We all shook our heads when President Clinton’s invoked “depends on the meaning of ‘is’ ” in trying to escape personal responsibility. But the government continues such charades as it redefines the plain meaning of words.

“Full employment” means 4 percent of the work force is jobless. A “fully funded” pension means 90 percent for accounting purposes. If the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program were “fully funded,” millions of Americans would still be left out in the cold.

Now, the U.S. Department of Energy wants to redefine “all.” In 1995, the state of Idaho and DOE entered into an agreement that would require the feds to remove all transuranic waste from the Idaho National Laboratory site. When it became clear that the feds were only going to remove rags, gloves, tools and dirt and leave rotting containers of toxic waste underground, the state sued.

In May, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that “all transuranic waste” means, well, all of it. But the feds filed a notice recently saying that it may appeal because they think “all” means “some” and thus they are in full compliance.

About that slippery slope? In opposing the bill that added “sexual orientation” to the list of traits that are immune from discrimination in Washington state, many lawmakers and others worried that such a law would arm the state Supreme Court with the tool needed to dismantle the state’s Defense of Marriage Act.

As it turns out, the author of the majority opinion that shot down gay marriage used the anti-discrimination law to bolster her argument. Associate Justice Barbara Madsen said that the new law undercut the claim that gays and lesbians are in need of heightened equal protection scrutiny from the courts.

She wrote, “The enactment of provisions providing increased protections to gay and lesbian individuals in Washington shows that as a class gay and lesbian persons are not powerless but instead exercise increasing political power.”

Think that will change the minds of those desperate to repeal the anti-discrimination law? Yeah, I kinda doubt it, too.

Question marks. The Otto Zehm case continues to baffle me. The police took into evidence a potential weapon that gave Zehm “a tactical advantage,” according to the officer who confronted him.

(Pardon the digression, but if Zehm had the baton, stun gun, sidearm and extensive training and the officer had the Pepsi bottle, would that’ve flipped the advantage to the officer?)

Securing the alleged bottle as evidence makes sense. They would need it if Zehm were to be charged with assaulting an officer. But why did they wait for a challenge from Zehm’s attorneys before checking the bottle for fingerprints? Well, it could be that Zehm died, rendering any criminal case against him moot.

OK, then why did officers seek a search warrant against Zehm nine days after he died? Generally, a search warrant requires “probable cause.” Probable cause for what?