Skip to main content

View Diary: Even Neil Degrasse Tyson can miss an obvious truth (341 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sure, here are a few: (15+ / 0-)

    - Gerhard Flachowsky, Ingrid Halle & Karen Aulrich, "Long term feeding of Bt-corn – a ten-generation study with quails", Archives of Animal Nutrition, Vol. 59, Iss. 6, 2005

    - Massimo Trabalza-Marinucci et al., "A three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and performance of sheep", Livestock Science, Vol. 113, Iss. 2–3, February 2008, Pages 178–190

    - Aysun Kılıç and M. Turan Akay, "A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation", Food and Chemical Toxicology, Vol. 46, Iss. 3, March 2008, pp. 1164–1170

    (All three studies, I should note, were produced and funded outside the United States entirely.)

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:37:22 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Links &/or summaries? This is ridiculous. (0+ / 0-)

      What's your point?

      "Get in the way. Create chaos. Cause trouble. " "On global warming there is no more time to change the Overton Window. We have to break it."

      by sturunner on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:42:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The commenter asked whether there are (22+ / 0-)

        studies testing long-term exposure not produced or funded by Monsanto. I listed three studies testing long-term exposure not produced or funded by Monsanto. I think the point should be pretty clear, no?

        I didn't give links because different people have different access to different databases, but here you go:

        Flachowsky
        Trabalza-Marinucci
        Kılıç

        From those pages you can also see recommended and cited article lists that will bring you to other long-term studies, and explore them as you like. This isn't exactly a small field.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:57:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Summaries: (14+ / 0-)
        A ten-generation experiment with growing and laying quails were carried out to test diets with 40 (starter) or 50% (grower, layer) isogenic or transgenic (Bt 176) corn. Feeding of diets containing genetically-modified corn did not significantly influence health and performance of quails nor did it affect DNA-transfer and quality of meat and eggs of quails compared with the isogenic counterpart.
        This study shows that a diet including insect-resistant Bt176 maize, fed to 53 ewes and their progeny for 3 years, did not have adverse effects on their health or performance and that no horizontal gene transfer to ruminal microorganisms or animal tissues was detected. No differences were observed regarding performance, reproductive traits, haematological parameters, antioxidant defences, lymphocyte proliferative capacity, phagocytosis and intracellular killing of macrophages, and ruminal microbial population characteristics between control and genetically modified (GM) maize-fed animals. I
        For the last ten years, in accordance with the increased use of genetically modified (GM) foods for human and livestock, a large number of feeding studies have been carried out. However, the evidence is still far from proving whether the long-term consumption of GM foods poses a possible danger for human or animal health. Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate the effects of transgenic corn on the rats that were fed through three generations with either GM corn or its conventional counterpart. Tissue samples of stomach, duodenum, liver and kidney were obtained for histopathological examinations. The average diameter of glomeruli, thickness of renal cortex and glomerular volume were calculated and number of affected animals/number of examined animals for liver and kidney histopathology were determined. Amounts of urea, urea nitrogen, creatinine, uric acid, total protein, albumin and globulin were determined; enzyme activities of aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, gamma glutamyltransferase, creatine kinase and amylase were measured in serum samples. No statistically significant differences were found in relative organ weights of rats within groups but there were some minimal histopathological changes in liver and kidney. Changes in creatinine, total protein and globulin levels were also determined in biochemical analysis.

        If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

        by skohayes on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 04:12:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ok, there is one. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sturunner

          And 10 generations, (isolated from other organism in the environment) could be argued to be short term. In fact, given the sweep of evolution, it IS short term.

          And you will notice that the data were collected from internal changes in quail on a short term basis. This reminds me of the Tobacco Industry studies in the 60s which simply did not count certain changes because, well, they were inconvenient to see. Were behaviors tested? Was there any test of normal cognition in quails? Was there any any test of allergies or mortality rates, or rates of genetic mutation? Were there any data collected on the rate of reproduction in relationship to a control group or groups?

          I dont think the existence of one partial study of one species looking at very narrow data content establishes much of anything, except that there has to be some serious study done before we change the genetic code of the organisms on earth, which is a fairly bold thing to do on scant or non evidence. You want the change.. the burden of proof is on you.

          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

          by OregonOak on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 08:11:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There are three different studies there (4+ / 0-)

            There have been thousands of studies done on livestock and lab animals over the last 3 decades.
            That's just 3 abstracts from three studies done about a decade ago. How many more do you want to see?

            If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

            by skohayes on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 03:53:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You never address the "Time" argument.. (0+ / 0-)

              and the "interactivity" argument. Whatever benefit you are seeing is never weighed against Time and Interactions which are cross-species and very subtle, and never measured.

