ravan

I have to admit, I chuckled when I saw that an Iraqi reporter had chucked his shoes, one at a time, at Bush. It was an insult, yes, but a largely nonviolent one. What did the Iraqi government do? Beat him up and arrest him.

Now, on one hand, he violated hospitality - that of Iraq and its President Maliki toward Bush. So that deserves a punishment.

On the other hand, it is a political statement, and a matter of free speech. Which deserves praise, especially since it is a protest that didn't kill and maim anyone, but got the point across strongly.

Apparently, Iraq law says he can be imprisoned for up to 7 years, and fined for the insult. Fined, yes, I'd go for that - like a fine for littering, public nuisance, or disruptive behavior. But imprisoned? No. It's a political matter, not a criminal one.

Burning in effigy, protesting, political cartoons, or thrown shoes - they are all political free speech.

The middle eastern insult of stepping on or wagging shoes at someone as an insult is delightfully nuanced - not crude, but very plain in its symbolism.

Once, when I left a particularly odious job many years ago, I stopped at the curb just off their property line, took off my shoes, and banged them together to knock the dust from them. It loaded so much symbolism in such a simple but deliberate act, I felt like I had shaken the dust of that place from my soul.

I can understand Mr. al-Zaidi's contempt for President Bush, and I'm glad he chose to express it with shoes instead of explosives. It means more, hurts less, and is a sign of progress.