Out of the Humidor
From the Print Edition:
Raquel Welch, Jul/Aug 01
(continued from page 3)
Walden, New York
As the editor of a magazine that I believe stands for, among other things, personal liberty and freedom, and against intrusive government, I think you need to make better choices for writers of the Insights politics section. In both your February and April issues the columns were, in my opinion, against the above principles.
Take Mr. Timothy E. Wirth's diatribe on the greatness of the United Nations in your February issue. I couldn't disagree with him more. In fact, I feel that the United States should not pay another dime to this organization. While it is easy to consider the U.N. a benign and diverse assembly of well-meaning people, with its four-point charter seeking international peace, friendly relations, human rights and "harmonizing" the actions of nations, this is not the case. The U.N. is really for a far less-free world. The U.N. is moving far beyond its original charter and is now acting as the keeper of worldwide standards, everything from water quality to firearms ownership to telecommunications. Much of this work is done via a totally closed process. Do we want to be part of an organization that tries to enforce its will on the sovereignty of the United States? Do the people at the U.N. know better than our own Constitution? And why should U.S. soldiers, who have taken an oath to defend this country and only this country, be put under the command of foreign officers? The U.N. is an organization far out of control and believes in many policies that are contrary to the principles of this country.
Then we have the article by Mr. Tom Wicker in the April issue. In this thinly veiled attempt to write a balanced article about the transition from one administration to the next, Mr. Wicker has succeeded in using your magazine as a soapbox to bash President George W. Bush in specific and Republicans in general. He defines compromise as giving in on what you believe and feels that President Bush should have started his presidency by giving in on his principles. I believe that a person is elected because of what he stands for (regardless of the margin of victory) and the people have a right to expect that he will do the things he says he is going to do when elected. That is EXACTLY what President Bush has done. Why vote for a person, if you know that as soon as he is in office he will abandon what he has promised? Haven't we had enough of that in recent years?
Wicker goes on to insult President Bush by saying Vice President Dick Cheney is "look[ing] more and more like the quarterback of the new Bush administration." I could go on and on from his bashing of President Bush's appointments to suggesting that the so-called "religious right" caused the president not to appoint Democrats and liberals to high office. Why should President Bush appoint anyone who does not share his views to high office? This whole concept is ludicrous! Did ex-President Clinton ever appoint a conservative to high office? The whole article was so full of liberal pap it made me sick! Once again, I suggest that you pick your contributors more carefully so that the essence of Cigar Aficionado is not diluted.