From the New York Times

By BENEDICT CAREY

In addition to assorted bad breaks and pleasant surprises, opportunities and insults, life serves up the occasional pink unicorn. The three-dollar bill; the nun with a beard; the sentence, to borrow from the Lewis Carroll poem, that gyres and gimbles in the wabe.

An experience, in short, that violates all logic and expectation. The philosopher Soren Kierkegaard wrote that such anomalies produced a profound "sensation of the absurd," and he wasn’t the only one who took them seriously. Freud, in an essay called "The Uncanny," traced the sensation to a fear of death, of castration or of "something that ought to have remained hidden but has come to light."

At best, the feeling is disorienting. At worst, it’s creepy.

Now a study suggests that, paradoxically, this same sensation may prime the brain to sense patterns it would otherwise miss — in mathematical equations, in language, in the world at large.

"We’re so motivated to get rid of that feeling that we look for meaning and coherence elsewhere," said Travis Proulx, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and lead author of the paper appearing in the journal Psychological Science. "We channel the feeling into some other project, and it appears to improve some kinds of learning."

Researchers have long known that people cling to their personal biases more tightly when feeling threatened. After thinking about their own inevitable death, they become more patriotic, more religious and less tolerant of outsiders, studies find. When insulted, they profess more loyalty to friends — and when told they’ve done poorly on a trivia test, they even identify more strongly with their school’s winning teams.

In a series of new papers, Dr. Proulx and Steven J. Heine, a professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, argue that these findings are variations on the same process: maintaining meaning, or coherence. The brain evolved to predict, and it does so by identifying patterns.

When those patterns break down — as when a hiker stumbles across an easy chair sitting deep in the woods, as if dropped from the sky — the brain gropes for something, anything that makes sense. It may retreat to a familiar ritual, like checking equipment. But it may also turn its attention outward, the researchers argue, and notice, say, a pattern in animal tracks that was previously hidden. The urge to find a coherent pattern makes it more likely that the brain will find one.

"There’s more research to be done on the theory," said Michael Inzlicht, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, because it may be that nervousness, not a search for meaning, leads to heightened vigilance. But he added that the new theory was "plausible, and it certainly affirms my own meaning system; I think they’re onto something."

In the most recent paper, published last month, Dr. Proulx and Dr. Heine described having 20 college students read an absurd short story based on "The Country Doctor," by Franz Kafka. The doctor of the title has to make a house call on a boy with a terrible toothache. He makes the journey and finds that the boy has no teeth at all. The horses who have pulled his carriage begin to act up; the boy’s family becomes annoyed; then the doctor discovers the boy has teeth after all. And so on. The story is urgent, vivid and nonsensical — Kafkaesque.

After the story, the students studied a series of 45 strings of 6 to 9 letters, like "X, M, X, R, T, V." They later took a test on the letter strings, choosing those they thought they had seen before from a list of 60 such strings. In fact the letters were related, in a very subtle way, with some more likely to appear before or after others.

The test is a standard measure of what researchers call implicit learning: knowledge gained without awareness. The students had no idea what patterns their brain was sensing or how well they were performing.

But perform they did. They chose about 30 percent more of the letter strings, and were almost twice as accurate in their choices, than a comparison group of 20 students who had read a different short story, a coherent one.

"The fact that the group who read the absurd story identified more letter strings suggests that they were more motivated to look for patterns than the others," Dr. Heine said. "And the fact that they were more accurate means, we think, that they’re forming new patterns they wouldn’t be able to form otherwise."

Brain-imaging studies of people evaluating anomalies, or working out unsettling dilemmas, show that activity in an area called the anterior cingulate cortex spikes significantly. The more activation is recorded, the greater the motivation or ability to seek and correct errors in the real world, a recent study suggests. "The idea that we may be able to increase that motivation," said Dr. Inzlicht, a co-author, "is very much worth investigating."

