Amazon.com Widgets

« The Controversy Over Drawing Muhammad | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Sunday »

Links With Your Coffee - Saturday

coffee.gif

This week, we learned that J. Craig Venter has at long last created a synthetic organism—a simple life form constructed, for the first time, by man. Let the controversy begin—and if New Yorker staff writer Michael Specter is correct, the denial of science will be riding hard alongside it.

In his recent book Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives , Specter charts how our resistance to vaccination and genetically modified foods, and our wild embrace of questionable health remedies, are the latest hallmarks of an all-too-trendy form of fuzzy thinking—one that exists just as much on the political left as on the right.

And that's why the best rap on libertarians isn't that they're racist, or selfish. (Though some of them are those things, and their beliefs encourage both bad behaviors, even if accidentally.) It's that they're thoroughly out of touch with reality. It's a worldview that prospers only so long as nobody tries it, and is too unreflective and self-absorbed to realize this. In other words, it's bratty. And that's bad enough.

The Institute of Medicine report is a frequent ‘rebuttal’ to science based/real medicine. The argument is usually phrased something to the effect that since medicine can be dangerous, SCAM’s (Spurious Complementary & Alternative Medicine) are legitimate. Of course, one does not follow the other. It is the equivalent of saying since you are old, bald and pudgy, I am young, have a full head of hair, and are thin. If every doctor and hospital were to vanish tomorrow like an episode of the Outer Limits, SCAM’s would be just a ineffective.


 

Comments

Progressives accept scientific consensus on climate change so why don't they accept scientific consensus on GE crops?

First of all, the consenus on GE crops is not nearly as lopsided as the consensus on climate change. Second of all, the scientific consensus on climate change exists in opposition to corporate hegemony, whereas the consensus (again, not really a consensus, it seems to me) on GE crops exists in the service of corporate hegemony, and progressives, generally speaking, are critical of corporate hegemony.

why don't they accept scientific consensus on GE crops?

They don't?

We have been discussing this for a month and really very little of the debate has been about the science. I think there are risks that the "industry Friendly" folks tend to downplay, but over all I think the science is fine. Its the social impact, economics, regulatoin that worry me and many others.

I seldom see the objections to GE crops framed as we need to better regulate corporations, or even we need to regulate the uses they put the technology to, more commonly it is no GM because corporations benefit. GE is conflated with Industrial farming and all the abuses inherent in that, as if it's the technology that is to blame for industrial farming. Industrial farming and the abuses existed long before the use of GE, why is anyone surprised that they still exist. If you were consistent the attack wouldn't be framed as one of gm crops or non-gm crops, the fact that it is belies the claim that it's not about the technology, either that or there is a serious lack of understanding of the issue.

more commonly it is no GM because corporations benefit.

You have employed this dishonest oversimplification ad nauseam. I haven't seen one person suggest that this or any other technology shouldn't exist simply because it benefits a corporation. Indeed, the ideal scenario is if someone can get rich, or at least earn a decent living, by doing good in the world. Many times, I have heard, and even uttered, the complaint that, say, cancer researchers should earn more than pro athletes, or words to that effect. One of the commonly acknowledged injustices in this world is that they don't. Again, the complaint isn't that GM crops shouldn't be used simply because Monsanto or whoever stands to make a profit. The complaint is that the benefits of GM crops are either minimal or hypothetical, whereas the profit-motivated detriments are well established. Perhaps even more perverse, as I mention below, is the fact that one particular potential benefit is not being put to use precisely because it isn't profitable to Monsanto and Pioneer.

Without the profit movive, GMOs would have been abandoned a long time ago.

I haven't seen one person suggest that this or any other technology shouldn't exist simply because it benefits a corporation.

No, what you've said is it shouldn't be used if corporations benefited in any way even through good PR, which comes to the same thing.

For example on Golden Rice

You also said there were better existing solutions. You didn't explain how the corporations would benefit from better PR if it didn't provide any advantages.

Oh and here are a couple of more recent (2010) reports of the nutritional benefits of golden rice as opposed to the reference you cited, what was it (2001)?

http://goldenrice.org/PDFs/USDA_GR2_2010.pdf http://goldenrice.org/PDFs/BCMonGR.pdf

Just curious are you also opposed to Golden Rice? In fact I'm curious is anyone reading the other the BDM opposed to Golden Rice, and if so what are your reasons?

