(I will explain this title later in the post, I promise!)

Just hours after the UN Climate Conference delegates agreed to the finalized version of the Glasgow Climate Pact, many scientists and activists expressed concern that the text might not go far enough to address the crisis adequately. Before most representatives had returned to their home countries, the next chapter in “Climate Emergency” began unfolding in the Pacific Northwest of North America.

The Coquihalla highway is completely snapped in two. Surreal to see from the air. #bcstorm #bcfloods @GlobalBC pic.twitter.com/IRNUmlsoLl

— Kamil Karamali (@KamilKaramali) November 16, 2021

First 49,6°C super-extreme heatwave, then unprecedented flooding. British Columbia hit by multiple disasters. Very likely extremes amplified by global warming https://t.co/lRDIETvTZc via @VancouverSun

— Johan Rockström (@jrockstrom) November 17, 2021

By all accounts, 2021 has been a brutal year for the region. Record heatwaves and wildfires plagued the spring and summer, and now it is torrential rains and unprecedented flooding. According to The Guardian, scientists have determined that these extreme weather events were made 150 times more likely because of global warming. Researchers at Yale Climate Connections agree. So one might assume that there is finally scientific consensus on this issue. Not so fast, say the folks over at Prager University. Last week, they posted this video and tweeted it out to the world.

Is there a climate crisis? pic.twitter.com/NiRmtAK0Lg

— PragerU (@prageru) November 18, 2021

In its Google search results, Prager University offers up something of a disclaimer. It is “not an accredited academic Institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas.” although it does claim to be a place where one is “free to learn.” (Just what one is learning there is of significant concern.) I will be taking a deeper dive into this rightwing propaganda channel in a future post. For this discussion, we see something of the “Prager Formula” in action, designed to create doubt and cynicism. The speaker, Steve Koonin, is not a climate scientist but a physicist and former Obama Administration official in the Dept. of Energy, going against Obama-era policies. This probably elevates his credibility in some circles – specifically people who didn’t see the scathing review of Koonin’s 2021 book, Unsettled over at the Yale Climate Connections website. I do fear that this book will become required reading for the global warming skeptics.

Why do climate change deniers, especially those in the sciences, argue that they are right when so many in the scientific community tell them and show them through data analysis that they are wrong? Do they believe themselves to be persecuted and misunderstood, or is there something else afoot? It was a tricky question, and I needed to take a well-deserved break. Later that afternoon, while showering, I had one of those “ah-hah” moments that often come between shampoo and conditioner. In a flourish of hubris, I thought that I had happened upon a new concept to explain this particular phenomenon. Thankfully, before planting my flag in this blog post, I consulted the internet to find that it is, in truth, a well-established principle. Additionally, the concept’s entry on RationalWiki cites climate change denialists as among the biggest offenders.

As explained by many online sources, this logical fallacy contends that if your assertions provoke the establishment to dispute and or ridicule your ideas, then you must be on to something. It’s called the Galileo gambit, named for the famed astronomer. In this scenario, the powers that be or the general public vilifies the truth-teller because “THEY CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!” (And deep down, they know that the truth-teller is right but must be silenced.) It fits well within the conspiracy theories and magical thinking that are so prevalent online today. There is even a climate deniers website called The Galileo Movement.

So as promised, a brief explainer on this blog post title. Yes, I do enjoy pithy wordplay, but in this instance, please indulge me.

• Claptrap: absurd, pretentious, nonsensical talk.

• Clapback:  a clever, sharp retort, usually in response to being mistreated.

A quote by the famed physicist, author, and University of Maryland professor  Robert Park (1931–2020) is the perfect clapback to all “scientifically-based” climate contrarians. One of his books, Voodoo Science: The road from foolishness to fraud, has become a foundational text for advocates of scientific literacy. 

“It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right.”

So in response to Prager University’s disingenuous question, “Is There Really A Climate Change Crisis?” Why yes, there is.

There is also a cottage industry of well-funded organizations spreading disinformation and raising doubts about the severity of the crisis.

We ignore science at our own peril and that of future generations.

Episode 2: The Young Will Save Us All – (Even Climate Skeptics!)

The results from COP26 are in: the consensus captured in this headline from the Sydney Morning Herald: Glasgow ends in compromise, disappointment and a little hope.

Those terms have plagued the UN Climate Change Conferences since they began 30 years ago, and some would be quick to point out that there is very little hope at this juncture.

