Many netizens have decried him as the most “shameless” man in China. The disparaging “Song of Running Fan,” which was written to warn Chinese against acting in such a cowardly manner, will soon be released as a cell phone ring-tone. To his great credit, the opprobrium of the masses has not cowed Fan into issuing an apology or condemning his actions. “At such a life-and-death moment, I would only give up my life for my daughter. I would not do it for other people, even my mother,” he wrote.

The web-based attacks against Running Fan are the latest in a series of nationalistic outbursts against Chinese who aren’t sufficiently patriotic. The last such outburst was directed at Grace Wang, the Duke University freshman who along with her family received death threats after she attempt to reconcile Pro-Tibet and Pro-China protesters on the Duke Campus.

In the wake of the 1989 protests, the Party began to inculcate a stronger sense of patriotism and nationalism through a school curriculum that emphasized “patriotic education.” Twenty years and one generation later, it is easy to see the fruits of this campaign in the attacks on Running Fan and the post-earthquake proliferation of young people in Beijing wearing “I love China” t-shirts with a Chinese flag etched into the heart.

Showing one’s patriotism by lashing out at others online or wearing a t-shirt (or a flag lapel pin) is an easy and convenient way to feel good about oneself―and one’s country―without exerting much effort. Real patriotism requires sacrifice. This does not ipso facto mean dying or fighting for one’s country, but it does necessitate something more than a superficial indication that one is “patriotic.” For example, forgoing a lucrative job that is damn near bequeathed to one upon graduating from Peking University in order to teach in a place as rural and poor as Dujiangyan is the essence of a patriotic desire to give back to one’s country. And this is, of course, what Fan Meizhong did. Before more people run off to attack Running Fan for his actions, they should think about which is more patriotic: writing a scathing message condemning someone online, or devoting one’s life to helping those in need.

The cinema chain UME has decided to ban two of Stone’s upcoming film releases this year from their theaters, which I suppose assumes that people would have gone to see them in the first place. And, taking a hint from Carrefour, Christian Dior has pulled all advertisements featuring Stone, who models a cosmetics line, from Chinese stores, lest they find themselves the target of another capricious Chinese boycott (Dior is French after all).

From Dior China’s statement:

Due to some customer reaction we have decided to pull her image from all of the department stores and from all of China…. We just want our customers and fans to realize that her personal comments are not related to the company and of course we don’t support any type of commentary that will hurt the feelings of our customers.

It seems that China is getting good at a popular American pastime: taking offense at things. Watch out, Wal-Mart, Dixie Chicks, et al. I am not defending anything celebrities say or companies do (especially if they are ridiculous and untrue), but China is getting quite adept at drawing apologies—from CNN, BBC, even Stone herself. Is this indicative of an oversensitive population, anxious about the Olympics? Or is it a symptom of the West trying to capture the essence of a country they can’t quite read? Or maybe it’s just another episode in the long-running soap opera, “People Doing Stupid Things.”

Stone’s apology, issued through a statement so you know she means it, goes something like this:

Due to my inappropriate words and acts during the interview, I feel deeply sorry and sad about hurting Chinese people…. I am willing to take part in the relief work of China’s earthquake, and wholly devote myself to helping affected Chinese people.

I fully support Stone’s commitment to help with relief work. If she goes to Sichuan to help with disaster relief, she can show the Chinese people that she isn’t wholly insensitive. But if, while helping remove rubble, a neighboring wall collapses on her and leaves her trapped for days, she would no longer have to apologize, because there might be something to be said for karma after all.

The video has several parts. It begins with an introduction by an anchor then goes into Stone’s rambling, followed by reactions from carefully-selected bystanders. Only the first reaction is in Chinese; the rest are in English. Watch the video, then we’ll talk.

In defense of Stone, she seems mildly inebriated/baked/both. Maybe that’s why she speaks with the grammatic variation of a four-year-old (sorry four-year-olds!). But although she phrases the idea of karmic retribution in the form of a rhetorical question—which either implies that she doesn’t really believe an unseen force caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people in retaliation for “not being nice” or that she lacks the sense, common or otherwise, to not express those ideas in public—the use of the subjunctive only makes her comments slightly less egregious and inordinately offensive.

Stone’s comments are unjustifiable, so I won’t waste any more time criticizing her. I just wonder, were the reporters asking everyone on the red carpet for their opinions on the earthquake, or did they somehow sense that Sharon Stone had the best chance of making a mockery of herself when responding to a current events question?

But Sharon Stone isn’t the only one talking about Tibet again. The Dalai Lama, after a meeting with Britain’s Gordon Brown, claimed he heard from a military source in Tibet that “after the Olympics 1 million Chinese are going to settle in the autonomous region of Tibet.” He continued, “There is every danger Tibet becomes a truly Han Chinese land and Tibetans become an insignificant minority. Then the very basis of the idea of autonomy becomes meaningless.”

These two stories serve as a reminder that the earthquake might have bought the China a reprieve from outside scrutiny, but the ceasefire won’t last forever. Soon, the familiar questions will resurface, along with several new ones: why did the schools collapse? Could anything have been done to mitigate the damage? And if so, who, if anyone, could be held responsible?

I wonder if this video will cause as much of an uproar as Jack Cafferty’s gaffe on CNN. It certainly surpasses all previous benchmarks for obscenity, insensitivity, and ignorance, placing it on par with blaming Hurricane Katrina on a homosexual parade. I hope Chinese audiences can rise above this bizarre spasm of logorrhea and realize that, in the grand scheme of things, Sharon Stone’s opinion on China-Tibet relations counts for very little. But the reporter’s loaded questions (“But these people are innocent right?”), and the video’s description (“This is the real face of this high IQ hollywood star!!!” which I imagine refers to Stone’s debunked claim that she was a member of Mensa) belies an insecurity or perhaps a concern that people might actually take Stone seriously. When the second French reporter characterizes the earthquake as “just a natural disaster, and that’s all,” the reporter asks, “It’s not something political right?” A political earthquake? Unless the tectonic plates are shifting places because some of them support Tibetan independence while others oppose it (Eurasian plate I’m looking at you), I think we’re okay.

There is no need to defend China against attacks like these. They are absurd and any sleep lost over them is as meaningless as the comments themselves. Let’s focus instead on the issues at hand: the earthquake, the Olympics, and boycotting the next Sharon Stone movie.