Researchers familiar with the new work say it would be premature to incorporate film shorts by David Lynch, say, or compositions by John Cage into school curriculums. For one thing, no one knows whether exposure to the absurd can help people with explicit learning, like memorizing French. For another, studies have found that people in the grip of the uncanny tend to see patterns where none exist — becoming more prone to conspiracy theories, for example. The urge for order satisfies itself, it seems, regardless of the quality of the evidence.

Still, the new research supports what many experimental artists, habitual travelers and other novel seekers have always insisted: at least some of the time, disorientation begets creative thinking.

Get Tough!

Health insurance reform is such a no-brainer, and the American people agree with me, in poll after poll after poll, including the BIG poll in the Presidential and Congressional elections last November, that I hope a few members of Congress get to read this essay by Mitchell Bard, published just yesterday in the Huffington Post.

Here is that essay ...

But when it comes to how to wield power in Washington once you've won an election, give me the Republicans over the Democrats any day of the week. I was reminded of the Democrats' seeming inability to govern when I read about the health care bill that finally emerged from Max Baucus's Senate Finance Committee, after months of negotiations with three Republicans on the committee.

(To be absolutely clear here, so there are no misunderstandings: When I say that Republicans govern better than Democrats do, I am strictly speaking about how effectively they turn their policy positions into law. I am not saying I want the Republicans to retake the House and Senate, and I do not support the Republican positions on issues, which generally look to protect corporations and the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else, and seek to instill an extreme, religion-based morals agenda on the country. What I'm saying is that I wish the Democrats would act like Republicans once they find themselves in power.)

For most of George W. Bush's two terms in office, especially during the key period from 2002 to 2006, he had a solidly Republican Congress with which to work. So, despite a razor-thin win in 2000 (losing the popular vote and, in the minds of many, only winning the electoral vote thanks to a flawed, partisan Supreme Court decision), and another narrow victory in 2004, as president, Bush made no effort to moderate his agenda and pursue bipartisan legislation. His party allies in Congress loyally backed nearly all of his proposals, and Bush gleefully rammed through his far-right conservative agenda (massive tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, etc.), which was well to the right of his campaign rhetoric (remember, he was a "compassionate conservative"), without thinking twice about what Democrats thought of what he was doing. His razor-thin margin of victory (and even the fact that fewer people voted for him than his opponent in 2000) didn't stop him (or his allies in Congress) from moving full-speed ahead with legislation he supported.

Flash forward to 2008. The American people, via their votes, absolutely and unquestionably repudiated the Republican policies of the previous eight years. After giving Democrats narrow advantages in the House and Senate in 2006, voters really "threw the bums out" in 2008, leaving Democrats with a 60-40 majority in the Senate (once Al Franken was seated) and an even more commanding 256-178 lead in the House. The American people also overwhelmingly elected a Democrat to the presidency, handing Barack Obama 365 electoral votes (to 173 for John McCain), with 53 percent of the popular vote going to Obama and only 46 percent to McCain. In two elections, Bush never came close to these kinds of numbers. And Obama managed to win red states like North Carolina and Indiana that few commentators thought the Democrats could even have a chance of taking just a couple of years earlier.

In short, the American people said to the Democrats: We want you to do your thing.

And yet, that isn't what has happened. Instead, the Democrats in Congress have been timid, looking for Republican support (and making concessions to get it) even though they didn't need it. At first, it was an admirable pursuit, an effort to leave partisan bickering behind and concentrate on solving the massive problems the current administration and Congress inherited from the disastrous presidency that preceded them. And it was something the president not only supported, but actively pursued. But in the first big legislative test of the bipartisan approach, the stimulus bill, not a single House member voted for the legislation, and only a pair of Republicans in the Senate signed on (it was three, but Arlen Specter later became a Democrat, leaving just Maine's two senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, as current Republicans who voted for the bill).

The result was weaker stimulus legislation (to try and lure Republicans), but no Republican support. That is a lose-lose for the Democrats (and those suffering from the recession), and a win-win for the Republicans.