As long as it is a piece of intellectual property, I am in favor or strong restrictions.

What, you don't believe the safeguards put in place are enough?

http://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how9_IP.html

Why not make it public property?

The argument is as bad now as it was the first time you offered it.

Whether you're talking about GM or non-GM crops both can exist in the service of "corporate hegemony."

The National Academies

Consensus on GE National Research Council

Consensus on Climate Change National Academies

If you don't like how a technology is used, you pass laws to regulate it, you don't throw out a useful technology because a corporation benefits.

Every technology there is benefits corporations.

The comparison between GMO criticism and AIDS or global warming denialism is just as disingenuous now as it was when you posted the Michael Specter clip that ignited this discussion, if not more so.

Whether you're talking about GM or non-GM crops both can exist in the service of "corporate hegemony."

It's true that both CAN exist in the service of corporate hegemony, but only one has existed primarily that way. Non-GM crops were around long before corporations, whereas GM crops have been developed, with rare exception, by and for corporations. Indeed, as Pam Ronald's GM rice episode demonstrated, many GM crops aren't allowed to exist unless they are serving a corporation. That, I think, is the kind of thing that sways progressives against GM technology, although it's true that many progressives (for lack of a better term) may be irrationally fearful of a technology they don't understand.

Indeed, as Pam Ronald's GM rice episode demonstrated, many GM crops aren't allowed to exist unless they are serving a corporation.

The problem is you going look until you find something to confirm your bias and then you stop with vitamin A it was an old Michael Pollan article. In the case of Pam Ronald you quoted a California paper from 2004. Did you look to see what's happened since then, apparently not?

Submergence Tolerance

That doesn't affect the main thrust of my argument. The argument in favor of GMOs is that they are necessary to address the looming hunger crisis. This is the opening salvo in every such discussion. However, Golden rice has been in development for over 10 years and still hasn't filled one poor person's bowl, and flood-resistant rice has been available for at least six years with the same result. They did get a soccer ball, though.

Why has the PR preceded the actual help? Feed the poor, then lay the PR on me. Doing it in reverse raises my suspicions.

That doesn't affect the main thrust of my argument. The argument in favor of GMOs is that they are necessary to address the looming hunger crisis. This is the opening salvo in every such discussion.

The argument in favor of GMOs goes beyond feeding the world's poor. It has never been claimed that it was more than one part of the solution, certainly you can see how increased yields further that aim, and in the case of golden rice it also addresses health issues.

Ringspot virus resistant plants have been feeding people for 15 years, of course it was approved before Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth and BigDaddyMalcontent were scaring the crap out of people, and claiming GMOs were the cause of corporate hegemony.

It was during a time when the European Union wasn't telling the world to stay away from GMOs. During a time before you had to try and prove a negative, a guarantee that there is no risk under any circumstance ever. So why is it taking so long, because there are so many like you who continue to put up roadblocks to the use of any GMOs

Do you favor the use of golden rice?

The answer last time I asked it was no we don't need it? Have you changed your mind?

Raises your suspicion of what exactly? That's there's a conspiracy afoot to benefit corporations and not really benefit the poor. I suspect that is at the root of your opposition, and no matter how many times it's explained to you that the technology is licensed for free in the case of golden rice and that non-profits have freely given the right to use flood tolerant rice it doesn't persuade you, because like any conspiracy theorist there is always another explanation as to what is obvious, always a hidden agenda, always a reason to say no.

LOL...I never knew I wielded enough influence to actually scare the crap out of people.

Norm, if we were talking about any other industry, you would be with me 100%. Let's talk about the oil industry, for example. Is BP's new slogan, "Beyond Petroleum" part of an honest-to-goodness effort to embrace renewable energy alternatives, or is it just a bullshit PR campaign? AT&T has commercials running now in which a spelling bee has been running for 16 hours or something because the internet has made the kids so smart that no one has misspelled a word so they are all being declared winners. Do you believe that's the case? That the internet is making us geniuses? Or is it just part of AT&T's anti-net neutrality campaign?

