I have to say I am absolutely disgusted by the May 23 Viewpoint article about the Connect the Dots movement [“Connect the Dots: desperate and misguided”].
This is perhaps one of the most condescending and unnecessary rants to be found anywhere off of trashy talk radio. If the author's intent was to incite the reader, he certainly accomplished it, though not how he might have imagined.
The author refers to the members of the movement to be “desperate and misguided,” denouncing them as a meme, and lacking in scientific evidence to back their claims that mismanagement of resources on a global scale results in local changes in climate.
It becomes clear that the author does not believe climate change is occurring - fine, if that is his belief. However, unless he would care to offer more than a smattering of quotes in support of their stance, he's not about to convince any of the hundreds of members of Connect the Dots or any other organization or individuals otherwise.
Rather than providing the demanded scientific facts to support his claim, the author has chosen instead to berate the Connect the Dots group with severely patronizing language.
The author - either attempting to be clever, or out of honest ignorance - refers to the respectable concern about environmental degradation and climate change as convictions belonging to a cult. References to reading tea leaves and divination smacks of sensationalism, and descriptions of “bug-eyed high priests” performing “eyeball rolling trances” is not only gratuitously demeaning, it is intentionally dehumanizing.
I have to wonder where this spiteful rhetoric is originating from; what agenda the author, whether personal or political, is attempting to push on the reader? Twice in the article, the author alludes to “Vermont's self-appointed and bug-eyed High Priest,” as if he had someone specific in mind.
Whether climate change is a real threat or not, surely such impassioned condescension is out of line. The author is equally guilty of the same “elevate[d] anecdote, alarmism and populist illogic” offense as rallied against the members of Connect the Dots.
In a time of economic and social upset, we should encourage people to be involved in their communities and participate in social progress. We should cheer the activist and engage in open dialogue. Even if you don't agree with a person's stance, you might learn something, and that person might learn from you.
Those “well-intentioned, misinformed malcontents huddled around a bridge” are people looking for a way of reaching out to their communities and the world. They're not saying they have all the answers; rather, they are posing difficult questions and inviting the rest of us to join the conversation. They deserve more respect than offered by this author.
Whether or not you support their cause or believe their methods to be effective, I hope you can at least agree on that.