The stimulus bill should have been a wake-up call for Democrats in Congress. The way the Republicans stood united in opposition despite Democratic efforts at bipartisanship should have announced loud and clear that the Republicans had no intention of acting reasonably. They had successfully closed ranks, ensuring that not one single Republican in the House voted for the bill and that they didn't help the president succeed on something that might be viewed as a "win" for him. It should have been a "fool me once" moment from which the Democrats emerged wiser, going forward with the knowledge that the Republicans were only out to obstruct (it was the moment of birth for the Party of No). It should have emboldened Democrats to say, "We won 256 House seats, 60 Senate seats and the presidency. We get to make the rules now. Your guy pushed through his agenda after losing the popular vote. We tried to be nice, and you kicked crap in our faces. We're done. Have fun on the sidelines watching us enact our agenda."

But that's not what happened.

Yes, I understand that you need 60 votes in the Senate to invoke cloture, and yes I know that there is a good size contingent of Blue Dog Democrats in the House and more conservative Democrats in the Senate who would be reluctant to sign off on some of the president's initiatives. Certainly, compromises would have to be made to ensure that enough Democrats supported a given piece of legislation. But those negotiations should have been handled internally. After the stimulus fiasco, the Democrats should have ensured that when they emerged from a caucus meeting on an issue, they had enough votes to pass it without Republican help, just as Bush and his Republican followers did when they were in power.

And yet, instead, the Democrats keep playing the fool.

Which brings us back to the Baucus debacle. He spent months -- months! -- negotiating with three Republicans (Olympia Snowe, Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi) to try and get a bipartisan health care reform bill through his finance committee. Anybody with an IQ above 75 and access to a major daily newspaper knew that there was no meaningful health care reform bill that Enzi and Grassley were going to get behind. Did Baucus listen to and/or read the kinds of things Grassley was saying in interviews and on talk shows? (Two words: death panels.) The Republicans weren't going to give the president a win (remember Jim DeMint's famous health care will be Obama's "Waterloo" remark), and they were too beholden to their corporate interests to support anything that would have any real impact on the status quo. The Republicans were obviously stalling, trying to do anything they could to keep the health care reform process from moving forward. Again, this was all obvious to everyone watching ... except Baucus.

So what ended up happening? Baucus announced today that he was going forward with a bill and ... surprise! ... no Republicans are backing it (not even Snowe). But, thanks to Baucus bending over backwards to try and lure Republicans, the Finance Committee bill is weaker than any of the other versions to get through committees in the House and Senate. Enzi, Grassley and Snowe managed to stall the process for months and ensure a weaker bill emerged from the Finance Committee, and they did so without having to actually do anything or give up anything (or support the legislation). Who won that battle, Baucus or the Republicans? If it was a boxing match, Baucus would be bloody and unconscious, and Enzi, Grassley and Snowe would be dancing around the ring, triumphantly holding their hands up in victory.

What Baucus (and the rest of the Democrats in Congress) have to realize is some exceptionally simple math: 60 seats in the Senate + 256 seats in the House + 365 electoral votes = They get to do what they said they would do during the campaign. It really is that simple. Make the Republicans vote against the bills. Make them filibuster what they oppose. Expose them for what they are: the Party of No that puts political games and corporate interests ahead of what is best for the American people.

But no, to Baucus, 60 + 256 + 365 = He has to get on his knees and kiss Republican butt. Sorry, Senator, you get an F in math.

The Democrats won overwhelmingly last November. Now they have to govern. Especially after the way Republicans played them for fools on the stimulus legislation, Democrats don't have to kowtow to Republicans. They need to get in a room and come up with health care legislation that the 59 Democratic senators (after Ted Kennedy's passing) -- or 51 of them if they go the reconciliation route --and 218 House members can get behind (and that the president will sign) and get it done. If Republicans want to filibuster, vote no, complain, spew lies, hold rallies, go on talk shows, call Obama a socialist, and throw temper tantrums, let them. I am not saying the Democrats shouldn't fight the public relations battle and shoot down the lies slopped to the public by health care reform opponents, I'm just saying they should do it while passing legislation on their own.