According to Michael Pollan's article, Syngenta had already spent $50 million promoting golden rice, and that was way, way back in 2001, as you like to remind me. That figure is probably over $100 million by now. $100 million on PR, and for what? Syngenta's profound commitment to feeding the poor? Why does your normally healthy skepticism fly out the window as soon as the topic of GMOs comes up? Oh. I know. Because Michale Specter, Pam Ronald, David Tribe, Bruce Chassey, etc. etc. have cleverly equated anti-GMO with anti-science and you've taken the bait.

Do you favor the use of golden rice?

I favor the truth. And the truth is, as Michael Pollan wrote in that article you keep mentioning, that the hundreds of millions spent on golden rice so far could already have addressed the issue of vitamin A deficiency. But in a corporate feudal state, the only solution worth pursuing is one that puts profits first, and noting illustrates that better than this GMO debate.

You didn't answer the question, though last time you said we didn't need it, we could give them vitamin pills, knowing that pills aren't as effective as getting it through your food and since rice is a staple they would be more likely to get it.

And the truth is, as Michael Pollan wrote in that article you keep mentioning, that the hundreds of millions spent on golden rice so far could already have addressed the issue of vitamin A deficiency. But in a corporate feudal state, the only solution worth pursuing is one that puts profits first, and noting illustrates that better than this GMO debate.

How much they spend on PR has nothing to do with the scientific question of whether engineering rice to produce beta-carotene is possible it is, or that it is in a human useable form it is, or that getting vitamin A in one's food is better than taking a pill, and that having it available in a staple that everyone will eat is better than relying on other foods not as widely available. The TRUTH is that golden rice is a good idea that can benefit the poor. You avoid that question, refusing to address the scientific, instead diverting the subject to corporate PR. It's not an either or question, it's not an either or question, it's not an either or question.

I'm sure Syngenta expects to get their investment back in goodwill and they may also license the technology to rice producers in rich countries and make a profit.

It's not either or, the poor can benefit and Syngenta can make a profit.

Anti-gmo is anti-science remember there is a consensus within the scientific community of it's benefits. You will continue to miss the point that genetic engineering is a method not a product and further argue against it's use whether it's for profit or not.

I know it matters how its used, and that's true and yet you're opposed to using it to benefit the poor (royalty free licensing ) because it will also benefit a corporation. How nice that you have the luxury of a nutritious diet, the purchase of which also benefits corporations, but want to deny that to the poor.

You mock Patricia Ronald and the flood tolerant rice that will obviously provide benefits for the poor because it's not getting there fast enough but support the regulations and the propaganda that makes that so, that's disingenuous and that's hypocritical.

Golden rice has been in development for over 10 years and still hasn't filled one poor person's bowl, and flood-resistant rice has been available for at least six years with the same result. They did get a soccer ball, though.

Well not quite:

I asked Pam Ronald if flood tolerant rice had made it past the field trial phase and was being planted anywhere.

Her answer: Sub1 rice is being grown by farmers in Bangladesh, India, and in the Philippines.

The "consensus" among scientists on GE is laden with qualifications like, "However, excessive reliance on a single technology combined with a lack of diverse farming practices could undermine the economic and environmental gains from these GE crops. Other challenges could hinder the application of the technology to a broader spectrum of crops and uses."

No such qualifications exist among the global warming consensus.

That's simply not true there are all kinds of qualifications within the global warming consensus. Timing, the best solutions, how and when to implement them. The consensus within global warming exists and is a problem that needs a solution.

Like with GE the report on Climate Change suggests being flexible and adapting to changing conditions:

The new reports stress that national climate change research, efforts to limit emissions, and adaptation strategies should be designed to be flexible and responsive to new information and conditions in the coming decades. Because knowledge about future climate change and possible impacts will evolve, policies and programs should continually monitor and adjust to progress and consequences of actions.

The consensus within GE is that there are many benefits and nowhere in the report is there any suggestion that GE shouldn't be used, just recommendations on how to use it more effectively.

Many U.S. farmers who grow genetically engineered (GE) crops are realizing economic and environmental benefits -- such as lower production costs, improved pest control, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields -- compared with conventional crops.

