Political Pun-dit

By now, you have all suffered the unfortunate consequences of my obsession with puns. What you might not know is that, after several consecutive nights of watching cable news at the gym, I have recently been thinking about becoming a pundit. As a pundit, you pretty much get paid for telling people what you think. Since I rarely stop telling people what I think, exhibit A being this blog, I figure that I might as well cash in. Between Rush Limbaugh's failed bid to buy the St. Louis Rams and Lou Dobbs' "surprising" announcement that he's leaving CNN, the word pundit has been thrown around a bunch lately. Yet, it seems that it's a label constantly being slapped on Conservatives only. Confounded by this phenomenon, I decided to examine the word's etymology. Turns out, the word has two common definitions and is derived from Hindi. The first definition of pundit is "a learned person, expert, or authority." The second is "a person who makes comments or judgments, esp. in an authoritative manner; critic or commentator." A "pandit," yes, with an "a", is "a man in India esteemed for his wisdom or learning; often used as a title of respect." Hmm. That's odd. How did we get from a title of respect to an epithet that is hurled at the right-wing media more times than you can say Glenn Beck? Are Liberals not deemed to be learned people, experts, or authorities? Wait, don't answer that.

I'm not really looking for an answer to my above questions, I just think that it's interesting how much of our news coverage focuses on news personalities rather than the news itself. It makes me long for the days of Edward R. Murrow. Or Edward R. Murrow as conceived onscreen by David Strathairn and George Clooney. That was a good movie. Good Night, and Good Luck. Watch it.

Now that I've bored you with an incoherent rant on the virtues of punditry, I should dig in to the usual topic of my own personal commentary- Glee.
Yes, you're sick of it. So am I. But this week's episode was actually rife with ideas worth talking about. Or typing about, as the case may be.

First off, this Sue Sylvester sub-plot has got to be a joke. She has a sister with Down's Syndrome? Fine. But why did that cause her to grow a conscience this week? Presumably, this sister has not just entered or re-entered Sue's life. As such, it doesn't really make much sense for Sue to randomly develop an affinity for the disabled right now, particularly after being mean to Artie in an earlier episode. That being said, this is also a Glee-typical hackneyed way of getting at the reasons Sue is the way she is. She has a family secret. Look how shocked I'm not.

Secondly, what's the deal with Emma being MIA? Did Anthropologie not have any bow-laden citrus colored outfits to clothe her in? Did she stay at home out of fear of contracting the H1N1 virus? While I am certainly glad that Terrible Teri was nowhere to be seen, Emma's inane insecurity would have been a welcome addition to what was a pretty psycho-traumatic episode for the Glee kids. She could have at least counseled Puck on his failing quest to win back his deceitful Baby Mama.

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure Quinn should be showing by now. After all, Teri's belly padding in previous weeks indicates that she's several months along. Are the producers not thinking about this? Were they too distracted by Mike O'Malley's chiseled auto-mechanic bod to notice such a glaring fact faux-pas? Mr. O'Malley is certainly moving up in the world. First Guts, then Yes, Dear, now Glee. What could possibly be next? You heard it here first, kids. I smell an Emmy.

So, do you think I have a future in punditry? No. How about Access Hollywood host? I promise I wouldn't make fun of the celebrities to their faces. That's what the internet is for.

Over and out.