Then why, you may ask, have I titled this podcast; “The Young Will Save Us All (even climate skeptics!).” Let me explain.

I’ve attended a number of the UN Climate Conferences since COP15 in Copenhagen back in 2009. The opportunity to meet with delegates, journalists, world leaders, and activists from around the world has given me a unique perspective on the threats, the processes, and the possibilities. The situation is dire, but I remain hopeful. In a sense, I’ve been to the mountaintop, and I believe that the younger generation will lead the way out of this mess. Since being officially included in COP15, young people have become the conference’s conscience and the engine of the environmental justice movement.

In 1992, twelve-year-old Severn Cullis-Suzuki addressed the UN in Rio at the first Earth Summit. She was called the “girl that silenced the world for five minutes.” She recounted that famous address in this Democracy Now interview on the 20th anniversary of that speech.

Twenty years of negotiations, broken promises with few agreements, and youth delegate Anjali Appadurai stepped to the podium at COP17 in Durban, South Africa, and “mic-checked” the delegates with a progress report that served as a wake-up call. She put the UN on notice – young people are growing impatient.

Flash forward to 2019, and Swedish activist Greta Thunberg left no doubt that the youth of the world have had enough “blah, blah, blah and were demanding action. She organized student strikes for the climate and accepted an invitation to address the UN. She did, and she did not mince words.

I believe that a sustainable future is possible, but it’s clear that time is running out. We must hand over our keys to the young and let them drive.

*Audio clips included in The Attainable Sustainable podcast were sourced through archive.org and democracynow.org

These are some of the week’s headlines in the Fall of 2021:

France 24: World leaders open COP26 climate talks with somber warnings: “We are digging our own graves”

The Guardian: Cop26: polling data is overwhelming – people want leaders to act

AP: Oil giants deny spreading disinformation on climate change.

The first two headlines accurately reflect our dire situation: There is consensus among world leaders, and most people worldwide have come to accept the following claims. 

Climate change is real, humans are responsible, and we must act collectively to mitigate and adapt.

However, it is the third headline that is troublesome. In fact, as outlined in this article by the BBC, fossil fuel companies have spread or fostered disinformation for a half-century or more.

NASA documents on their page, Climate Change, How Do We Know? that in the 1860s, the physicist John Tyndall posited that slight variations in the atmosphere could affect temperature. In 1896, Svante Arrhenius linked carbon dioxide levels to higher earth temperatures due to the greenhouse effect.

President Lyndon Johnson was warned about carbon emissions and global warming by scientists in 1965.

While we are on the subject of disinformation, why are so many companies able to greenwash their products or practices?

How are climate change denialist organizations and individuals, as well as cynical politicians able to lie with impunity about climate change?

Because no one entity has ever held any of them accountable and publicized their duplicity, until now.

Today, we are introducing a new streaming channel where we come together as a community to dispel the myths and misinformation around Climate Change and Sustainability while exploring innovative solutions and avenues for progress.

We are the voice of social, economic, and environmental justice.

We are Sustainable Media.

Welcome!

Who are we, really?

Sustainable Media is an autonomous collective of creators, journalists, scientists, activists and concerned citizens producing, distributing and sharing content that addresses our core issues, contributes to meaningful discourse, and builds community. We are targeting our launch for May 1, 2022. If you would like to be kept informed of our progress, please sign up for our newsletter.

Two weeks ago, I picked up some friends at John F. Kennedy Airport in Queens, NY. They had flown in from their oceanfront home in Mazatlán, Mexico, and were our houseguests for a week. It was the couple’s first visit to the Big Apple, so they had a full itinerary of day trips and sightseeing planned. Since my wife was still working and we had a few hours to kill, I decided to take the “scenic route” back to NJ. However, I wasn’t all that sure what we would find, other than landmarks like Yankee Stadium, or the High Bridge, formerly the Aqueduct Bridge, the oldest in NYC, built back in 1848. We crossed the Hudson and headed west on Route 80, Soon, we entered Paterson, NJ, and I saw a familiar little road sign that I had passed hundreds of times before, Great Falls. I said to my friends in Spanish, “I don’t know how ‘great’ they are, but let’s find out!”