To the Democrats I say: Forget Baucus's bill. Don't give the Republicans another victory (one which represents a defeat for the American people). Pass meaningful health care reform, even if not a single Republican votes for it.

60 + 256 + 365. The math is so easy. If only the Democrats could figure it out. I'm happy to email them a link to the election returns every day if it will help.

Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer taught the Democrats how to win elections, which is great. I just wish someone would teach Democrats in Congress how to govern.

This Country (sic) Is Sick

This County  (sic) Is Sick

Our county voted strongly for McCain last November, so none of this is very surprising.  One of the things wrong with this country (and county) is that Republicans began concentrating in the 1970s to take over the school boards.  What's happening here is symptomatic of the problem.

**********************************************************************************

Reaction Mixed to School

District's Decision on Obama Speech

(Vero News, Sept. 7, 2009)

By Lisa Zahner

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY -- Indian River County School Superintendent Dr. Harry La Cava's unilateral decision to not air a live speech by President Barack Obama on Tuesday has sent local political and community leaders off into their respective corners.

According to a sample letter from a principal sent to the school's teachers, the policy decision by La Cava was because "it is incumbent on the District to exercise reasonable control over the instructional and media materials that may be shown to students, and if shown, the content must be educationally relevant to the class in which it is shown."

La Cava stated that both the district and individual principals and assistant principals will dictate if and when the speech can be shown, and in which classes.

The speech is intended to inspire students to stay in school, to commit themselves to education and to set goals. However, officials of the Florida Republican Party last week voiced concerns that Obama would use the venue to espouse his political agenda. At one point the Department of Education had offered as part of the teaching materials about the speech for students to consider writing letters to the president offering how they could help forward the president's goal of students studying hard and staying in school.

Some Obama opponents seized on that material, saying it proved the Obama White House had a political agenda. The Department of Education has since removed that part of the study guide and the President has said his speech will encourage kids to work hard and stay in school.

La Cava has the full support of Tom Lockwood, 20-year chairman of the Indian River County Republican Executive Committee.

"I don't know all of the reasons, but I support that he is trying to remain neutral," Lockwood said. "He's not airing the speech because, by allowing it, he would be indicating a partisan preference."

Lockwood said La Cava is correct in being suspicious that the speech might have a "slant" toward initiatives being put forth by Democrats in Washington D.C. He said the speech should be reviewed by school officials to make sure it's not intended to sway students to a political position.

"We need to be very careful, the schools have been very careful to keep politics away from the students," he said. "We feel that this is an opportunity for President Obama to push his causes."

In the north end of the county, Fellsmere Vice Mayor Joel Tyson, a staunch supporter of conservative issues, also agrees that LaCava was within his bounds to restrict students' access to the speech before it's vetted by district officials.

"It seems to me that Obama is grasping at straws to get his agenda through," Tyson said. "it's not going to mean anything to the kids anyway, they don't understand all this stuff, but you know the parents will watch it."

Tyson serves on the board of the North County Charter School, which he says does not have to follow La Cava's policy. Tyson said he had not been approached by the school for an opinion on the matter and had no idea whether the charter school intends to air the speech.

"If he's encouraging the kids, then that's his job and I don't see a problem with it, he's the guy we're all supposed to look up to," he said. "But if he's using this speech as the bully pulpit for political reasons, there's a time and a place for that and the schools are not the time or the place."

Tyson said he does recognize that former U.S. Presidents have had free access to speak to schoolchildren in public schools in the past.

"That's where President Bush was on 9-11 when he got the news," Tyson said. "He was at a school."

Jon Pine, president of the progressive activist group Club Change, has a different take on the issue.

"Basically what is going on here is the School Board, with the superintendent acting on their behalf, is playing politics with our children and that's exactly what they're accusing our President of," Pine said. "Once again, someone from the Right makes an outlandish claim and it gets traction before anyone has the opportunity to go check out the validity of that claim."

Pine also recollected that President Bush was reading to children at a Sarasota school when he heard about the World Trade Center being hit on 9-11. Pine added that former presidents have not only spoken directly to students, but handed down policies such as Kennedy's Presidential Council on Fitness.

