathy is really two phenomena:

a. the prudent and logical desire to prevent us from being swept up in hysteria or hate. The 9/11 attacks required a thorough and careful re-evaluation of our policies, and it was terribly important that this re-evaluation not be distorted by hate. Unfortunately, we have failed in this regard; the political discourse on terrorism is still drenched in the terminology of hate and so we can't really come to grips with the problem.

b. the desire to understand the motivations of the terrorists. It is far easier to demotivate an enemy than to wipe out every last enemy, but to demotivate the enemy we must first understand his motivations. Understanding an enemy as a human being is not the same thing as sympathizing with him.

"the 9/11 attacks helped the image of radical Muslims with the left in this country"

I have the opposite impression. My perception is that the left, which had previously been sympathetic towards the Palestinians, moved quickly to differentiate between the Palestinian victims and the terrorists. Readers who wish to make an independent determination would do well to start at Daily Kos and search for postings about terrorism. Such a research program will surely belie the above claim.

Froblyx, it is so nice to see Political Correctness defended by a true believer.

The 9/11 attacks did not require a thorough examination of our policies, they required a swift and immediate response to the people who attacked us. They required realizing that we are at war, and have been at war with a brutal, implacable enemy since at least 1979.

9/11 was not our fault.

Eric's point is correct: there are those who are now more sensitive to the wishes of the people who attacked us than before. Psychologists call that 'identifying with the aggressor', and it's the common trait among sycophants, Stockholm captives, and abuse victims.

The jihadists want to destroy our civilization, undo our enlightenment, and take the world back to a permanent 7th-century culture. Being sensitive to them is not going to stop that.

Froblyx: You argue a point well, I think you're a good addition to the comment section here, but as usual I disagree with your assertions.

First, according to the above, PBS did more then refuse to air the video. They own the rights to it and have refused distribution--that fits your definition of censorship (my definition requires that the censor be a government agent, but PBS more or less qualifies as a government agent).

Second, I disagree that most leftists are serious about opposing terrorism and want us to understand them the better to oppose them. I don't see the left making any real effort to understand them at all. Rather, the cry for "understanding" is really a demand that we do nothing--because we don't understand them we should not oppose them.

The whole "let's sing kumbaya and they will love us" thing. It's real and widespread on the left.

It's also common on the left to see Christian Conservatives as a greater threat than Islamic Fundamentalists. I see that as evidence of mental illness.

Oh yeah, and the widespread belief on the left of 9/11 conspiracy theories--of course they don't want us to oppose terrorism, that would merely interfere with the war against the real enemy--George Bush.

"The 9/11 attacks did not require a thorough examination of our policies, they required a swift and immediate response to the people who attacked us."

And who, exactly, were the people who attacked us? We know that there were 19 hijackers, but they were already dead, so there wasn't much point in attacking them. We knew that al-Qaeda was behind the attack, but who is al-Qaeda? We know some of the people in al-Qaeda, and we killed some, captured some others, and let the biggest fish get away. If counterattacking was the only requirement, then we could have declared victory in January 2002 and been done with it. But the counterattack was just one step among many. We need a full-range attack on the problem: military, espionage, economic, and political. I chastise those who think solely in terms of a military response.

"They required realizing that we are at war, and have been at war with a brutal, implacable enemy since at least 1979."

This is exactly the wrong approach. We are not at war -- there is no identifiable enemy, no territory to conquer, no capital to occupy. Using the term "war" in a poetic sense like this is foolish and dangerous, because it distracts us from the real solutions. We need to concentrate on what will work, not blowing things up. Military action is one part of that response, but by itself military action is insufficient. Let's stop talking "war" and start talking "solving the problem".

"Eric's point is correct: there are those who are now more sensitive to the wishes of the people who attacked us than before."

Yes, there probably are, but there are far, far more who have been terrorized by the terrorists and now are consumed with anger and hate, and cannot think clearly and rationally about how to solve this problem.

"The jihadists want to destroy our civilization, undo our enlightenment, and take the world back to a permanent 7th-century culture. Being sensitive to them is not going to stop that."