After winding our way through blocks of urban blight, a city ravaged by poverty and neglect, we came upon an impressive 19th century industrial cityscape. Vast red brick factories with names long-gone companies visible in the faded paint above the doorways. Then the sign for the falls and and the historic district pointed to a nondescript parking lot with two porta-potties tucked off in the corner. I encouraged my friends not to leave any valuables like purses in the car since Paterson has a high crime rate. We walked down 200 feet from where we parked and were treated to a majestic sight.

My jaw dropped. It was an oasis of natural wonder and an unsung natural resource hidden away in a deteriorating urban area. It turns out that the Great Falls in Paterson, now part of the National Parks System, was Ground Zero for the Industrial Revolution in the Americas. Paterson was the young country’s first planned industrial city, initially conceived by one of the nation’s founders, Alexander Hamilton. By the 1890s, Paterson was known as the “Silk City,” and the mill workers there helped create the US system of organized labor.

I had no idea.

Why weren’t we taught the history of a national landmark just 15 miles from the town where I grew up in grade school?

As an environmentally minded person who minored in Sustainability, how could I not be aware of the river’s hydroelectric plant that has generated power for more than 100 years?

As a progressive, how could I not know about President Barack Obama naming the Great Falls a national park in 2009, or how the fight for that designation, led by Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ9), goes back nearly a half-century.

Could it be that the Great Falls, situated in the middle of a Northeastern city with crumbling infrastructure, filled with crime and poverty, was simply a victim of progress and changing patterns of economic development? Or was Paterson deliberately forsaken, a sacrifice zone for consolidating political power and preserving systemic racism? 

In this ongoing series, I intend to explore Paterson’s past, present, and future – the triumphs, the mistakes, our collective responsibility, and the possibility that Paterson could become a model for sustainable cities in the 21st century.

The first business card I ever made for myself had the phrase you see above listed as my job title. Today it only exists on my Twitter profile. As pretentious as it may sound, it encapsulates how I view my role as a media creator. Basically, it comes down to two words.

Accessibility and Responsibility.

I employ those terms because I strive to ensure that the content I create is readily understandable for all members of the intended audience and serves its intended purpose. Whether or not members of the audience choose to engage with the content within the context I’ve presented is entirely their prerogative, but the responsibility for creating and sharing that content is mine.

So, why is media creation a critical component of media literacy?

Media content creates or enters into existing discourse, and the interpretation of any given text by the audience determines the form and direction that the discourse takes. According to the Core Principles of Media Literacy Education in the United States from the National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE), “media are a part of culture and function as agents of socialization.” This signifies that we have each become, in a very real sense, media creators in addition to being media consumers. In a few clicks, we can reach thousands of people around the world. Therefore, we have a shared responsibility to one another to elevate the level of our discourse and eliminate misinformation and disinformation from our media diets.

The Center for Media Literacy (CML) published a chart of key questions and core concepts (Q-Tips) that illustrates the correlation and symbiosis between consumers and producers situating the Center’s 5 core concepts as the means of linking interpretation and creation of media content. Perhaps the most provocative concept was #5, Purpose.

The audience asks, “Why is this message being sent?” Meanwhile, the author wonders, “Have I communicated my purpose effectively?” According to CML, their mutual understanding is based on the concept that “Most media messages are organized to gain profit and/or power.” This was not a new idea, but seeing it there in black and white was jarring. This may be acceptable for advertising business models, but for the well-being of our society, both collectively and as individuals, we must hold ourselves to higher standards.

So as for my loft aspiration to become a “media maker for the masses,” I don’t know if that is really an attainable goal. My content is not going to cure all the world’s ills. Perhaps as media creators the best we can hope for is borrowed from medical ethics, Primum non nocere, first do no harm.

Years ago, my mindset about all things online automatically defaulted to trust. After all, all these websites were “serious businesses” with professional standards. All my financial transactions appeared to be labeled as “secure.” Surely they will guard my personal information as if it were their own. It’s not like they would sell it to the highest bidder, or would they? I know it sounds naive, but I couldn’t imagine being vulnerable or valuable to cyber crooks or opportunistic capitalists. Today, it is quite a different story, and I’m finally taking control of my digital security.

In a 2017 article published by JStor Daily entitled Who Can You Trust Online? author Dr. Alexandra Samuel compared the act of trust online to that of a circus not only because of the “spectacle of trust made visceral” but the element of risk. Indeed, we take risks with our personal digital security every day. The steps we take to manage and mitigate those risks can mean the difference between being secure or becoming a statistic. There are three changes I am making that should help improve my digital security.