"When I was in school, we had this Presidential Council on Fitness where we were required to perform at a minimum level on various fitness tests," Pine said. "That was an effort by the President to improve the physical fitness of our young people and this speech by President Obama is an effort to improve their intellectual fitness."

First Lady Nancy Reagan also led the "Just Say No to Drugs" campaign, which was the mantra of the nationwide school system in the 1980s.

Pine said grassroots protests are bubbling up all over the county, whether it be parents keeping children home from school on Tuesday to view the speech on television, families protesting at the School Board meeting on Tuesday evening or a group of religious leaders taking a stand on the issue. As of Sunday morning, Club Change had not scheduled an official protest, but Democratic State Committeewoman Pam Director has signed up to speak at the School Board meeting.

Freddie Woolfork, director of development and marketing for the Gifford Youth Activity Center, is vacationing in Orlando for the holiday, but heard about the issue. Should the 150 elementary through high school-age student who will come to the GYAC for after-school programs on Tuesday not be allowed to watch Obama's speech at school, Woolfork said he would approach Executive Director Angelia Perry to get permission from the GYAC Board to show the speech after school. Woolfork said the GYAC students study public and historic figures across the political spectrum and allow the kids to make up their own minds.

"If the speech is about education and staying in school, that's exactly what we're about," Woolfork said. "He is the President and that position comes with it a certain credibility and dignity and he's not about to do anything to take that away."

As a sitting President, Woolfork said Obama should be afforded the proper respect and should not have to be censored in his message to students.

"Once the election is over, whether you voted for him or not, he is the President of the United States and we don't always agree with everything that our Presidents say or do," he said. "He's not a Democratic President or a Republican President, he's the American President. I can't believe we're debating over whether or not our schools should let the President of the United States speak to our students."

********************************************************************************

The above article was found through a link in an email sent by a friend.  Here is another article, enclosed in her email, which contains statements made by another friend of mine, Claudia Jimenez, who is a member of the School Board.

Email received Monday from Rachael Carson

There were some terrific articles at www.veronews.com that I neglected to include in my other e-mails on the School Board issue.  Please go and visit the site, I will cut and paste one of the pieces below, LINK.  Here is a direct LINK to a second article.
 
 
 