Yes, they want these things. But I have not talked about sensitivity, I've talked about understanding as opposed to knee-jerk jingoism.

"First, according to the above, PBS did more then refuse to air the video. They own the rights to it and have refused distribution--that fits your definition of censorship (my definition requires that the censor be a government agent, but PBS more or less qualifies as a government agent)."

Yes, that's a good point. But the matter is blurred by PBS' possession of the rights to the film. They paid for it, just as Mr. Reagan paid for that microphone. I agree that the film is public property and as such should be made available to the public that paid for it -- but I think it's important to differentiate between this and censorship. If the Bush Administration refuses to release documents to the public, is that censorship? I think not.

"I disagree that most leftists are serious about opposing terrorism"

The implication that leftists do not decry the 9/11 attacks is false on its face. Most leftists I have read definitely want to end terrorism; their difference with the right is on how to end it. Most leftists, in my experience, seem to concentrate on what is wrong with our current response; if there is anything to criticize in their position it is the weakness of the constructive alternatives they offer.

But why are we trying to figure out some amorphous mass of leftists? That group is so big, so diverse, than arguing about its position is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. I suggest we focus on issues we can clearly address.

"The whole "let's sing kumbaya and they will love us" thing. It's real and widespread on the left."

I haven't seen much of that among the leftists I know. This characterization is about as fair as the leftists characterizing the right as a bunch of trigger-happy warmongers. Can't we get beyond this kind of jingoism?

"It's also common on the left to see Christian Conservatives as a greater threat than Islamic Fundamentalists. I see that as evidence of mental illness."

They have one important point: the Christian fundamentalists are here, inside our own country, affecting all of us. The jihadists are a more remote (not necessarily less dangerous, but less proximate) threat.

I hasten to add that I have no problem with the great majority of Christian fundamentalists; indeed, I have expended time to assist what I regard as a worthy fundamentalist effort. But they have their nut cases, too, who resort to violence in such matters as abortion, and I am no less concerned about these violent people than I am of the violent Islamists.

"Oh yeah, and the widespread belief on the left of 9/11 conspiracy theories--of course they don't want us to oppose terrorism, that would merely interfere with the war against the real enemy--George Bush."

I don't see those beliefs as widespread. Again, I suggest that you do some research at Daily Kos, where you'll find those conspiracy theories widely dismissed. You MIGHT find some of that at Democratic Underground -- but most leftists dismiss DU as a fringe group.

As to opposition to George Bush, most of that developed after the invasion of Iraq. While I'm not a leftist, I viewed Mr. Bush with merely mild distaste until he invaded Iraq. My assessment of Mr. Bush's performance has steadily fallen since then. Most of the leftists I have spoken with show a similar history, only more intense than mine.

Very coherent, for a leftist. Your suggestion to wallow in the intellectually-bereft elitism of the Daily Kos is generous, although most of us have been there, read the offerings, and have found that everything negative about leftards mentioned above is true. You conclude differently. Whatever.

As it is usually an exercise in futility to debate hard-core liberals/leftists/leftards/socialists/commies/Democratics/greenies/anarchists (take your pick, they're mostly the same) such as yourself, I'll snipe this one telling quote of yours:

"...I am no less concerned about these violent [Christian fundamentalists] than I am of the violent Islamists."

That pretty much says all that I need to know about you. Go crawl back under your rock of dystopian, pacifist fantasy.

For the benefit of other readers, I'd like to point out that the above posting contains only invective and no substance.

Is it no longer possible for gentlemen to reason together?

What, an echo of your snarkiness begets only a mild rebuke?

That last posting does *not* contain only invective and no substance, since I pointed out that you are more bark than bite when you equate "violent Christian fundamentalists" with violent Islamists. How do the two have anything approaching equity?

Daily Kos is not a hangout for sane, sentient, Americans. It is, however, a popular destination for leftards and various other anti-US factions who fancy themselves advanced thinkers of the so-called "Reality-based Community." What a joke.