• Update my apps and software as soon as they become available: I was a notorious foot dragger when it came to updating software. I think my trepidation probably developed during my years as a video editor when a small coding error could corrupt a whole project’s media or lose the functionality of external devices. I believed that any added bells and whistles weren’t worth the risk. But as Professor Dan Gillmor points out in his article for the Guardian, Protecting yourself online isn’t as easy as it used to be, but it can be done , “These new features aren’t just interesting or (potentially) useful, they may be helping to protect you.”
• Utilize a Password Manager: I used to think of passwords as an inconvenience, occasionally bordering on nuisance that offered little in terms of security. As far as I was concerned, passwords existed to give users the illusion of protection. It seems that my lackadaisical attitude about passwords meant that they were not an effective first-line defense. As I became more serious about setting secure passwords, I still found that I was using similar patterns, and if one password were compromised, it would be pretty easy for a hacker to crack the code. I decided to get a password manager because, as was detailed in the Wired article, The Best Password Managers to Secure Your Digital Life, these apps are singularly focused on password security. They are much better than my clever attempts to block sophisticated digital adversaries.
• Review App Permission and Privacy Settings: Like most people, I made many assumptions regarding my permissions and privacy settings. I believed that the default settings on websites I visited or the apps I used were secure and protected my privacy. If I wanted to “opt-in” to certain features, I would manually alter my settings to give permission. Sadly, I was mistaken. It appears on many websites I will have to opt-out since websites and apps are taking great liberties with my personal information. I wasn’t aware of this until I read the NY Times opinion piece, Why You Should Take a Close Look at What Tracks You.

The one thing all opportunistic companies and would-be hackers can count on? That many of us are careless online and never read the fine print. By not taking common-sense precautions, we are walking a tightrope, blindfolded and without a net. That’s not a risk I’m willing to take anymore.

Ever since Al Gore invented the internet (spoiler alert – he didn’t), there have been concerns about “bad actors” spreading misinformation and disinformation online: digital contaminants befouling a nascent “cybertopia.” I remember firing up Compuserve on my 512K Mac and dial-up modem and feeling a sense of limitless possibilities, but also wondering what could stop someone from just lying on the internet, and how would anyone know?

Some of us once believed that the free exchange of ideas and enlightened online discourse could lead to a just and sustainable society. Today, I can only hope we are able to avert an all-out civil war and the collapse of our biosphere. While some are clamoring for increased governmental regulation of “objectionable” online content, others caution that it is a slippery slope to censorship, repression and limits to free expression.

How did we get here?

Interestingly, around the same time Senator Gore was supposedly coding the World Wide Web in his basement (see the previous spoiler alert), his then-wife Mary Elizabeth Gore, a.k.a. “Tipper,” was heading up the DC-based ad-hoc committee the Parents Music Resource Center. 

A bipartisan group derisively referred to as “The Washington Wives,” the PMRC was formed to keep explicit lyrics, drug references, and adult content away from America’s children and to hold the music industry accountable for creating and distributing such content. These efforts were met with fierce opposition.

The most vocal opponent of this committee was the avant-garde musician Frank Zappa. However, the most earnest and eloquent criticism came from a most unlikely person, “America’s Boy Next Door,” singer-songwriter John Denver. The latter opined in Congressional testimony that these efforts were akin to censorship and would likely backfire since “that which is denied becomes that which is most desired, and that which is hidden becomes that which is most interesting.” He appeared on Capitol Hill on September 19, 1985.

So, why is a blog post about the control of media today looking back at US Senate hearings from 1985? Because that history serves as a clear example of what happens when the US government tries to impose limits on speech, either directly or by putting pressure on private companies and individuals. Too many lawmakers seek to score political points and burnish their reputations with hot-takes on hot-button issues rather than serving the public good and our Constitution.

For example, in the current arguments and proposals to reign in social media that are swirling around possible reforms to Sec 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, one can hear the echoes of 1985. The divisions are evident in these highly partisan times, yet the “something must be done” camp is decidedly bipartisan. Oddly enough, as a leftist and social justice advocate, I find myself in agreement with David French, the conservative author and commentator who argues that the government’s role in policing content on social media should be “minimal to none.” At a recent Harvard Federalist Society event, French offered a concise analysis of the situation we face:

“A lot of folks, broadly speaking, on the left want social media to be forced to moderate more. Lots of people on the right want social media to be forced to moderate less. Breach the firewall and what ends up happening … [is that] elections aren’t just for control of the House and the Senate and the presidency; they’re also for control of the moderation rules of Facebook and TikTok and Twitter, which seems to be the absolute last thing we need.”

