Why shouldn't we be able to drink our cows' milk?

Why should Kentucky have to pass a law affirming a citizen's right to consume milk from his or her own cow simply because the housing, feeding and care of the animal is being handled by a third party — namely, a farmer with facilities and practices the owner trusts?

For thousands of health-conscious Kentucky citizens who do not have needed acreage or time, finding a dairy farmer to contract with is a logical choice.

Often like-minded families enter into a contract with a farmer to buy a cow for co-ownership.

Nothing in these relationships changes the fact that private citizens own an animal and as such they should have the legal right to consume the milk it produces.

Senate Bill 47 was filed in January by five senators — Republicans, Democrats and an independent — to clear up any confusion on this practice. Opposition to the bill is flawed.

Many health-conscious people do not want their milk pasteurized because this process destroys enzymes, affecting nutrient absorption and killing beneficial bacteria. Further, the proposed law does not mean raw milk will find its way to unsuspecting consumers. It will be available exclusively to the cow's owners.

Thomas Lightner

Petersburg

The fix was already in

Each day I read the letters and editorials and, without a doubt, every problem addressed in them could be accomplished by simply adhering to the U.S. Constitution and the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

The framers of the Constitution knew the weakness of individuals to become so greedy that they would sell out their country for anything that interested them.

Members of Congress were supposed to be part-time legislators, not full-time political prostitutes.

When Congress reports for duty in Washington was changed without a constitutional amendment. To this end, Congress is no longer an opportunity to serve the people but to become multimillionaires.

Billy Ray Wilson

London

Of soldiers and urine

I'm glad I'm not a military policy-maker these days. We ask them to do the impossible. An example concerns the recent desecration of the bodies of the Taliban.

To your average 18-year-old, the perverted politics and religious zealotry found in a distant land are, at best, conceptual. Very few of us are willing to put ourselves in the line of fire for something quite so abstract.

That leaves the military with the task of making something abstract become more real. The military must train its combatants to "hate" the enemy. In so doing, a broad range of emotions course through the minds of our personnel. The exhilaration brought by a victory is unparalleled.

The satisfaction of executing a mission builds confidence. Retreating is reviled. And the loss of a fellow soldier brings grief, much like victory in that the depth can be unparalleled.

Even in a more civilized setting, hatred is difficult to rein in. But on the battlefield, hatred takes on a whole different dimension, especially when there is a lost or badly wounded comrade.

How do our military leaders plan for that and effectively contain what becomes rage? They can't. At least they can't without seriously damaging combat effectiveness.

It isn't just the four Marines who should be investigated. Our national conscience deserves a bit of scrutiny, if for no other reason than to support the soldiers who are humans doing what they are trained and conditioned to do.

Doug Bruce

Lexington

Much has been written about American soldiers urinating on dead Taliban. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared it was a violation of the Geneva Convention.

CBS News ran a story which described how the Taliban are shooting at our unarmed Medivac helicopters. Apparently, the Taliban are not satisfied with causing just one horrible injury; they want to wound our soldiers a second time as they are being taken for life-saving treatment. Not a peep from Clinton about these violations of the Geneva Convention.

Bring a few of those dead Taliban terrorists over here. Give me a six-pack and about 40 minutes.

Clinton is welcome to attend.

Henry E. Davis

Lexington

No concern for Harlan

I am one of the customers of the Green Hills Water System who has been without water for a week; some have been without almost two weeks.

I am appalled that I live in a state where the governor has no concern at all for the well-being of Harlan County citizens.

We're living like the stone-age people while our tax money and coal severance money could be put to use in our community instead of other places. We need water now; Bledsoe should have been declared a disaster area; and, obviously, the people voted into offices in Frankfort couldn't care less.

Lucy Klawes

Bledsoe