Indian River School Board members split over airing President’s address

By Debbie Carson, Online Editor INDIAN RIVER COUNTY – Indian River County School Board members are split over Superintendent Dr. Harry La Cava's decision to ban a live airing of President Barack Obama’s speech to schoolchildren on Tuesday in the county's public schools. Of the four School Board members reached for comment Sunday, two firmly stand behind La Cava’s decision to not run the president’s address live. One opposed the decision, terming it a disservice to students and a sign of disrespect for the president. And the fourth said the issue has become a teachable moment for all. Board members Carol Johnson, Claudia Jimenez, Karen Disney-Brombach and Debbie MacKay offered their opinions to VeroNews.com and their positions do not represent the board as a whole. Attempts to reach School Board Member Matthew McCain were unsuccessful over the Labor Day weekend. School board Chairwoman Carol Johnson said that Dr. La Cava’s decision was in keeping with the district’s policies. “Policies are our rule of law,” Johnson said. Under the school board’s rules, Dr. La Cava has the authority to decide whether or not such addresses should be aired in the district’s classrooms. Dr. La Cava has said that such materials need to be reviewed first before a decision can be made. The White House has said that President Obama’s speech is designed to encourage school children to set goals, work hard and to stay in school. Johnson added that her cell phone died Saturday after fielding numerous phone calls from parents. She said the majority of the callers wanted to know what the consequences would be if they kept their students at home in an attempt to keep them from watching the presidential address. “Nothing is going to happen on Tuesday,” Johnson said. “Children need to be in school.” Dr. La Cava’s decision means only that the speech will not be aired live. The district will record and review the speech, and subsequently determine when and if the address will be played. School board member Claudia Jimenez disagrees that the decision was based strictly on school board policy. “This is the result of the tea party folks having their influence,” Jimenez said. “Of course, the district line is that this is apolitical and neutral. You’d have to be blind to the realities of the politics of this county to accept that and say, ‘Oh, there’s nothing political about this.’” “This is about basic respect for the office,” she later said, adding that she thinks the district’s decision sends an “inappropriate message to the children. It’s unfortunate.” “I wrote the superintendant and said, 'Here I am an immigrant (from Colombia) who has lived in a country where I’ve seen people killed, where they can’t speak for fear of death. And I’m in a country where you have a democratically elected president and his speech to children about education is perceived as a threat? "That is as unpatriotic and un-American as you can be. How is that possible? This is my adopted country and it just boggles my mind that this is what it has come to, that if you don’t agree with the president, you have the right to censor him." Jimenez moved to the U.S. in 1969 as a kindergartner. For a while, Jimenez considered pulling her daughters from school Tuesday to watch the address but has since decided not to. Instead, her high school junior and senior will watch a web-stream of the speech that evening at home. “They’re disappointed,” Jimenez said of her daughters, who had hoped to watch the address live at school. “We are educators,” she continued. “This is about education and conversation and critical thinking. And we are denying the kids the opportunity to view a speech and come to their own conclusions.” Johnson said it was necessary for education officials to review the content of the speech first before allowing school kids to hear the president. The White House will release the text of the speech on Monday. “We want our children to be able to use their critical thinking skills,” she said, but the speech must be relevant to the curriculum. And, without the ability to review it first, the district doesn’t know that would be the case. School board member Karen Disney-Brombach said that she agrees with Dr. La Cava’s decision because he did not say the students could not watch it -- only that they could not watch it live. She explained that Dr. La Cava has said that history, government and civic classes may be able to view the address as it pertains to the classes’ lessons. “It’s not about what I think,” Disney-Brombach said when first asked about the issue. “It’s about policy.” She added that the district later could decide to review its policies and change them. Disney-Brombach also mentioned technological and logistical issues that would have made it difficult to air the president’s speech live. The speech is supposed to be on television during the lunch hour when many students are in the cafeteria. The schools would have had to rearrange the whole day in order for students to be in classrooms at that time. Also, not every classroom has cable access. School Board member Debbie MacKay said that the issue should serve as a teachable moment. “This is a real learning opportunity of how polarized government has become,” she said. MacKay also said that what is supposed to be an inspirational speech for children shouldn’t be this complicated. Some people – not all – “entrench ourselves in politics,” MacKay said, adding that people get wrapped up in what political party they are with and what their leaders tell them. “I wish we had more time for calm, meaningful discussion,” she said, noting that the school district wasn’t given much lead time before Tuesday’s speech, especially with the Labor Day holiday Monday. MacKay said that despite the “maelstrom” surrounding the decision, the board is bound by its policies. “We really are supposed to look at board rules,” she said. They should also think of the students and do what’s best for them, she added. “Questioning motives is destructive,” MacKay said. Instead, people should focus on the importance of education. “Let’s all join in on that message,” she said. “We should all be able to embrace that.”

Later edit:  I'm learning how to use Mike Wolfberg's WHAT program, and my first stab at generating 8-letter -LIKE words with, say, an A and three consonants before -LIKE, the only method I could find that worked was to ask for ALIKE???, and pick out the words ending in -LIKE.  And I missed LATHLIKE and WANDLIKE using this method.  One of the reasons for that is that the display was so large it overfilled my screen and I forgot to scroll.

Ah, but I found a query that pinpointed just what I was asking for.  ....like,A3(C)

I'm saying this so I'll remember the technique.  The comma with no space after it sets the condition that I want three consonants and an A.  The four dots before like asks for the pattern.

Corrected list appears below this edit.

SUCH a Long Time ...

...since I've posted.  Obama's been elected, and I'm back to studying Scrabble words, when I'm not blogging as Twoberry and when I'm not keeping up with my hyperactive everlovin' Barbara and when I'm not paying attention to my day job.

