City folks don't get it.
That is true.

I am a son of a farmer from eastern part of India. Our family were farmers and we owned a few cows. They lived in our five acre estate. You build a bond with a living and breathing animal.

So, it is not surprising some people took it offensive.

Regardless, please respect cows; they deserve to live! They do no harm


respectfully

Sea Reddy, Thanks for the comment. Cows "are sacred" I agree, but sacred gods ans goddesses dance. I doubt that's how the offense was interpreted.

Sacred cows are sacred cows. People dressed up as cows are not cows
and not sacred and not sacred cows.

--

What should be a sacred cow is the environmental genome, and it bugs
me every time I think of it that plant and animal GMO products have been
released into the environment with associated toxic pesticides and herbicides
when these companies do not know what they are doing.

The term "gene-splicing" has been a lie up until a year or so ago with the
advent of the amazing CRISPER technology that allows actual pattern
matching and "gene-editing" where there was really not such a thing
before. For almost 40 years genes have been haphazardly shot-gunned
into living cells into random areas and in the middle of active areas with
unknown affects, and untested results. Perhaps OK for research but
the results of these accidents, because they all were accidents, were
forced on people unknowingly.

One possible problem type with this was written about by Steven Drucker in
his book "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth" with the story about L-Tryptophan.
LT is a protein that is a precursor to the neurotransmitter seritonin that
some people took to aid in sleep. Decades ago in Japan a company took
the natural bacteria that is used to synthesize LT for humans, found the
genes for LT production and increased them, duplicating them inside the
bacterium to enhance their LT production, in several lines of increasing
LT production.

The unknown effects of what was done resulted in people getting sick and
dying, in proportion to the number of enhancements of this bacteria, that
is the more the bacteria was enhanced to product LT, the more people got
sick and died. The reason is believed by some to be because of other
toxics in the genetics of the bacterium what were tweaked by adding in
the extra genetic material - but that could not be proven absolutely
because the company in question destroyed the entire line, and tried to
blame it on contaminants in the production line.

Since the poisonings were proportional to the number of modifications in
the bacteria line, and since the poisonings were all in one company, it is
very much likely this was due to not understanding what was done to
these bacteria fully enough. So while current genetic engineering
technology is progressing with CRISPER, it is far from perfect, and even
if it was, the understanding of how DNA really works and can be modified
is still in its infancy.

As late as 2012 major revisions in the understanding of how to decode
DNA have taken place, while all this time we have been using the results
of genetic modification - for profit - against the FDA's own regulations.

It could be that a similar process is taking place in the production of another
nutrient in human consumption ... that of vitamin B12, which not most
people are deficient in due to the processed nature of our food.
B12 is produced by bacteria, and if the same model is followed without
understanding the bacteria and testing the result there could be a similar
problem, and think of the possible magnitude of that.

Without GMO labelling, and we know how labelling is untrustworthy in
some cases, how can we tell what we are getting, or that it is safe?

Companies are working to push anti-labelling laws to remove choice and
information from the public ... and this kind of "nanny state" seems to be
the kind our corporations can live with, while actually giving people support
and a safety net in their lives is derided.

So, due to understanding a little about what the history of GMOs in our
country and economy has been, I am against the release of salmon in the
environment, even thought they say that these salmon cannot breed or
reproduce int he wild. The will compete and change the environment for
natural salmon, and they are untested and unnecessary.

We should hold our genetic legacy on this planet as a very important
sacred cow in all seriousness and make it a high profile crime to change
or disrupt it without complete testing, full understanding and the sign off
or all governments affected.

People have been genetically modifying animals and plants for centuries. This whole GMO business is just so much nonsense.

Menlo Voter ... maybe you could tell me the the first decade human being even genetically modified a plant to contain bacteria or animal genes, because it certainly has not been for centuries. How about you think about reading a book on genetic engineering, because there really is a reason they called it genetic engineering and not breeding, despite the fact that they are trying to run away from that label now.

Plane:

humans have been cross pollinating, cross breeding, etc for centuries. The only difference now is that we have technology at hand that allows us to speed up the process.

I attended reThink Food at the Culinary Institute of America last fall. A collaboration of the CIA and MIT, this is a conference where food meets science. Many that attended from the food science world seemed almost past GMO's to a world where most our food will be grown without even soil! That's a Food Party! for another day, but here we must acknowledge that no matter what one thinks about GMO's, the US is a society based on the ability to choose for ones self. If things aren't labeled, this goes against everything we believe in.

Why was the Band offensive? Seriously? Having observed them for four decades they absolutely are not the Band of the 60's and 70's that both played well AND presented political satire while playing the Fight Song. The 2016 Rose Bowl came across consistently (before the Game and during Half time) as arrogant and demeaning--the clear message of elitism was in stark contrast the University, Athletic Department and Football team principles of inclusion, tolerance, hard work, commitment... They had nothing to do with the Game, the team and individual effort. They do not deserve University or Athletic Department support. There were plenty of students who wanted to go to the Game who should have gone in their place. Why don't you examine whether they did anything to support the team? They did not reflect the values of Stanford University Athletes that I know or have known. If you observed the entire presentation I think you would react differently...you make no mention of the fact that Stanford fans (young and old) joined people who were obviously Iowa fans in booing the Band's conduct

Ah thanks Bill. So it wasn't the dancing cow? That did seem odd. Thanks. And tsk tsk Stanford Band. What did you do?