1.) I have never ever said anything about vitamin A pills. Not only have I never proposed that as a solution to the vitamin A deficiency found among the malnourished, I haven't proposed it for anything ever in any context on this or any other blog, so I don't know where you're getting that. 2.)You mock Patricia Ronald and the flood tolerant rice that will obviously provide benefits for the poor because it's not getting there fast enough... First of all, I think you mean Pam Ronald. Second of all, I am not mocking her. Third of all, and most importantly, my complaint isn't that the modified rice isn't "getting there fast enough." My complaint is that the REASON it isn't getting there fast enough is that the first thing Ronald and her department did after they discovered the pertinent gene was license the technology to Monsanto & Pioneer, thereby creating a tangle of bureaucratic red tape, which is what caused the delay. And, like all the other pie-in-the-sky "solutions" being offered by the GMO crowd, its benefit remains hypothetical.

I've never said anything about vitamin A pills

From earlier comments: •Golden Rice 2 (GR2) produces 23× more β-carotene than GR1 and contains sufficient quantities of β-carotene to meet the nutritional requirements for a person. However, no study has yet investigated how this chemical will fare through the steps of rice preparation (milling, storing, cooking, etc.) (Krawinkel, 2007; Glenn, 2008; Enserink, 2008). β-carotene may be degraded by these steps. Proponents of golden rice acknowledge that persuading people to eat it may require an educational campaign. This begs a rather obvious question. Why not simply a campaign to persuade them to eat brown rice? Or how about teaching people how to grow green vegetables on the margins of their rice fields, and maybe even give them the seeds to do so? Or what about handing out vitamin-A supplements to children so severely malnourished their bodies can’t metabolize beta-carotene? As it happens, these ridiculously obvious, unglamorous, low-tech schemes are being tried today, and according to the aid groups behind them, all they need to work are political will and money. Money? More than $100 million dollars has been spent developing golden rice, and another $50 million has been budgeted for advertisements touting the technology’s future benefits. A spokesman for Syngenta, the company that plans to give golden rice seeds to poor farmers, has said that every month of delay will mean another 50,000 blind children. Yet how many cases of blindness could be averted right now if the industry were to divert its river of advertising dollars to a few of these programs?

If you were being honest here, you would disclose that the passage you just quoted was from the Michael Pollan article I linked to and wasn't my own suggestion. Moreover, vitamin A supplements is just one of the things he suggests, in addition to: "Why not simply a campaign to persuade them to eat brown rice? Or how about teaching people how to grow green vegetables on the margins of their rice fields, and maybe even give them the seeds to do so?"

And if you'd been honest you would have pointed out that you disagreed with it.

So you agree it would be better provided in the food? Do you also agree that it makes more sense for that to be a staple that everyone would get? And while I'm at it you believe it is better to provide it as food aid than to provide it through plants?

I think persuading them to grow brown rice and carrots is a good idea. $150 million or however much Syngenta has spent developing and promoting their PR tool, golden rice, would've helped a great deal towards those goals.

It didn't occur to me to preemptively note my disagreement with Pollan's vitamin A pill suggestion. It's impossible for me to anticipate every disingenuous argument. Plus, vitamin A pills as part of a group of solutions isn't such a bad idea. Remember, it isn't either or it isn't either or it isn't either or.

Plus, vitamin A pills as part of a group of solutions isn't such a bad idea. Remember, it isn't either or it isn't either or it isn't either or.

So we agree it's not either or, we can have brown rice and carrots and you now think that golden rice can be part of the solution?

The solution wheel has many spokes -- several inexpensive, accessible spokes and one very expensive, hard-to-install spoke.

The solution wheel has many spokes -- several inexpensive, accessible spokes and one very expensive, hard-to-install spoke.

Hard to install only because of the roadblocks created in part by the anti-GMO crowd, and no more expensive because the technology is provided at no cost to those receiving it.

Can you really not see the benefit of having a source of beta-carotene in a staple?

My complaint is that the REASON it isn't getting there fast enough is that the first thing Ronald and her department did after they discovered the pertinent gene was license the technology to Monsanto & Pioneer, thereby creating a tangle of bureaucratic red tape, which is what caused the delay. And, like all the other pie-in-the-sky "solutions" being offered by the GMO crowd, its benefit remains hypothetical.