There is no doubt that the media landscape deserves scrutiny and that entities and individuals must be held accountable for breaches of law or the public trust. However, we don’t need the government to play “content cops.” The government needs to sponsor the expansion of media literacy programs so that its citizenry is well-informed and engaged.

I urge everyone to read the transcript of John Denver’s Senate testimony. and I hope that there are some intrepid high school teachers who include this chapter of American history in their curriculum. He details his various run-ins with censors and their misinterpretations of his songs. Denver’s points are as salient today as they were in the Reagan Era and as clear as a blue mountain lake.

“Discipline and self-restraint, when practiced by an individual, a family, or a company, is an effective way to deal with this issue. The same thing when forced on a people by their government or, worse, by a self-appointed watchdog of public morals is suppression and will not be tolerated in a democratic society.”

The end of September brings world leaders to New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Though the leaders speak out on many issues during the annual gathering, I focused on the media coverage of the UNGA concerning Climate Change.

Al Jazeera: Verge of the abyss’: Climate change to dominate UNGA talks

In this article, Al Jazeera framed this year’s UNGA as a critical juncture in the Climate Crisis. The report utilized several archival videos from their original reporting to highlight specific issues. It featured quotes from principals like UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson about expectations for this year’s General Assembly. This article set the stage and raised the stakes for the 2021 UNGA by putting world leaders on the record and affording a platform to academics and activists. The following appeared in the website version of the article:

“What counts most is what happens in six weeks in Glasgow” , said Jonathan Overpeck, Dean of Environment at the University of Michigan. “[But] the more that can be agreed upon early, the easier it will be to get the commitments that are needed to put an end to climate change… We’re not yet on an emissions reductions path that is safe for our planet and its people.”

The Guardian: Boris Johnson tells UN that Cop26 must be “turning point for humanity”

In his address to the UNGA, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson put world leaders and the whole of civilization on notice:

“We believe that someone else will clear up the mess we make because that is what someone else has always done,” he said. “We trash our habitats again and again with the inductive reasoning that we have got away with it so far, and therefore we will get away with it again…My friends, the adolescence of humanity is coming to an end…we must come together in a collective coming of age.”

This coverage was significant for two reasons. In November, the next UN Conference of Parties on Climate Change (COP26) will be held in Scotland. Great Britain is the host and wants to lead on this issue. Also, as a conservative politician, media darling, and former climatic skeptic, Johnson’s sense of urgency may carry weight with people on that side of the aisle. However, perhaps not from this coverage since The Guardian’s readership generally skews to the left.

India Today: Climate crisis dominates UNGA: US to increase funds, China says no more coal-fired power projects abroad

This article is the first of two from the media conglomerate India Today. Here readers get a recap of the week’s events and some framing of the significant announcements by President Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping. I’ve included this example because India Today did a fine job in reporting what happened – “Biden pledged to double Climate Fund contributions” and the why it happened in a double-barreled fact check:

“An Oxfam report, released days ahead of the UNGA, showed that wealthy nations are expected to fall up to $75 billion short of fulfilling their long-standing pledge to mobilise $100 billion each year. An analysis by the World Resources Institute shows that even with the US increasing its climate aid commitment to $11.4 billion by 2024, it pales in comparison to the $24.5 billion that the EU spent on climate aid in 2019.”

India Today: ‘Death sentence’: Low-lying nations implore faster action on climate at UN

This second India Today report was one of very few to provide in-depth coverage of the issues the island and low-lying nations raised at this year’s UNGA. It is a sad commentary that those most vulnerable to the devastating effects of climate change, with the greatest urgency for solutions, are practically ignored by many major media outlets. The existential threat and increasing desperation are evident in this section of the report:

Guyana President Irfaan Ali criticized large polluters for not delivering on promises to curb emissions, accusing them of “deception” and “failure” and warning that climate change will kill far more people than the COVID-19 pandemic. “We hold out similar hope that the world’s worst emitters of greenhouse gases that are affecting the welfare of all mankind will also come to the realization that, in the end, it will profit them little to emerge king over a world of dust” Ali told world leaders on Thursday.