              And you never address the Burden of Proof argument, the Ethics argument and the Biome Impact argument. You are so busy burrowing down in your silo of reductionism that you are missing the important ideas.

              I think you have a personal stake in Pro-GMO practices. That is the only explanation for your cavalier and reckless methods of Implementation before Research.

              Three studies hardly convinces me, especially since they are over a period of 20 years. Evolution works in millions of years, and bad effects can be seen in decades, but certainly not in the time frames you present in your studies. We are not even asking the right questions yet. You are the equivalent of the "Quarterly Report" driven Wall Street Shill for biology.

              Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

              by OregonOak on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 08:34:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  as noted elsewhere . . . (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                skohayes, houyhnhnm, kalmoth

                The entire population of the US has already been eating GMO genes, every day, for at least 20 years. That is over 6 BILLION PERSON-YEARS worth of data.

                And it has not shown any demonstrated public heralth or environmental effect, anywhere, on anything, at any time.

                How many more billion person-years do you suggest are still needed to establish a result? And what safety study do you propose that can give longer data for more people?

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 08:46:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That isn't data (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  farmerhunt, splashy

                  That is, unless it was an epidemiological study, which in my view have often been wrong due to all the variables.

                  Just because a population has been eating these foods for 20 years is not evidence of anything. One would have to have control groups, but with diet, even with control groups this can be very misleading, since too many factors are present.

                  "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                  by ZhenRen on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 10:11:22 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  right, so just because there's no effect, doesn't (0+ / 0-)

                    mean there's no effect.

                    (sigh)

                    Perhaps you could point to the effect for us . . . . .

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 10:24:55 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  To repeat... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Another Grizzle, OregonOak, splashy

                      You wouldn't be able to identify any effects simply because "the entire population of the US has already been eating GMO genes, every day, for at least 20 years."

                      You wouldn't know which effects were attributed which  which factor.

                      You wouldn't know if certain individuals were more susceptible, or the concentrated degree to which specific foods need to be consumed before triggering effects, or which preexisting conditions would exacerbate effects, or combinations of factors that trigger effects.

                      And as to your strawman, asking me to point to effects as if I had claimed there were effects, which I had not claimed, is just more of this childish approach. I don't know if there are effects or not. Never claimed otherwise. I don't think anyone really knows, because as with celiac, and other similar diseases caused by diet, effects can be very hard to identify, and often escape attempts of discovery.

                      Just label the damn shit, and end the debate. And keep it from contaminating the crops of neighboring fields.

                      "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                      by ZhenRen on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 10:50:28 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  to repeat . . . (0+ / 0-)

                        there is no observed effect.  Until there is, there's literally nothing to discuss.

                        It really is that easy.

                        PS--I got no gripe with labeling., But you already know that.

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 10:53:51 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Nonsense, and that is anti-science (4+ / 0-)

                          You don't know with certainly if there are, or are not effects, with simply the uncontrolled testing of a product on a mass of people.

                          I'm specifically referring to this statement, by itself:

                          The entire population of the US has already been eating GMO genes, every day, for at least 20 years. That is over 6 BILLION PERSON-YEARS worth of data.
                          That doesn't produce data. It is not controlled. You would need to separate the population, with one part consuming the products, the other part abstaining. And even this would not eliminate all possibilities, since some individuals might benefit in some way, while others might not, and the combination of these factors would cancel each other out, statistically.

                          For example, wheat would provide vitamin E to some individuals, thus preventing a plethora of known illnesses while others would get celiac disease. In epidemiological studies of a large population, each of these could cancel out the other statistically.

                          These kinds of studies are fraught with problems. But to not even have controls at all, as you suggest with your comment, just inflicting on a population new products, then claiming from this there are no effects, is absurd.

                          It would be better for your case to point to some actual long term studies on people, but even these are not very reliable, since some individuals might benefit while others might be adversely affected. Its very easy to arrive at faulty conclusions with this kind of research. Hence, the plethora of drugs once thought safe which cause cancer, or heart attacks, or a multitude of other side effects, all discovered later, often not by industry, but by public institutions.

                          "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                          by ZhenRen on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 11:18:15 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  says you (shrug) (0+ / 0-)

                            But the brutal fact remains---there are no observed environmental or public health impacts associated with GMOs.  None.

                            Until someone demonstrates one, you are just waving your arms.  

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 11:20:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There are enviromental impacts (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            farmerhunt, splashy

                            Neighboring fields have been contaminated by GMO pollen.

                            As to health impacts, as to your specific comment above, if no one is looking for effects in a controlled long term study, just waiting for someone to prove she got a stomach ache from GMO products, that isn't likely to happen in an uncontrolled setting.

