I don’t think the shoe-hurl is entirely meaningless, but this is ridiculous.

BEIRUT, Dec 15 (Reuters) – The hurling of shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush on his farewell visit to Iraq strikes many in the Middle East as a fittingly furious comment on what they see as his calamitous legacy in the region.
Arab and Iranian TV stations have gleefully replayed the clip, sometimes in slow motion, of an Iraqi reporter calling Bush a “dog” and throwing his shoes at him — the Middle East’s tastiest insults — at a Baghdad news conference on Sunday.
The affront was a twisted echo of the triumphal moment for Bush when joyous Iraqis used their footwear to beat a statue of Saddam Hussein toppled by U.S. invading troops in 2003.
“It indicates how much antagonism he’s been able to create in the whole region,” former Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher told Reuters, adding that the incident was regrettable.
Bush had harmed America’s reputation and the friendship many had felt for it. “Despite past mistakes in its policies, there was always a redeeming factor. In this particular case, there doesn’t seem to have ever been a redeeming factor,” Maher said.
Muntazer al-Zaidi, who works for independent al-Baghdadiya television, has shot to local stardom for his attack on Bush and his cry: “This is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog.”
He has also won instant fame abroad — a poem on an Islamist website praises him as “a hero with a lion’s heart” — although the Iraqi government slated his “barbaric and ignominious act”.

Just a few points. First, the main reason “journalists” in Saddam’s Iraq would never have thrown a shoe at a visiting dignitary is that they’d be tortured and executed for it. More importantly, can we just drop this fantasy-land nonsense that America was super-popular in the Mideast before George W. Bush came on the scene? I mean really, who is Reuters trying to kid?

Also, if someone throws a shoe at Barack Obama — at home or abroad — will that be used by the press to define Obama’s popularity, never mind his legacy? I mean if some nutter in Holland hucks a clog at Obama, does that mean all of the Netherlands, never mind all of Europe, hates Obama? Somehow I doubt that’s how Reuters et al would cover it. In a circumstance like that, we’ll be told how this was an act by one lone-shoe-man.

There’s a weird double standard buried deep in all of this, and I don’t just mean the biases against Bush. When conservatives hold up unsavory Muslims or Arabs as representative of the region’s problems, we’re told how simplistic and two-dimensional we’re being. But when the same sort of unsavory doofus behaves in ways that confirm liberal biases and coform to liberal passions, then suddenly this doofus speaks for millions.

Again, I don’t think the shoe incident is meaningless. But a little perspective and skepticism would be nice, though clearly too much to ask for.