CNN: Young people rally at climate protests around the world

This collection of 19 short dispatches from the worldwide Climate Strike is an excellent example of what CNN can do best (and other media outlets often choose to ignore.) They have correspondents on the ground, talking to individuals, reporting on events, and connecting related issues, like oil pipelines, fires, and floods that affect communities globally. This page also featured live coverage on the event day, Friday, September 24, 2021. The actions coincided with the UNGA to let world leaders know that their steps are welcomed but fall far short of what is necessary. The following quote appeared in the body of one such post from this webpage.

“Today, millions go to the streets to tell leaders they cannot fake climate action with empty rhetoric. The US’ announcement on climate finance and China’s announcement on coal are essential, but they are not enough,” Eddy Pérez, international climate diplomacy manager with Climate Action Network Canada, said in a statement on Friday.

Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty. 

-Tacitus, Roman Historian (56-120 CE)

With the increasing numbers of people online and the quantity of original and shared content growing exponentially, one could argue that this is a golden age of communication. However, false and misleading information on the internet has effectively derailed public discourse, creating an environment that fosters divisions, threatens institutions, and impedes progress. It is especially disheartening when the originators or disseminators of this content are friends and loved ones. How can we turn the tide?

When I find that my “real friends” (as opposed to high school acquaintances) and family members of my age or younger have posted something false, inaccurate, or misleading, I will let them know privately. I’ll provide them with evidence and ask them to do the right thing and correct themselves. However, when older family members spread misinformation, I have either ignored their posts or provided contradictory evidence without comment. I don’t want to embarrass them publicly or create tensions in our extended family. Clearly, given the scope of the problem, we need to employ more effective strategies. 

In an article entitled, Teaching Older Americans To Identify Fake News Online, Susan Nash argues that older people must realize that misinformation is a form of fraud. Everyone can agree that we need to prevent fraud. Nash suggests that communities start media literacy programs where older people congregate: libraries, community centers, etc. She also adds that we must fund public awareness campaigns and additional research to get the situation in hand. Unfortunately, there are several reasons why that this may not be enough. The same article quotes Stanford longevity expert Laura Carstensen, “our beliefs deepen as we age, and so does our confidence that we are right.” Nash then points to research that older adults both hold on to “mental clutter” and tend to trust their initial impressions, perhaps a form of confirmation bias.

A possible strategy to counter these biases with loved ones would be to talk with them and employ analogous situations from the non-digital world, connecting with their past experiences and the present-day threat of online misinformation and its potential ramifications. I’ve decided to give it a go. Here’s a preview of the conversation I’m going to have with my mother next week:

“Mom, do you remember years ago, when we were living in South Ozone Park, and we got that chain letter in the mail? Lots of folks in the neighborhood got them. The details are a little fuzzy, but you were supposed to make copies of the letter and mail it out to your friends within three days, or else. The letter told of wonderful things that happened to people who followed the rules and the tragedies that befell those who “broke the chain.” It scared the hell out of me. Do you remember what you said? You told me not to be afraid. That it was nonsense. You tore up the letter and threw it away. You broke the chain. I remember telling my friends in school the next day. Some were sure that we were doomed. Others thought you had “real guts.” You were right. Nothing happened; it was a prank. Now I don’t know how many parents came to the same conclusion and ignored that letter. But I know you made a difference for me by turning it into a teachable moment. Truth be told, not all chain letters were that innocent. Some were actual scams, hoaxes, and pyramid schemes, with criminals preying on the naive, the misinformed, and the fearful. 

Now flash forward to today. Hardly anyone sends mail anymore, right? Everything’s online, including the same kind of people who sent out and fell for those old chain letters. Remember the Nigerian Prince emails from 20 years ago? Do you know that this and other cons like it are still running online? How is that possible?

It’s not because we’re dumb. It’s because we are still vulnerable. Social media is a fantastic thing, but like any tool, if used the wrong way, it can cause great harm. That’s why we have to check and double-check everything we post, even if we agree with it. Lies and rumors spread so fast sometimes it’s hard to separate fact from fiction. Sure, we want to be first, show that we are wise, or put in our two cents. We have to stop and look both ways before we post anything, just to be safe and keep others safe. There is so much nonsense online, Mom, put out there by people with bad intentions, and it just goes from one person to the next in a chain. It’s up to us to break the chain.”

I may not use those exact words, but that’s my message – oh, I think I’ll end it with an “I love you.”