The licensing to Monsanto and Pioneer was not what caused the tangle of bureaucratic red tape, since as you know the license to them wasn't exclusive. The problem was how the university handled it not Monsanto and Pioneer.

Oh and there is nothing hypothetical about field trials that demonstrate that it works. The only question left is one of how it scales and since even if it didn't scale (no reason to think it wouldn't) it will still be of immense benefit to the small farmer. But that's pie-in-the-sky to you, and demonstrates clearly that your concern isn't about the science, or the truth.

Here's an analogy for you:

You spend your money for a ticket to a 3D version of a movie, three-fourths the way through the movie you decide you would have been just as happy with the 2D at the reduced cost. Your choice now is to stick with your choice or just leave.

Your solution is to leave, and worse than that it's to buy a 2D ticket so that you can finish the movie.

A better analogy would be if the major movie studios took note of the fact that some people have no or limited access to movies, and their proposed solution was to convert all of the existing movie theaters to 3D and charge ten times as much for tickets and sue theater owners who had inadvertantly let a few people in without paying, and to rationalized these actions by saying that the increased ticket prices and lawsuit revenue might someday make it possible for the underserved communities to see movies.

Oh. And the conversion to 3D will have been paid for by taxpayers, and mandated by law.

Do you even know what an analogy is and how it's used in an argument? This is horrible on so many counts one would have difficulty knowing where to begin. Let's see if others would like to weigh in.

Since you say it's a better analogy than mine please explain how it applies to Golden Rice since that's what we were discussing.

Here's an example of how my analogy works.

My analogy showed how that once you'd spent the money( the research for Golden Rice is done) and given that the product was worthwhile (it would provide benefits we could use) it would be foolish not to use it. (Since we could do so without further cost.)

We weren't discussing golden rice specifically, we were discussing your question that "Progressives accept scientific consensus on climate change so why don't they accept scientific consensus on GE crops?" Look at the top of the thread. That's what started this particular round of debate.

In my analogy, Syngenta, Monsanto, Bayer, et al. are represented as the big movie studios. Golden rice, flood resistant rice, etc. are represented as 3D movies. Poor people in Bangladesh, Punjab, etc., who don't get enough to eat are represented as communities that have limited or no access to movies.

I don't see how your "analogy" is in any way related to that question.

Lets see I think you're leaving out all the public sector universities and foundations etc. that provide GMO's, from the movie studio category, buts lets move, The golden rice are the 3D movies well okay because they are more efficient, but from a point of cost they are free movies for those who receive them. And the poor people represented by Bangladesh, et al. are the communities being offered the movies at no cost, but not really the movies but the ability to make their own movies more efficiently.

You mean the public sector universities like UC Davis who conducted their research using tax dollars and then licenced their findings to Monsanto and Pioneer? Those public sector universities? That would be covered by the part of my analogy where I said, "Oh. And the conversion to 3D will have been paid for by taxpayers."

And now the poor in the Philippines and Bangladesh and India are currently using the fruits of research done at the University of California at Davis. Even in baseball it's three strikes before you're out. Looks to me like leaving them in the game we got if not a homerun a good solid single. I'd say the public support of her work was well worth it.

I asked Pam Ronald if flood tolerant rice had made it past the field trial phase and was being planted anywhere.

Her answer: Sub1 rice is being grown by farmers in Bangladesh, India, and in the Philippines. . . Farmers are already saving the seed and each year the cropland planted to the new varieties is expected to grow.

And why is it you keep leaving out the part about the licences being non-exclusive?

"It's a worldview that prospers only so long as nobody tries it, and is too unreflective and self-absorbed to realize this."

I do wonder whether if you hadn't had McCarthy all these people would have become young communists. The description above is good enough for both, and personal background isn't a hindrance; some of (almost all, in fact) the biggest marxists I know come from upper middle-class families and have never had to either work or think about money.

40+ comments and only one about the Libertarian article. :( GMO's are not Frankenfood, Corporations are selfish and evil, Feeding the world is a challenge... yadayadayada...

