Today (22 September) the NY Times has a story from the Associated Press entitled “Afghan Count Reveals Kabul Indifference.” This article demonstrates that the AP and the Times are either mind readers, or are the original definition of the word "bigot."
The story recounts that turnout in Kabul in the midterm election just conducted was slightly over one-third of eligible voters. The writers and editors of this article then conclude:
“The drop in voter participation from the 70 percent recorded in last fall's presidential election has tempered celebrations of Sunday's vote as another big step to democracy.
“It sends a message that the government and its Western backers must move fast to rebuild the country, boost the economy and improve security or risk embittering Afghans disgruntled over the pace of change after decades of bloodshed and hardship.”
As a student of American elections for forty years, I can recite from memory turnouts for US presidential and midterm elections. But, as one says to a lazy student, best you look it up for yourselves. In the last century of national elections, America has never had a presidential election with a turnout as high as 70%, and 37% is about average for our midterm elections.
Furthermore, Americans, unlike Afghans, to not face being shot or bombed when they go out to vote, nor do we have a nearly unknown experience with the importance of voting. Let’s tell the writers and editors involved in this election article how to do their homework in works of one syllable or less: Turn on your computer. Go to Google.com. Search on “turnout, United States, national elections.” Read and report the relevant statistics.
Does the lower turnout in US midterm elections mean that “embittered Americans [are] disgruntled over the pace of change”? Hellooo. Are the people involved in disgorging this article expert mind readers for Afghans? Or, merely demonstrating their collective bigotry?
Yes, bigotry. The word “bigot” has been expropriated of late by the race hustlers in and outside American government to mean only white bias against non-whites. But look it up in your Funk & Wagnall’s; you’ll find that a “bigot” is anyone who stubbornly holds to a position in the absence of facts (or against available facts to the contrary). So the word applies to this article.
If the writers and editors were not mind readers, that means they started with the premise that something about the Afghan election results MUST demonstrate that US policies there are failing. They seized on the drop in turnout in the midterm elections. And they flat-out “made it up” in their conclusions offered as factual observations. Hence, they are bigots.
Did I miss anything? I look forward to hearing from the AP and/or the Times.