Steve, conservative William Safire writes a column for the New York Times Magazine titled "On Language". In the Feb. 7th issue he writes: "Representative James E. Rogan, one of the most articulate impeachment managers, used a word familiar to the bashers of textual derivatives : 'Ms. Lewisnsky doesn't bother attempting to match the President's linguistic *deconstructions* of the English language." Who says the Republicans don't read Jacques Derrida or go to Woody Allen films? *Deconstruction* is a philosophy that challenges the ability of languages to represent reality. It holds that a reader is free to find meaning in a text that the writer did not intend, and - in making the interpreter a partner in the creation of copy - seeks to replace the stability of logic with the fluidity of paradox. Derrida's late-60's antitheory theory, despised by orderly structuralists, has led to much scholarly wordplay and interdisciplinary whipping. As used by impeachment managers, *deconstruction* means "Humpty-Dumpty language," taken from Lewis Carroll's line in "Through the Looking Glass": When I use a word . . . it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." (Woody Allen, in the title of his 1997 film "*Deconstructing* Harry," used the word in its literal sense, to mean "taking apart," I think, but *deconstructionists* are free to read in his title anything they want and the dickens with the auteur.)