If I remember this all started from an TED talk about how some guy didn't understand the Anti-GMO or GMO concerned crowd. I think BDM has made his point well, They're concerned because the technology is heavily used by corporate interest and not public/controlled/free/ect... enough for their liking. Especially if it's going to be a life savor of our growing global population, some of the current and past actions of corporations that are using the technology are scary.

Some are just scared of GMO tech. They are like the anti-vaccine crowd. They don't listen to reason. Norm, you win! The tech is not that scary, or really that unique/new. In fact, it looks to be critical to survive future population growth (and a solution to current malnutrition problems).

BDM please keep on keeping an eye out on these greedy bastards for us.

Norm, please keep an eye out for the latest GMO advancements.

We need both. 1. We need to know the possibilities for positive use of GMOs, and 2. If we know 1 we can more reliably judge the action of those that profit from GMOs.

And for my next trick I'll solve global warming!

YO NORM!

I know next to nothing about the GMO... stuff yet I a) wouldn't mind knowing and b) tend to learn better from books than from articles (I never get around to reading the articles; probably why).

Given you've evidently been reading up on it recently; what would you recommend to your loyal, interested and ignorant readers like me?

I've read 5 books on the topic all just a little different.

Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist's View of Genetically Modified Food

This is like a history of the science and the most technical. It is the most thorough review of the technology. A little background in Biology would make it easier, but I feel like I got most of it, and my biology is a little weak.

Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food

This is the book Bill Gates recommends it is a good summary of the science along with making the point that it could be complementary to organic methods. It is probably the best overall.

Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly

This takes it from the point of view of food and covers the issue from the point of view of a sustainable future, using all the tools we have including GMOs. It summarizes the arguments for sustainable food and challenges sacred cows on both sides of the issue.

Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of Africa

This highlights how Africa is where the technology can be most helpful since they missed the green revolution and their situation is different from most places in the world. It highlights the obstacles to Africa making progress.

Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know

This one discusses how the politics of food and the various interests work against getting it all right. How each individual country protects their own and how the various special interests both industry and environmental play their roles, all combining to make a mess of it all.

If you buy only one I think I'd go with Pam Ronald's book Tomorrow's Table

user-pic

Thanks!

And why is it you keep leaving out the part about the licences being non-exclusive?

The licenses are non-exclusive for two reasons. One is the intense scrutiny and criticism generated by the (for lack of a better term) anti-GMO crowd. If not for that scrutiny and criticism, Monsanto, Pioneer, Syngenta, et al. would undoubtedly have maintained exclusive rights. The second reason is related to the first reason. By providing the technologies for free or cheap to poor farmers in Bangladesh or wherever, Monsanto and Syngenta and so forth are saying, "See, everyone? We're not so bad. I mean, right guys? Uh, guys?" In other words, it's a PR tool.

Yesterday, while watching the Chicago Blackhawks win the Western Conference Finals, (!) there was a commercial for Bank of America. The narrator spoke of B of A's 10-year, trillion-dollar community reinvestment program. Why are they running that ad? Could it be because of the public's intense hatred for the banking industry in general and Bank of America in particular for their criminal role in ruining our economy? Or are they just really, really proud of all the good they have done in the world?

Judging by the posts I've seen on this blog for lo these many years, I would guess that you would see right through the PR bullshit emanating from too-big-to-fail banks or from Exxon-Mobil & BP or from FreedomWorks or from the Halliburton/Cheney/Bush admninistration, or for that matter, from the Goldman Sachs/Wellpoint/Obama administration. I ask again: Why is it that your skepticism flies out the window when it comes to Monsanto/Syngenta/Pioneer? Why do you refuse to recognize that, at best, Pam Ronald was gamed by a crooked system, and at worst, she was complicitous?

Rather than criticizing GMO critics as anti-science, you should be thanking them for helping to keep some of the worst corporate offenders at least slightly honest.

And before you accuse me, yet again, of conflating the science question with the corporate malfeasance question, allow me to submit, yet again, that since GMOs have been deveoped by and for some of the worst corporations in history, such conflations are perfectly valid.

You're so far off the deep end not even the lifeguards go there.

If by "deep end," you mean "common sense," and by "lifegueards," you mean "GMO defenders," then you're right.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives