Mr. Azzi, for years I have read your opinion articles with a sort of morbid curiosity as to who would you attack and to what degree you would cast your venom on them. This time you have crossed the line in terms of common decency. Before the queen is even laid to rest, you found it necessary to curse her role in life.
From your altar you choose to identify the queen as a villain who’s empire ”built on stolen land and , enslaved labor…exploitation, expropriation, colonization, and starvation .... The plundering, and destruction of peoples and cultures unlike themselves.” While I might argue with several points, you are most probably correct. Just like every population, country, tribe and culture throughout recorded history. And yet you take this time to denigrate her while much of the world respected her leadership, poise, honesty, and resilience.
After reading Dr. Miller’s letter critical of Mr. Azzi I was suddenly inspired to read Azzi’s offending column. Dr. Miller is too kind and clearly follows a level of British politeness that the queen was a model for; not me.
Mr. Azzi admits that he perceived the queen “to be a romanticized representation of power, wealth and prestige; of the superiority of western superiority and enlightenment.” He’s partially right, and that’s all she could have been. The English Empire is gone with almost all remnants run independently. Canada and Australia are wonderful examples of success stories now out from the monarchy; India and Pakistan not so much. The USA is somewhat unique, having granted ourselves an early exit from all that foolishness.
The term “monarchist” is thrown in casually as if his acquaintance following the queen (i.e., being a fan) makes her a supporter of all the history. Nope, one can be a “royal groupie” without carrying all the baggage.
Another whopper: “Elizabeth II was a ruler who profited from her Empire's sins and was complicit in its persistence.” Nope, not at all. She was a victim of circumstance, born into a position she never asked for, demanded, or fought for; that’s what a monarchy does to people: puts them in awkward positions of leadership with no real qualifications. She was a pure figurehead with only the power to represent the best of western enlightenment, which she did quite well. She became the person with culture, manners, and decorum every British citizen ought to live by and really nothing else.
More:Azzi: Queen Elizabeth II is dead: Too bad she didn't take the monarchy with her
The British monarchy is retained because the British want it, and it doesn’t interfere significantly with their form of government. Indeed, the primary source of information on the goings-on in the monarchy are supermarket check-out line tabloids, not typically main stream media. Instead of tearing apart yet another institution - which all radicals, left and right, seem to love to do these days — how about letting the monarchy just be what it is: a model for how to behave in public even if it seems a bit silly.
Don Bolduc's flip-flops on abortion and The Big Lie are cause for concern
At what may be a world speed record, within minutes of being declared the winner of the New Hampshire Republican Senate primary, Don Bolduc changed his position on both abortion and the Trump big election lie.
Having supported abortion bans and Trump's claim that the election was stolen to get the primary votes of Trump Republicans, Mr. Bolduc had a miraculous epiphany as soon as the election was called. While both of these dramatic flip-flops on two very serious questions facing Americans were of concern, it was Mr. Bolduc's explanation for his reversal of his previous belief in The Big Lie that is most revealing of his lack of credibility and legislative/leadership qualities.
In his defense for changing his position on the Trump Big Lie, Mr. Bolduc claimed that he had conducted extensive research over the two weeks prior to the election, and then concluded that the 2020 election was not stolen. It is no coincidence that the results of the research by Mr. Bolduc was not released until after the primary election. However, what to me is the most alarming and problematic aspect of Mr. Bolduc’s explanation for his change of position was the fact that it took him two years to decide to conduct his own independent research on the Big Lie. As such, from November 2020 until September 2022, Mr. Bolduc blindly accepted the Trump assertion that the election had been stolen despite over 60 court decisions, recounts and audits all showing that there was no credibility to Trump's claims.
You would have thought that on a matter so vital to our Republic, especially after the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection, that Mr. Bolduc might have initiated his extensive research much earlier than September 2022. This raises some troubling questions. Is this the manner in which Mr. Bolduc operated and made decisions as a general in the Army? Is this how Mr. Bolduc plans to operate as a U.S. senator if elected?
Changing one's position over time and as new information is gathered is praiseworthy and how people grow. However, in the case of Mr. Bolduc, these very sudden changes, timed as such after an election, raise serious questions about Mr. Bolduc's sincerity, trustworthiness, and motivations. Will Mr. Bolduc change his positions once again on these issues if he were to be elected senator? How can voters trust what he claims his position is today, based on his recent history? When you have lost the people's trust, you have lost everything, especially the right to hold a position of great power and responsibility.
Rich DiPentima. LTC, USAF, Ret.
“Actions speak louder than words” is a long-forgotten adage in the world of politics. Do you support abortion up to the birth of an infant or believe all abortions should be unlawful? Most Americans believe that the right to abortion falls somewhere between those polar opposites.
On the upcoming voting day, please recall that all Democrats in the House which includes Chris Pappas and Annie Kuster (excepting Henry Cuellar of Texas) voted for the extreme Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) containing provisions allowing abortion up to birth. No House Republican voted in favor of the WHPA.
To pass the bill, Biden advocated for the extreme measure of eliminating the Senate filibuster. When the bill went to the Senate, all Democrats including Hassan and Shaheen (excepting Joe Manchin) voted in favor of the WHPA. Many Republicans – two notables are Collins and Murkowski – support abortion but found the bill too extreme and potentially unlawful under the U.S. Constitution; and, consequently voted against the WHPA.
Sen. Graham has proposed another abortion bill. Democrats oppose that bill as well as many within the Republican Party. The Republicans are a motley crew! There are pro-life Republicans AND pro-abortion Republicans unlike Democrats as demonstrated by their voting record.
Do you wish to install into the House and Senate lemmings who vote 100% the Democrat Party Line or reasonable, thoughtful Republicans who respect the U.S. Constitution and wish to negotiate arriving at a middle ground on the moral, ethical, and divisive issue of abortion?