Let's get back to Scrabble.  And let's see if I can remember all of the eight-letter words ending in -LIKE.  How many are there?  Let's start with AGUELIKE HYMNLIKE LYNXLIKE.  The rest will have one or two vowels amongst the first four letters, unlike AGUE (3 vowels) and HYMN LYNX (none at all).

ONE VOWEL

A:  My mnemonic is LAP CAWS 43539 (and I caution readers not to try to figure that out).  I'm just testing myself to see if I can type all 38 of these words from memory.

BALM
BARN
CALF
CLAM
CLAW
CLAY

CRAB
DAWN
FANG
FAWN
GNAT
HAND

HAWK
JAZZ
LADY
LAMB
LARD
LATH

SACK
SALT
SAND
SCAB
SLAB
SNAG

SPAR
STAR
SWAN
TANK
TRAP
WAND

WART
WASP

Yay!  All 38 accounted for.  3 + 38 = 41

E:  FEG HENS 22324  (16 in all)

FELT
FERN
GERM
GLEN

HEMP
HERB
HERD
NECK

NEST
SERF
SHED
STEM

STEP
TENT
VEST
WHEY

41 + 16 = 57

I:  DIS IWIS 343 (20 in all)

BIRD
DISC
DISH
DISK
FILM

FISH
KILT
KING
LILY
MILK

PITH
RING
SIGH
SILK
SKIN

SLIT
TWIG
WHIP
WING
WISP

57 + 20 = 77

O:  COW WOOF 533 (26)

BOLT
BOWL
COCK
COMB
CORD

CORK
CORM
DOWN
FOLK

FORK
FROG
GONG
HORN

KNOB
KNOT
LOFT
LORD
MOSS

MOTH
ROCK
SNOW
SONG

TOMB
WOLF
WOMB
WORM

(Nuts, I missed DOWN.  It's there now.)

77 + 26 = 103

U:  SPUR THUD 32 (18)

BUSH
CULT
DRUM
DUST
GULF
HUMP

HUSK
PLUM
PUMP
PUSS
RUBY
RUFF

RUSH
SCUM
SUCH
SURF
TURF
TUSK

103 + 18 = 121

TWO VOWELS

AA:

LAVA

121+ 1 = 122

AE:  BLEACH SAGE 532 (22)

BEAD
BEAK
BEAM
BEAN

BEAR
CAGE
CAVE
GAME

GATE
HARE
HEAD

JADE
LACE
LAKE
LEAF

MAZE
PEAK
SEAL
SEAM

TAPE
VASE
WAVE

122 + 22 = 144

AI:

HAIR
TAIL
WAIF

144 + 3 = 147

AO:  Goa 2 (9)

BOAT
FOAM
GOAD

GOAT
HALO
MOAT

NOVA
SOAP
TOAD

147 + 9 = 156

AU:

AUNT
FAUN
QUAY

156 + 3 = 159

EE:

DEER
REED
SEED
TREE
WEED

159 + 5 = 164

EI:  VIEW PILOT 52 (16)

EPIC
HIVE
KITE
LIFE

LINE
PINE
PIPE
TIDE

TILE
VEIL
VEIN
VICE

VINE
VISE
WIFE
WIRE

164 + 16 = 180

EO:  CON IODOPHOR 12 (11)

COKE
DOME
DOVE
HOME

HOSE
NOSE
OVEN
POET

POPE
ROPE
ROSE

180 + 11 = 191

EU:  JUDGE EFFORT (7)

DUNE
FUME
FUSE
GLUE

JUTE
RUNE
TUBE

191 + 7 = 196=8

II:  none

IO:

IRON
LION

198 + 2 = 200

IU:

SUIT

200 + 1 = 201

OO:  HOORAH MAN-WIFE 42 (10)

FOOT
HOOD
HOOF
HOOK
HOOP

MOON
NOOK
ROOF
ROOT
WOOL

201 + 10 = 211

OU: 

SOUL
SOUP

211 + 2 = 213

end