Cerulean - deep blue

5 points to Hope, 2 to Tammy for a correct synonym (blue) but the wrong meaning for it (depressed). Correct me if I am wrong on this, but I believe it means the color blue.

I agree, Hope, re not revealing that you asked someone, except that it reduces the point value so I would need to know. Any ideas? Maybe revel it after all responses are in.

Word # 9: cerberus

Ask and tell is FINE!!!

How else would you learn a new word? You could of course look it up, but talking to someone is way more fun.
So, 1 point each - Tammy for pursuing it and Hope for the sentence.
New wor #8: cerulean

Parlous and then Word #7

One point each for putting yourselves out there with that impossible word. Parlous means perilous - a contraction of the word, apparently. Also bold or mischievous, but I think less commonly. I have seen it in essays by people like the erudite George Will.

#7 then is: anachronism

Word Play 5 results, and 6 new

Yay, yay, yay. 5 points each for Tammy and Hope. Both spot on and with sentences to boot! WaY TO GO.

New word: parlous
It is surprising b/c it sounds very much like what it means, but not the meaning you would expect from its similarity to a French verb.

Okay, three points each for Tammy and Hope for 99% hit - it is typically a *ghostly* double; one point for Georgia for trying a sentence even with the wrong meaning! And anyway, doppelganger, ginglehopper - just about the same, aren't they?

Yes, as far as I am concerned, you can ask anybody. What does everyone else think?

Okay, Word #5: euphonious, something not very common in the political ads we hear incessantly.

Word Play #4

Very, very good. 2 points each (Hope and Tammy) for getting close. Obfuscate means to confuse, perplex or make obscure. Synonym muddle. Root words are "ob" (over) plus Latin "fuscare" - to darken. No one would know that, of course, but I looked up the root b/c you rightly wanted to break it down into its components.
You obfuscate a direct object, for instance, the meaning of something - He obfuscated his true policies with slogans.
It is a deliberate effort to obscure something, not an unintentional misunderstanding of something. Hence 2 points for Hope instead of 3 (sorry).

Word Play #4: doppelganger
Woohoo!

Word Play #3

Okay, 2 points for Hope - good sentence that reveals nothing of the meaning, and submitting 3 responses!
1 point for GA b/c good response but MISSPELLED the word!
Tammy - 0 - although training for CPR should be worth something, but herewith a sentence:

His trenchant comments revealed his deep understanding of the situation and his willingness to incite the opposition.

Word #3 - obfuscate

This should be relevant in this political maelstrom!

Biden: "We Want to Take Money" - that's YOUR money

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people,” Biden said in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: “It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

I cannot begin to express how outrageous this proposition is. It is as if a government agent were to come to your house, take money from your hand, walk to your neighbor's house and give it to him.

Biden and Obama call it being patriotic. I call it theft. What it is, in fact, is income redistribution from parties the government determines have too much money to parties the government deems needy and worthy to receive it. Central planning never works. And stealing money from those who earn it to give to others who have less is still theft.

Word Play #2

All righty, then! 1 point to Hope for taking the plunge, 1 for Georgia for an interesting contribution and 2 (you heard it, 2) to Tammy for following directions - hahaha - and providing a definition.

Anyway, Word #2 is trenchant, so have at it!

Word Play

I think a Word for the Day would be a fun addition to blogging.

I propose to introduce a Word each day for readers to define and put in a sentence. At the end of the week, we will declare the George Will Erudition winner for the best responses for that week. Perhaps the winner can do the next week of words, at his/her discretion. Otherwise, I will do so.

Today's Word is: iconoclastic

Control and command liberals do not like Sarah Palin

I keep trying to get a handle on why liberals' reactions to Sarah Palin are so hysterical. I mean today, the media reports that Chevy Chase wants, and I quote, "Tina Fey to decimate Sarah Palin." Tina Fey's sketch on "Saturday Night Live" was perfect pitch. Palin says she was amused by the act, appearing to take it in stride.

But I digress. My point is only that such fierce reactions puzzle me. But I had an inspiration in the middle of the night.

It is my opinion that liberals as a rule like to run other people's lives, for their own good, of course. In the last several years, they have succeeded in constricting our lives with the ever-growing phenomenon of political correctness. For this technique to work, those being "managed" must be made to feel guilty if they stray outside the permissible limits defined by those attempting to control them.

In her refreshing independence, Sarah Palin exhibits no guilt for personal success, for a husband who takes a leave of absence to become the primary childcare-giver, for enjoying being a mother of a large family, for demonstrable competence with a (horrors!) gun, for knowing how to hunt and then to take care of (field-dress) the prey, for dressing and acting like a woman instead of trying to emulate men, for physical and mental excellence that includes marathon running and smooth skills as a speaker and debater.

Scary stuff. She is not begging for acceptance from anyone or asking for help. It is pretty hard to co-opt someone who wants nothing from you. The liberals can find no points of leverage with her. For controlling personalities, that is undoubtedly intolerable. Hence the hysteria.

Strained Logic re Sarah Palin

I guess by now all of these points have been covered in editorials, opinion pieces and Letters to the Editor. But it is I think worth synthesizing them in one place, albeit not at George Will's level of erudition and eloquence.

1. Sarah Palin is not qualified to be the proverbial "heartbeat away" from the presidency? Well, what then is Barack Obama? Let's put some numbers up against the dismissive references to Palin's executive experience.

Palin was on the city council for 4 years (1992-1996). She was Mayor for 6 years (1996-2002). She was on the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for 1 year (2003-2004), during which time she served as the Ethics Supervisor of the Commission. She has been Governor since 2006, adding 2 more years of experience for a total of 12 years. 12 years. Obama has 0, as in zero. Palin is running for Vice-President, which carries the potential for becoming president if McCain's ticket is elected. Obama is running for President, with a 100% probability of becoming president if his ticket is elected.

2. Tokenism. As I recall, it was said that if you don't vote for Hillary, it is because of sexism. But now if you support Palin, you are supporting a woman who is strictly a token. Who is the arbiter of which women meet the qualifications to be a Serious Candidate? Those crying tokenism are as arrogant as those who cried sexism, presuming that the voter cannot judge a woman on her merits.

3. Improper vetting. Whatever! I would say Palin was vetted very carefully, but the choice took the critics by surprise as one that they had not had the opportunity to approve first.

4. Taking care of her family. No one seems concerned that neither Michelle nor Barack Obama raises their kids. Her mother allegedly does. Which is fine. Just don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house.

Oh would that Logic insert itself into this election.