                            It also means that ethically, you're willing to subject an entire population to incautious application of technology, placing the burden on them, rather than on the producers.

                            That this is your attitude tells me all I need to know about your ethics, your dedication to environmentalism, and your support of the Precautionary Principle. And yes, it is authoritarian.

                            "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                            by ZhenRen on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 11:53:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  (sigh) (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            AaronInSanDiego
                            That this is your attitude tells me all I need to know about your ethics, your dedication to environmentalism, and your support of the Precautionary Principle. And yes, it is authoritarian.
                            . . . and now that once again want to take this personal, our conversation is over.  Have a nice day.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 12:55:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  If you don't look, then it won't be observed (0+ / 0-)

                          It really is that easy.

                          No controls, no one knows who is eating more, who is eating less, and who might be managing to avoid it completely.



                          Women create the entire labor force.
                          ---------------------------------------------
                          Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

                          by splashy on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 05:14:27 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  No, we don't know if there's an effect (0+ / 0-)

                      How can you tell, if you don't know who is eating more, and who is eating less?

                      It's not organized, it's haphazard, and it's not being followed at all.



                      Women create the entire labor force.
                      ---------------------------------------------
                      Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

                      by splashy on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 05:12:46 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  How on earth do we know that? (0+ / 0-)

                  After all, since it's not labeled, no one has been keeping track of exactly who is getting what. There are no control groups, nothing.

                  Seriously, that is a really bad argument, since no one is able to follow the amounts eaten, or who is eating it, or anything.



                  Women create the entire labor force.
                  ---------------------------------------------
                  Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

                  by splashy on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 05:11:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  (Elfling please note) you better rethink this post (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                skohayes, OregonOak
                I think you have a personal stake in Pro-GMO practices. That is the only explanation for your cavalier and reckless methods of Implementation before Research.
                Idiotic accusations of paid shilling are bannable here, and several folks have already been bojo'd for it. Not only is it a stupid personal attack that you can't back up, but all it does is poison the entire conversation and lead to idiotic witch-hunts.

                I'd apologize VERY quickly for posting it, and then not post it again, if I were you . . . .

                (And Elfling, since you're already here, can I assume I don't need to forward this to you for appropriate action . . . ?)

                I'm tired of seeing this stupid shit in every fucking GMO diary every goddamn day.  It needs to end. And sadly I don't think it will end until a few more of the thick-headed get bojo'd for it.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 08:55:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  can someone else HR this accusation of shilling? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                OregonOak

                I can't since I already HRd the same person for ANOTHER accusation of shilling.  (sigh)

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 09:07:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Don't worry about it (0+ / 0-)

                  It's a weak argument and should stand as the best they've got, since they resort to it all the time.

                  If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

                  by skohayes on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 09:47:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  true, but (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    skohayes

                    this shit needs to end for entirely different reasons----it just poisons the entire conversation, results in idiotic witchhunts, and makes rational conversation impossible. (And it makes the DKos blog look like InfoWars, full of idiotic CT crackpottery). That is why Kos has already banned it.

                    I agree with all of Kos's reasons, and that is why all such idiotic accusations must be dealt with, until it finally penetrates the thick skulls and ends.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 09:54:41 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ouch. (0+ / 0-)

                      Never been accused of having a thick skull. A thin skin, yes, but not a thick skull. That hurts.

                      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                      by OregonOak on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 01:56:14 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  it's not referring to you specifically (0+ / 0-)

                        For weeks now, every GMO diary that gets posted, pro or con, attracts the loudmouth who stupidly accuse everyone who disagrees with them of being "paid by Monsanto"--despite repeated public warnings from admin that it is a major no-no.

                        Somehow, though, it just keeps continuing. I can only assume they are thick-headed.

                        Sadly, as I noted before, I don't think it will stop until a few more are not only bojo'd for it, but SEEN to be bojo'd for it.

                        PS--you owe skohayes an apology.

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 02:17:15 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  They're so subtle no one can find anything, right? (0+ / 0-)

                No genetic mutations over generations (time), no adverse affects from "interacting" with the digestive systems of several different species over several thousand generations  for the last thirty years or so.
                If you don't like the three studies presented, do a google search and help yourself to the thousands of studies out there, please.

                As for your "personal stake in pro-GMO practices", that's bullshit, but you knew that, didn't you?
                When you can't argue the facts, go for the ad hominem.

                If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

                by skohayes on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 09:45:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  it's the standard pseudoscience crackpot argument: (0+ / 0-)

                  "Just because it's not there, doesn't mean it's not there !!!!"

