Over and over, political activists are tackling the problem of long-term incumbents. Once someone has been elected– or worse, re-elected– they become difficult to unseat. Political observers contend that this situation leads to less effective government, and a little too much coziness between elected officials and their big donors and lobbyists.

So an increasing number of states have instituted term limits: so many terms in office, and you can’t stand for reelection. Recurrent efforts at instituting these limits at the Federal level have failed, with the exception of the Oval Office. After FDR, presidents have been limited to two terms.

Not everyone is so sanguine about this movement. There is a certain skill that goes into public policy. The philosopher Burke noted that government has a learning curve, and that this education has real value. Certainly neophyte congressmen and legislators need most of their first term just to learn the system; any real competency takes two or more terms.

Currently in Louisiana, our own term limits have just started kicking in, producing a madhouse turnover of the legislative branch, and a loss of all real seniority. The consensus among the pundits is that the winners here will be the lobbyists: they are the only ones left with any long-term experience in state policy. Shifting from incumbent to lobbyists, somehow, does not seem to be what reformers were aiming for.

There is a second problem in the political landscape, however: left vs right, republican vs. democrat. It seems that everyone is trying so hard to win out over the other side, that no one is interested win-win solutions. Beating the opponent has become more important than serving the majority. In the nasty fighting over bragging rights, it seems that the cooperative American spirit has been completely lost.

I have an idea about how we might kill two birds with one stone: Extendible Limits. After a candidate has served the maximum years allowed by law, a vote of the governing body– by private ballot– in which he has served might allow him to stand for re-election: a simple majority would be required for the first post-limit election, and with each successive election bid an increasingly higher required majority would be required: 53%, 56%, etc.

And for the executive office, perhaps candidacy beyond the basic term limits would require those percentages of both houses.

The impact from this could be large. ‘Good old boys’ who cut self-serving deals– and who are not above cutting a few corners in the process– will quickly find themselves unable to stand for reelection. Those who choose to do the real work of democracy, cobbling together coalitions, and negotiating to identify consensus opinions, will find their influence constantly increasing.

And the Good ol’ boys will find quickly find themselves in the political unemployment line. The damage they cause will be very limited.

The very best people we produce will rise, and serve as an example to all who follow. Those with skill, and vision, and a passion for democracy, will quickly grow in stature and respect. And the length of time they serve will be in direct correlation to their talents.

I met Vahan Mirakian through a mutual friend, his attorney, almost two years ago for the first time in a small tourist town, a paradise of sorts on the Pacific near Tijuana called “San Antonio”. The town was gorgeous as was the ocean view from Vahan’s Villa patio. Vahan’s face looked old and tired, as if he had given up. I would find out later, he virtually had.

As I sat and listened Vahan, his then girlfriend, (now wife), Marika A. and my friend, his attorney speak in Russian and Armenian, I waited after each series of conversations before each was carefully interpreted to me.

Vahan had, a year ago, been arrested at LAX at age 70, handcuffed, dragged through the airport, made to sign papers he did not understand, detained, and then deported, and not allowed to return on a technical violation.

First let me allow, Vahan is no 9/11 box-cutter carrying terrorist. He is a delightful super-talented opera singer, known to be one of the top five tenors in the world, was a resident many years at the Russian Bolshoi, and scheduled to play at Carnegie Hall before his career was rudely interrupted.

Though he did not understand my English (even a lot of Americans don’t as I was raised in Mississippi, and I did not understand his Armenian, we understood each other and developed a great affection. Whatever words we did not understand were quickly interpreted by our mutual friends.

Several months later, I returned to Los Angeles to visit our mutual attorney friend, and we drove again to Mexico to visit Vahan Mirakian. He was more sad than I had seen him before (if this was possible) , and his complicated case was not looking good. His fiance Marika, a television producer and talk show host at Armenian TV in Glendale, had to commute every weekend she could to be with Vahan. The strain was beginning to wear on the relationship.

This time it was my 53rd birthday, and we went to a small restaurant called La Fonda’s, really more or less a dive with an American pop band and very good Mexican food. At the break, I mentioned to the manager that one of the world’s top opera stars was at our table and asked if he could sing accompanied by the band. “Of course,” said the manager. I had not even asked Vahan yet but he gladly agreed. He had not sung at any venue in over a year and music was and is his life.

As it turned out, most the band opted out but the saxophone player was keen on doing a duo. When they started O Solo Mia, you could hear a pin drop in this packed establishment. It was surreal, like something out of a Salvador Dali painting. Nobody could believe their ears and kept yelling for an encore when it was over.

What a surprise when this man dedicated O Solo Mia to me. Here was a talent who played the top venues of the world, and was enabling me to have the best birthday of my life. I will never forget it.

Today, nearly another year later, I received an email from our mutual attorney friend that his case cleared. He is a free citizen again in the U.S. and living in Los Angeles. He plans a nationwide and possibly a world tour at age 71. His voice is as clear as ever and I can hear the well-known masters every time he opens his mouth.

Vahan also has a foundation that helps disadvantaged Armenian youth find their voice in music. It does wonders for those who would never have a chance otherwise. I salute this man for hanging in there and putting up a fight for his justice. I salute the American system for allowing him another chance to make it in this great country.

America rarely lets me down, and it proved today, that it truly lives up to what is on the base of the Statue Of Liberty and in our Constitution. May Vahan live and sing to be 120.

I need to start off by pointing out that politically, I am more liberal than conservative. Nevertheless, I avoid liberal commentators. But I generally pay attention to George F. Will, even though I don’t always agree with his conservative views.

I will read George F. Will for a couple of reasons. One, I like his logical flow. I don’t always agree with his premises nor conclusions, but I cannot generally find a flaw in between the two.

