Fabian Vaksman has grown tiresome; please stop giving him space in the Cougar. His inflammatory letters are nothing more than childish drivel. He resorts to name calling because he hasn't gotten his way.
Children do that. I envision him editing his letters, cutting out sentences such as, "Dr. Smith is a big stupidhead."
Mr. Vaksman knew UH did not have a Russian Studies program when he began his dissertation. I don't go to Pizza Hut to eat a hamburger. I don't go to a clothing store if I want electronic equipment. I don't go to Texas A&M if I want a law degree... oops, maybe I do.
In any event, he came to the wrong place. Instead of arguing like a petulant child, he should be an adult, take his toys and go home.
Instead he demands "affirmative action to ensure adequate instruction and research in Russian history..." I don't think we should create an entire department to satisfy the obviously gargantuan ego of this Russian studies advocate who obviously lost his map and ended up at a university with no department for him.
Wesley Cordova
prospective first-year law student
Regarding Mr. Vaksman's Letter in the July 27 Cougar, as well as various and sundry of his other ramblings:
Mr. Vaksman, you seem to be an eloquent and competent writer in most respects. I'm sure that you must also be well-versed in matters of Russian history, or else you would not be a doctoral candidate. I would have thought, however, that in your studies of history you would have picked up at least a small amount of politics and law. It seems that you have been more interested in the myriad insults and epithets available to the average 10-year-old, as well as the playground threats that most of us left behind in elementary school. May I suggest a few points?
First: It is generally very difficult to convince someone that you are working in his and his university's best interests when you adorn your letters and memoranda with such phrases as "I'll have [UH President Smith] and all his Third World chauvinist friends by the balls" (July 27).
Second: There is a point, legally speaking, at which your rights begin to infringe upon the rights of the people with whom you (regretfully) interact. That point is known as the boundary of your rights. You have no rights that infringe upon the rights of other people. That is the system under which we have allowed ourselves to be governed, Mr. Vaksman. To threaten the lives (or, at least, the asses) of your peers and superiors, which you have done in the past, as reported in The Daily Cougar (July 8), limits their abilities to adequately perform their duties as professors and administrators. Let me restate that: If you threaten them, and they find themselves spending any time at all trying to counter your threats, you are taking them away from their careers. That is, at least in my (obviously inadequate) experience, known as an infringement upon their rights.
Third: You stated in your July 13 letter that there was a witch hunt underway, "the likes of which have not been seen since Salem." Please allow me to point a few things out, for my own amusement. Joe McCarthy, I believe, far outstripped the insanities of the Salem trials. While it is true that he never killed anyone (feel free to correct my assumption on that point), he did almost single-handedly bring about the Cold War.
Mr. Vaksman, how dare you to compare yourself to the (presumed) innocent targets of McCarthy, or even to the Salem "witches?" You have proven time and again that you are a burden to this institution, and I'm sure that the majority of us who have noticed you hope that you will pass away (very quietly) some time in the near future. Pardon, please don't misunderstand. I meant that you should pass your final requirements for doctoral candidacy and go away as quietly as possible.
Brian Egedy
sophomore music major.
begedy@bayou.uh.edu
Ed De La Garza's column on Monday was chock full of lies, half-truths and was an extremely unfair characterization of Kenneth Starr.
He criticizes Starr for using Linda Tripp's illegally recorded
tapes. Prosecutors often rely on taped evidence (ex. Watergate). Starr is not using any tactic that others haven't also used. Some may call Tripp's actions a betrayal of confidence and illegal, but her hand was forced by President Clinton's lawyer, who called her a liar. She needed some hard evidence to prove her credibility. She did not know the tapings were illegal and because of this under Maryland law she would not be guilty of any crime.
De La Garza goes on to criticize Starr for pursuing the testimony of Secret Service agents. I do not like the fact that Secret Service agents are being subpoenaed, but as a prosecutor it is Starr's job to use every legal tool at his disposal to uncover all evidence of criminal wrongdoing in his investigation. He has good reason to believe the agents have testimony relevant to his probe.
Anything less than a full investigation would be a breach of duty on his part. If anyone is to blame for the agents' testimony being forced it is President Clinton's reckless behavior and disregard for the law.
De La Garza goes on to say of Starr "He's spent upwards of $40 million of taxpayer money to find out if Clinton's been sleeping around." That statement is patently false. Starr has investigated Whitewater, Travelgate, the death of Vince Foster and other Clinton scandals. He has obtained convictions against several Clinton associates. For those who complain of his investigation's high cost and length, it should be noted that this is in large part due to the myriad Clinton scandals and the continued White House stonewalling of the Independent Counsel's investigation through frivolous legal claims.
De La Garza says "Sex should not impeach the president." I will agree to that, but what he doesn't seem to understand is Starr is not investigating the alleged affair itself; rather, he is trying to determine whether President Clinton committed perjury and obstructed justice by encouraging others to lie about it under oath. Perjury and obstruction of justice are both felonies.
Starr has asked President Clinton several times to voluntarily testify before the grand jury investigating him, and each time Clinton has refused. Starr has been very fair in giving the President ample opportunity to explain himself and end this investigation, assuming Clinton did nothing criminal. The President is not interested in seeing an end to this probe but would rather continue his tactics of delaying and stonewalling.
Neal John
freshman political science major
Letters to the editor are welcomed from all members of the UH community. Letters should be typed and must include the author's name, telephone number and affiliation with the university. Anonymous letters will not be published, although names may be withheld upon request. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, grammar, profanity and personal attacks.
Letters may be delivered to
Room 151 of the Communication Building, or may be e-mailed to allstrom@bayou.uh.edu.