Useless tools, indeed

[the_archfiend]

Chances are that you've heard of Lowe's spineless decision to pull its advertising from TLC's All-American Muslim by now, and if you're still baffled as to why a nationally known home improvement chain would kowtow to some obscure evangelical pressure group (which even I hadn't even heard of previous to this), you're not alone. The group - something calling itself the Florida Family Association (quelle surprise on the use of the word family, of course) - objects to AAM as being "Islamic propaganda", since it apparently doesn't show enough (read: any) Jihadists in training. No big surprise, there: Dearborn, Michigan is not Sadr City, Iraq, after all. Most of this issue seems to turn on the typical Mad Ave idea of trying to avoid alienating anyone, no matter how empty-headed that "anyone" is. David Hinckley touches on this in the New York Daily News by quoting some of Lowe's lawyerspeak:

“Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lightning rod for many of those views. As a result, we did pull our advertising. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance.”

Yeah. Sure. This is a nice way of saying that Lowe's (and whoever owns their advertising portfolio) are engaging in the usual sort of institutional gutlessness when faced with a boycott from people who not only Just Don't Get It but aren't even interested in trying. Hinckley, again:

The show, which follows five Muslim families in Dearborn, Mich., is really “propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values,” says the Association.

This assertion is utter nonsense, as anyone who watches the show knows. But the campaign isn’t aimed at people who watch the show. It’s aimed at people who are afraid and tells them it’s okay, just keep being afraid.

An essay on the Association’s website, by Robert Spencer, admits most subjects of this show don’t seem subversive. And that’s the problem, he argues. Because the show features no one who’s out to get “us,” it’s not showing the real Muslim community.

It’s an interesting argument. You wonder whether, if he’s going to define a group by its extremists, any profile of Muslim critics must include Anders Brievik, the Norwegian mass murderer who hated Muslims.

A highly relevant point, but keep the name Robert Spencer in mind for a moment: it turns out that he has a track record on this issue and it's more than a little bumpy. From Ed Brayton back in March:

Uber-bigot Robert Spencer, part of the anti-jihad crowd that includes the insane Pamela Geller and others, says that the US should just ban Islam entirely. And he's making illogical and ahistorical arguments for it.

"People say...'You can't restrict their freedom of religion' -- [and] meanwhile they're working to restrict our freedom of religion, working to restrict our freedom of speech and freedom of conscience and so on," he points out. "But that's okay because [they argue] we can't restrict their freedom of religion."

Christian Reconstructionists also argue against religious freedom. So do a whole lot of relatively mainstream religious righters. By Spencer's "reasoning" we should ban Christianity too. The fact that he won't follow his "logic" where it leads is evidence that he is motivated by bigotry, not rationality.

Add to this the fact that Spencer is co-hosting a "conference" (translation: public bear-baiting) on "Islamic law" next April in Dearborn with Geller and you're left with the impression that broken records may skip, but they never go out of style.