Let me preface this first by summarizing the whole controversy and stating a couple things.

The whole mess started in 2003.  During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, several weeks after their Grammy success, the Dixie Chicks performed in concert in London.  Natalie Maines, made the following comment: "Just so you know, we’re ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas".

First of all, she has all the right in the world to say that, if that is how she feels.  As I keep saying, I support free speech, and she has the right to express whatever she wants.

But (and I keep harping on this too) free speech is not always free.  When people disagree with you, they may hold you accountable, and in the case where the people who disagree with you are your patrons, they may withhold their patronage.

And they did.  The country music scene is very patriotic.  Maines’s remark sparked a quick backlash; many Americans believed that she should not criticize her country’s head of state on foreign soil, or criticize the Commander-in-Chief while the country was on the verge of war.  Many of these people organized a boycott of the Dixie Chicks’ music.  It also launched a feud between them and Toby Keith.

Maines has defended her comments, and that is fine.  She, as I said, has the right to say anything she wants, it’s her piehole.  But the people who were offended by her words have the right to express their reaction too, and they expressed it at the wallet level, putting the group’s CD sales, concerts and air play in a spin.

Maines apologized later that week:

"As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect,"

It should have been over, but I think Maines realizes controversy sells, as she later retracted that apology saying:

I don’t feel that way anymore…I don’t feel he is owed any respect whatsoever."

Michelle Malkin and LaShawn Barber posted this today.

At issue is Emily Smith, a white student who was accepted to an Urban Journalism Workshop sponsored by taxpayer-supported Virginia Commonwealth University, the Dow Jones Newspaper Fund, and the Richmond Times Dispatch.

She was hired based on her qualifications, and then rejected based on her race.

Smith Sued and won her case and now the UJW is open to all races.

From LaShawn:

Well, the case has been resolved in her favor. Last month, the Dow Jones Newspaper Fund, Media Group Corporation, and Virginia Commonwealth University agreed to open the summer workshop to all races. Apparently, the agreement applies to workshops at other schools as well. Download a PDF copy of the settlement agreement. (Also see Journalism Programs to Be Race Blind)

She then addresses argument about the necessity for affirmitve actoin type reverse discrimination programs and makes a critical distinction.

One can make an argument that programs for “minorities” are necessary, given the seemingly intractable academic achievement gap problem and other disadvantages that disproportionately affect certain minorities (poor family formation, fatherless homes, etc). Private entities have the “freedom of association” to do just that, but public entities do not. It is against the law to discriminate against people on the basis of race, and taxpayers should not be coerced into supporting illegal programs. We do it all the time with illegal “immigration,” of course, but that’s a separate matter.

Heh.  Yes we do and yes it is. 

The Money quote is here:

As I’ve said many times, a government with the power to discriminate against whites and in favor of minorities can wield that same power to discriminate against minorities and in favor of whites. It should not have the power to do either.

Bingo. 

She closes with an odd bit o trivia.

Because of skin deep-only preferences, black Africans and children of recent African immigrants are overrepresented in colleges and universities, at the expense of the descendants of black American slaves, for whom so-called affirmative action was created. (Source)

Ironic…

Dennis once again nails it.

I never fully agree with O’Reilly but in this clip as he examines the beliefs and attitudes of the far left, particularly the Hollywierd far left, I cannot find much to disagree with.