Good job, Mika!

Umm Zaid has a new post about one of her pet peeves, "...our tendency to make every little event seem like something of historical importance. ‘People’ magazine came in the mail today. The cover story is Paris’ time in the jailhouse. Give me a break. In 50 years, who will remember her? In 200?"

Then, ironically, I read Juan Cole's latest post, about how MS-NBC journalist Mika Brzezinski didn't want to start off a broadcast with a story on Paris Hilton; she didn't think it was as high a priority of story in comparison to, say, oh, the Iraq War?

In fact, she got so upset with the story (and her producer) that she first tried to light on fire the paper the story was written on, then ripped up that copy instead and shredded another copy in a shredder behind her. Hysterical.

She told viewers: "I hate it and I don't think it should be our lead. "I just don't believe in covering that story, at least not as the lead story on the newscast, when we have a day like today."

Earlier Hilton, 26, had given her first interview after leaving prison to CNN's Larry King Live show telling him that she wanted to help her former inmates, do more work for charities, and said that partying would no longer be the "mainstay" of her life.

I agree with UZ. To be honest, the fluff news (like the story on Paris or those dealing with Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Anna Nicole Smith, JonBenet Ramsey, or any other moronic celebrity) seem to be mostly an American phenomenon. Asian news will cover some of these stories, but only give them a minute at the most, buried deep within the broadcast. It just isn't newsworthy. But what would you expect from a country that prides itself on its stupidity?

How often? I don't!

Umm Zaid wrote: "How often do you feel obligated to condemn or speak out against something when no one has specifically asked you to? For example, many of us feel obligated to repeat, over and over, the fact that we don’t condone terror, etc. It’s true, but I don’t think it’s effective.

"My feeling is that by now, people who are really interested in knowing what the regular Mozzies of the mainstream think about terror have figured it out, and only those who are interested in stoking the flames of hate still say, “Why don’t they condemn terrorism?” every time a Muslim dares to raise his or her head."

I don't. I gave up "apologizing" for the misdeeds of others long ago. I'm not interested in abasing myself in front of others for whom an "apology" isn't owed. If they don't like it, too bad for them.

When I was working on my recent post, The Fog of War, I read an interesting comment by director Errol Morris in an interview he had with Tom Ryan, film critic for the Australian newspaper, The Sunday Age. In the interview, Morris talked about how Robert McNamara hasn't "apologized" for his role in the Vietnam War, and he ultimately wondered why people expected McNamara to apologize. As a result of this thinking, he came up with his "theory of apologies," which I think is directly applicable to Umm Zaid's situation.

Tom Ryan: Did your view of McNamara change, though, as you were sitting there talking to the man, watching him close to the edge of tears as he talks about the death of Kennedy, seeing him actually confess to you his sense of guilt? Or do you read that still as a kind of performance for the public?

Errol Morris: Can't it be both? For example, people get very angry at McNamara because, they say, he hasn't apologised. “How come you didn't get him to apologise?” Sometimes they get angry at me. And I remember thinking, “At what point during the interview do I want to hear this man apologise? Is this really what I want to hear?” And I thought to myself, “No, I don't. Because there is no apology for Vietnam. Fifty-eight thousand Americans dead, literally millions of Vietnamese. Why would I want to hear 'I'm sorry'?”

And then I started to wonder: why is it so important to people that he apologise? Why is this such a big thing for many, many people? And I developed a theory of apologies – that we like apologies because they empower us. If someone you don't like apologises to you, you can just say, “I don't accept your apology. Screw you!”

I believe that people wanted McNamara to apologise so they could reject it.
-- Errol Morris, Robert McNamara and The Fog of War

Likewise, I won't apologize for the burning of the various embassies, nor the flag burnings, nor some of the stupid placards. Nor do I apologize for various terrorist incidents. I didn't do them. Nor is Islam at fault, which means that I won't apologize on behalf of my religion either. Nor do I expect the Danish people in general or the Danish government to apologize either because, like me, they are not directly responsible for this controversy. However, I do expect apologies from the cartoonists, from JP's editors, and from all the other editors who have published these cartoons. I will also say that none of the "apologies" JP has issued have been, IMO, sincere. I expect these apologies to be sincere, not for my sake, but for their sake. The cartoonists and editors will be questioned about their deeds by Allah (swt), and I wonder just how far a "freedom of expression" excuse will go with Him.

Some other Muslim bloggers have said they believe that this controversy is a test from Allah (swt), and that is something I can buy into. But it's not just a test for Muslims, as they have implied, to see how well we will react. It's also a test for the Danes and other Europeans. Indeed, all of the world. And it is with sorrow that I see that these Danes, Europeans, and others are failing the test as well, exposing themselves to the world to be racist, intolerant, hypocritical bigots.

But I don't expect them to apologize.