                  Well, ya know what--it sure as fuck doesn't mean it IS there.  (shrug)

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 09:56:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  My apologies. I am wrong to say that. (0+ / 0-)

                  I have revealed everything about myself, however, and in the absence of any information about the individual in the Pro-GMO lobby here, I do not know what to think about why a person would argue so vehemently for a process which is so new and so arcane in many ways. My assumption about you is wrong to state in a comment, but it is also true that any assumption that I am somehow a DFH or Anti-Vax Pro-Alien Faith Based bullpucky throwing amateur is equally, and possibly, more wrong.  

                  I do apologize for that remark. It was out of line. You could dispel any concern we might have, but that of course is up to you. Until you tell us, like I did, what you do, and did, and are interested in as a professional, then I will refrain from making assumptions about your motives.

                  Again, my humble apologies.

                  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                  by OregonOak on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 02:52:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  THAT'S your apology . . . ? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Kasoru
                    You could dispel any concern we might have, but that of course is up to you. Until you tell us, like I did, what you do, and did, and are interested in as a professional,
                    Why in fuck should anyone have to do that just to satisfy your idiotic "concerns" that "we" "might have" about "what you do, and did" "as a professional"?

                    (sigh)

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 03:09:29 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Apology accepted (0+ / 0-)

                    My motives are support for science and facts.
                    My background is a career in farming and raising livestock- I've worked with cattle, sheep, horses and pigs and I'm currently a veterinary technician for a 3 vet large animal practice.
                    Hope that answers your question.

                    If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

                    by skohayes on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:22:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  No one asked me (0+ / 0-)

                  But I get GI tract problems from regular corn. Organic is not a problem.

                  Is that tracked? No. How many others are not tracked? Is anyone tracking this in the general population? Doubt it.



                  Women create the entire labor force.
                  ---------------------------------------------
                  Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

                  by splashy on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 05:18:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  3 years, 10 years? (0+ / 0-)

          That's "long-term?"

          It took decades for them to figure out that the hormones they were giving to women for menopause were detrimental if given for too long. At least they were labeled, so they knew they were getting them, so it could be tracked.

          That's my problem. Label it, so we can track the long term effects, if any. Otherwise, we are all in the dark.



          Women create the entire labor force.
          ---------------------------------------------
          Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

          by splashy on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 05:08:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Not all that great (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pico, blueoasis, sturunner

      While the first one was controlled, there's no indication fo the number of quail they used in the abstract.

      The second one by Trabalza-Marinucci wasn't controlled. And the results don't look so shining to me:

      No modifications of histological features of tissues were found; however, cytochemical analyses of ruminal epithelium by Ki67 staining provided evidence of proliferative activation of basal cells in all GM maize-fed ewes. Preliminary electron microscopy analyses of the liver and pancreas revealed smaller cell nuclei containing increased amounts of heterochromatin and perichromatin granules in GM maize-fed lambs.
      The third one by Kılıç et al didn't list the number of animals tested, was controlled, and the abstract said nothing about mortality comparisons. They weighed the livers & kidneys of the animals and found 'no significant differences' (who is asking?) and then mention, "Changes in creatinine, total protein and globulin levels were also determined in biochemical analysis." There just isn't much info there and the idea they didn't do anything about mortality is just weird.

      But thanks anyways.

      "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

      by Crider on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:59:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It took you 6 minutes to peer review 3 studies? (8+ / 0-)

        You're debunking major studies at a rate of one every two minutes.

        You're like the Evelyn Wood of science!

        Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it.

        by The Termite on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 04:05:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Explore away! You'll note, as I said above, that (8+ / 0-)

        this is a big field: I grabbed the first three that came up when I searched. I have no issue with criticizing the content of the studies, or the desire for better studies all around, but you should at least know that quite a lot of science has been done on long-term exposure, not funded by Monsanto.  There's no excuse for not knowing this when so much is out there, and readily accessible at that.

        Again, you don't have to sign off on any of these in and of themselves, but there's much more out there than you're letting on.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 04:06:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They've done hundreds of studies (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ducktape, mem from somerville, guyeda

        probably thousands by now- you'll note that the quail study was written up 9 years ago, and there are plenty of studies out there saying the same thing.

        And the sheep study you quoted about changes in the rumens, and the microscopic changes in the cell nuclei of the liver and pancreas had no effect on the health of the sheep:

        No differences were observed regarding performance, reproductive traits, haematological parameters, antioxidant defences, lymphocyte proliferative capacity, phagocytosis and intracellular killing of macrophages, and ruminal microbial population characteristics between control and genetically modified (GM) maize-fed animals.

        If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

        by skohayes on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 04:21:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (136)
  • Community (67)
  • Elections (25)
  • Environment (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Culture (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Law (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Rescued (16)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Memorial Day (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site