Solving the Puzzle

There is endless talk from the right about the ridiculousness of liberal Hollywood stars giving their opinions about this, that, or the other. But, of course, as I believe we have noted here before, the right has a much stronger record of validating the views of Hollywood types by electing them (the Gipper and the Governator to name a couple).

They apparently now also let the celebrity rooters write columns in their magazines. Perhaps they shouldn't. Pat Sajak's first column for the National Review Online tackles the scourge of allowing public sector employees to vote:

In nearly all private and public endeavors, there are occasions in which it’s only fair and correct that a person or group be barred from participating because that party could directly and unevenly benefit from decisions made and policies adopted. So should state workers be able to vote in state elections on matters that would benefit them directly? The same question goes for federal workers in federal elections.

He bolsters his case by pointing out that his family and friends aren't allowed to participate on Wheel of Fortune. I'm not kidding. He doesn't explain whether or not employees' families should be allowed to vote despite their obvious conflict of interest. Likewise left out are taxpayers who have a definite stake in most elections. Perhaps when Sajak's though experiment ends, he will come to the conclusion that we are all too conflicted to vote and thus democracy should be eliminated.

It is exciting, however, to think where this column might go. When you start with the disenfranchisment of a sizeable portion of the U.S. Workforce, there is no telling where you might end up.