And even more than that, Will doesn’t always toe the party line. When he objects to what other Republicans are doing, he says it. That is a critical attribute for any political pundit, and even, any citizen: if everyone is thinking the same way, who’s thinking?

But currently Mr. Will is contending that our colleges and universities are dominated by liberals, and that this is cause for alarm. I must take exception to his comments.

As a way of contrasting and comparing, consider that the US Military is the best-funded branch of government. If you add the Veterans Administration to that, Military funding increases significantly. Well, the men and women of the Armed Services, and the many businesses that support the Military, are conservative– by a wide margin. So we need to ask why that political disparity isn’t a concern.

Large corporate interests now influence our private time, by constantly advertising their services and products to us. Most of the entertainment and news outlets are now also owned by large business, and critics constantly decry the loss of independence in news. Big businesses are run and staffed by people who, not surprisingly, are almost all conservative. So here is an enormous educational counterbalance to our colleges, and one that influences us from cradle to grave, not just for 4 years. But there is no outcry about that.

And then there are our temples of worship. Christian Americans lean heavily to the right, and certainly the teachings of the church are a force to match higher eduction. But George isn’t so concerned about that influence.

So my first question is, does George F. Will fret that some critical aspect of our country is too partisan? Or is his concern simply that it isn’t his party?

With that, we need to consider analytical thinking, critical to America, but also to the doctrine of Free Will. If teenagers and young adults only experience conservative concepts then have we circumvented their Free Will? If our students are not exposed to liberal ideas, have we extinguished the student’s ability to think objectively, in order to serve contemporary (and possibly transitory) political ideas?

That’s an important point. Before and after college, corporate advertising and corporate news will be the main sources of information for our citizens. So if our young people aren’t exposed to liberal ideas in college, when will they consider them? When else will they get an opportunity to truly reflect on different ideologies and decide– decide for THEMSELVES– what they believe?

George F. Will has been a staunch defender of freedom of thought, and freedom of choice. He cannot argue now that we should deny young adults the full range of these freedoms.

Nor can he argue that this arrangement has hurt the democracy. Even though liberals dominate higher education, the electorate regularly alternates between the two parties, and the two political stances… suggesting that, in fact, they are sufficiently exposed to different ideas, that they are thinking for themselves; and that exposure to different doctrines produces a stronger, not a weaker, citizen.

Finally, if we consider what ‘conservative’ means– to conserve, to lean toward the traditional, to advocate the tried-and-true– then it is clear that our colleges absolutely must be liberal. If institutions of higher learning are, by design, our places of innovation, of theorization, and of experimentation, then it becomes clear that it is precisely the mission of the university to challenge the status quo.

And so, to be effective, our universities must be liberal.

So with all respect for George Will’s independence and incisiveness, he may wish to reconsider his stance on universities and their liberal ways. If they were otherwise, America would not be the country it is.

Debate, is it? Something valuable to discuss or purely media hype and political alarmism? It’s everywhere you look these days. Global warming. Climatic doom and gloom that appears to be all but irreversible. Should we believe everything we hear or read? Did Al Gore spend a lot of money making a documentary about global warming simply because he was sore about losing the Presidential election? What’s going on?

Scientifically, global warming refers to the process of the earth’s temperatures rising at rates that exceed what can reasonably be expected. In plain language: our days getting hotter and hotter, sooner and faster. Greenhouse gasses, by consensus, are the culprits behind such rising temperatures. In turn, pollution-breeding industries are the culprits behind greenhouse gases.

Thirty or forty years into the future– is that beyond our comprehension? Do we have the future to plan ahead? I remeber a line from the now vintage TV show St. Elsewhere, delivered by the priest who founded the hospital upon which the show was based: “We’re here to leave the world better than we found it. Otherwise, what’s the point?” Rising temperatures. Alarming storms. Earthquakes becoming more devastating. World-wide flooding. Ice caps melting. Coastlines disappearing underwater. That’s global warming for you. Is your interest piqued?

Are we already suffering from global warming? Many believe we are, citing the growing unpredictability of weather conditions and higher temperatures recorded worldwide. Many believe we aren’t, attributing these changes to other known or unknown factors– and often failing to provide scientific evidence to support toheir disclaims. The stakes are high. Our children and grandchildren risk being devastated by the decisions we make today.

The debate. The debate. The global warming debate. How is it that we run across journalists and commentators that we look up to denying global warming and becrying it as a hoax? The issue resolves to claims that taking actions to stop global warming will yield catastrophes in our economy versus destroying any hope for a livable future by standing on the sidelines.

So what are the tactics presently in use when discussing global warming? What’s behind the rhetoric? You can expect those who believe that global warmng is a real threat to appeal to your sense of decency and to your parental responsibility to offer your children and grandchildren a world that’s livable. You can expect those who believe global warming is a hoax to “attack the messenger” by engaging the testimony of pseudo-scientists to refute claims– and by attacking the credibility of those who favor taking actions to counter global warming trends. Listen enough to both sides and both approaches will become clear as you listen to the words.

Keep in mind as we discuss and evaluate global warming that the human race is not the sole species which will suffer from global warming and greenouse gases and pollution. Animals that look to the waters an coral reefs for habitat and survival will be deeply impacted as well. Many already are, slain by the insufferable amount of toxins that we release into the oceans as a matter of daily life.

Regardless of how you feel about global warming now, ask yourself four important questions. 1. Can taking action to reduce pollution and behave responsibly as a society really hurt? 2. How long, as Americans, are we going to allow Congressional lobbyists and interest groups to turn our lives for the worse? 3. Why is the United States of America the worst pollution maker in the world? 4. Aren’t we supposed to be the good guys?