Some months after the South Carolina Confederate flag controversy, and others like it, we might conclude that not giving offense has been enshrined as the ultimate national virtue. But, with the destruction of language in our midst, courtesy of Bill (It depends on what the definition of "is" is) Clinton, the situation is anything but clear.

For an injured group to successfully argue that it has been offended depends far more on the political correctness of its cause, than on any other factor. Since the Confederate flag was taken by the injured group to symbolize slavery, their petition was thought to merit special status. One wonders, though, how well a group claiming to be offended by broadcasts of hard core Hip Hop would fare, in the same state, at the same time.

Certainly, the argument would be raised that Rap music is protected by freedom of expression, while flying a flag is...?

And thus we enter the self-contradictory nonsense world suggested by the title of this piece.

Rabbi Marvin Hier is the founder of the famous Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. In June, 1996, he agreed to meet with reforming skinhead T. J. Leyden.

"I have to tell you," Hier said, "when I first saw him, covered with Nazi swastikas sticking out of his neck, I was absolutely revolted. "These are the symbols of everything that I have been taught to hate..."

Now, is this "hate" in the name of tolerance?

In 1999, auction site e-Bay was attacked for allowing sales of Ku Klux Klan and Nazi related items. eBay decided to allow older items that have "legitimate collectible" value, as long as they are at least 50 years old. No doubt, the company felt that this was a Solomonic pronouncement, balancing the interests of collectors with site users who might be offended.

And then there's the case of Dr. Laura Schlessinger. She had remarked that homosexuality is "deviant" and a "biological error," basing her contentions on the Old Testament. This stance angered gay rights groups, who were able to get numerous advertisers to withdraw from her radio show.

One group, Stop Dr. Laura, asked corporate America to "...join us in a stand against intolerance, and double standards."

Thus, we have a group exercising its free speech rights, to encourage others to be intolerant of a broadcaster, whose sin is that she is intolerant. Presumably, the "double standard" refers to the near fanatical level of censorship applied to anything deemed racist, compared to the relatively laissez faire attitude they perceive applied to homophobia.

Stop Dr. Laura, then, is intolerant of those who would be intolerant; they are also intolerant of those who would tolerate a standard, that is more tolerant toward groups that are intolerant to gays and lesbians. Is this how they "stand against intolerance"?

But, there is more here than just word games. Speech codes and PC stifle communication, even when the MEANS of communication are ever improving.

As the information mandarin class continues to lose its control over the flow of ideas, largely because of the Internet, expect increasingly flagrant bias in the elite media. All this, of course, being done in the name of objective journalism.

Remember the words of G. K. Chesterton:

No man of the world believes all he sees in the newspaper, and no journalist believes a quarter of it.