the Confederates who took up armsrnagainst what they perceived as tyrannyrnunderstood that it is force, and not discussionrnor votes or laws, that ultimatelyrndetermines the courses in which politicalrnpower runs, and the risk they assumedrnwhen they took up arms was no largerrnthan what they would have faced hadrnthey remained peaceful.rnWhat we face today is far more repressive,rnfar more dangerous, and farrnmore entrenched than the oppressors ofrnthe late 18th and mid-19th centuries,rnand we have far more reason to take uprnarms against the oppressor and its agentsrnthan they did. There can be little questionrntoday about the ethical legitimacyrnof using violence in defense of a way ofrnlife that the rulers of the nation do nothingrnto protect and much to destroy andrnabout which they no longer care or canrnbe made to care through the normal processesrnof politics and law. It is probablyrncounterproductive now to start shootingrnfederal judges, bureaucrats, and politiciansrnwho lie their way from one electionrnto another, but it’s certainly not too earlyrnto start making a little list and lettingrnthem know who’s on it.rnCoRCYRA MEMORANDArnI ] brcls changed their ordinary meanings and were construed in new senses. Recklessrndaring passed for the courage ot a loval partisan, far-sighted hesitation ^^as the excusernof a canard, moderation was the pretext of the unmanh, the power to see all sides otrna question was complete inability to act. Impulsiye rashness was held the mark of arnman, caution in conspiracy was a specious excuse for ayoiding action.”rn— rhucvclick’srnlloniophohc: a nonce-word used to designate a person who disagrees with tlic homosexual rightsrnagenda. According to folk etinol()g, the “word” would be a compound of Latin homo (man) and C.rcckrnphohoH (fear), but who in the world is afraid of Virginia Woolf? “llomophobc’ is constructed on thernanalog of ••lioiiioscxiial,” wiiicli is interpreted b the uneducated as “liaxing sexual feelings lowardrnmen.” riiis misinterpretation gics rise to the common pairing of “lesbiairs and homosexuals” on the assumptionrnthat iiomosexua] ought i^roperh to lie applied to males.rn,li of this is nonsense, of course. “I lomoscxual” is an unnecessaiA and illiterate Inbiid of Creek homosrn(like or same) and 1 .atiii sexus (gender) and gien the more or less iin|)ossiblc meaning of “ha ing sexualrnfeelings toward a member of the same sex.” :ccording to the Ok’l) supplement, this “irregular” formationrnentered iMidish in W-)2 b wa of a translation of Kraft-i.bbin”. As for “homophobe,” if this coinagernnaci am meaning w narsocwr, ir wouici refer ro ]3ersons w irn an inorciinate rear or persons iiKc tiiemscues.rnI’Acn if one wi.shed to reinterpret the first element of “homosexual” as a reference to I ,atin homo, it wouldrnbe necessarv to grapple with the unpleasant fact that /lo/oo does not mean, as au sehoolbox knows, manrnas opposetl to woman (in I ,atin that meaning is eocrcd b i7>),but man as opposed to beast. On this understandintj”,rnamong homosexuals would be included eerone but bcstialists and fetisliists.rnI lie ported etinologies and strainecl mtcrpietatioiis ( clartxnitions in tlie language ot tiumor magazines)rnof all words relating to same-sex eroticism are a perfect illustration of the rule that obfuseator languagernis the product of dishoiicst. t’.nglish has perfeetK good words to describe the acts of males wf lo confoundrnthe excrctor and the reproduetixc s stems, but “buggcrv” and “sodonn ” are too graphic, too honest;rnthc remind the hearer all too well of the facts of the matter. Recourse is had to the dog Latin ariati()nsrnon “the loe that dare not speak its name.” If intimate matters or sexual identit must be discussed at allrnin |3ublie, some colorless term like “homophilia ” or “homoerotieism” might be adopted out of politenessrnto homophiles and a general sense of decorum. But words like “ga ” and “hoiii()|)liobe”—so main erbalrnbullets being shot at “straight socict “—onl in itc contcmi^t.rnNOVEMBER 1994/13rnrnrn