Because this is a family newspaper, I'll have to forgo the expletives I would so like to use when expressing my frustration with some audience members at Tinseltown movie theater.

Because this is a family newspaper, I'll have to forgo the expletives I would so like to use when expressing my frustration with some audience members at Tinseltown movie theater.

I cannot think of any rational reasons as to why one would pay good money to sit in a darkened theater and play games, text, or answer calls on iPhones, Blackberries or other objects of irritation in the company of others who also paid for what should have been an evening of entertainment. Do you not comprehend that your cell-phone light doesn't have to make noise to be distracting, the music playing in your ears is too loud for you to hear the irritating tapping of your feet, and whispering into your phone is heard by those sitting around you? You're ruining a great American pastime for everyone in the theater! Are you so connected to your little piece of technology that you can't even sit back to enjoy a movie?

The next time there's a good show in town and you're not able to disconnect from your electronics for a couple of hours, do the community and me a favor and stay home! — Cathy Gerritsma, Central Point

Intermediate care and walk-in clinics are really starting to take off and are very positive. They bring health care to the people and have quicker access, less red tape!

What will happen to all these clinics if the federal government takes over the system in our country? Do you have faith in the government to take over our health-care system? If it's so great, why don't the Senate and the House include themselves in this?

I've asked the question and they have no answer! It is the same old thing with government, "Do as I say, not as I do!" What do you think? — Ron Lindvig, Medford

With all the talk of health-care reform, you barely hear a word in the debate about fairness. A study just released by Oregon Action and Health Care for American NOW shows how unequal our health-care system is for people of color. "Unequal Lives: Health Care Discrimination Harms Communities of Color in Oregon" reports that health-care disparities adversely affect more than 103 million Oregonians of color regardless of their income level.

In concrete terms, that means people of color are more likely than European-Americans to be without health insurance or a regular doctor. They have less access to treatment and medication, receive lower quality care, experience higher infant mortality, poorer health and shorter lives.

How can we reform our health-care system to eliminate these disparities? It'll take more than just controlling costs. The goal of making our system truly equitable will require that we make available to every person in this country an affordable, standard benefit package that delivers age-appropriate and gender-appropriate services in the patient's language and in a culturally suitable way.

When we've accomplished that, we'll finally have real health-care reform. — Sarah Paul, Ashland

Obama's health care won't come without a cost. Not only money, but freedom of choice.

Folks who voted for Obama will die regretting it.

President Obama is not a man of his word. While saying one thing, he does another.

A man who believes in infanticide, couldn't possibly care about the sick or elderly. I heard him say that when your illness reaches a point of being too expensive or seemingly hopeless to just "take a pain pill."

Obama hasn't got a heart or conscience. I don't want him or his ilk telling me what kind of health care I need. Our life and liberty, including health care, is the most cherished freedom we have and I want to keep mine.

I want Obama and his party to go away and leave me alone and let me make my own choices concerning my health and well-being. — Nancy McAllister, Medford

In defense of Craig Callaway's letter July 1, chastising womanizing Republicans (Mark Sanford, John Ensign, Mark Foley, Larry Craig), I suggest to those writers who criticized Mr. Callaway for ignoring the personal behaviors of Democrats, that they all read the commentary in the Mail Tribune July 17, "GOP needs to go out and find itself again," by Douglas MacKinnon.

The Democratic Party to my knowledge has never run on a platform of "family values" (morals, character and traditional beliefs), whereas the Republican Party has embraced it as their personal theme. Mr. Callaway, in my opinion, was not implying that Sanford, Ensign, Foley and Craig are the only politicians guilty of philandering, but that they are the only ones who immediately condemned others for behaviors they themselves committed. This is called hypocrisy. — Jean S. Triebel, Eagle Point

After seeing articles and letters to the editor recently about everything from cattle being raised in feed lots, loose cats destroying the wildlife and pigs being tortured to provide food for our tables — one of the writers quoted Albert Schweitzer, "Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight" — what about thinking now and then of the torture, murder and suffering that is imposed upon unborn babies while still in the mother's womb, which is called "choice?" Or are you trying to "spare yourself the sight?" How is it that killing unborn babies doesn't seem to be a concern to so many, yet care of animals is shown such intense concern? Sounds like we have our values upside down, doesn't it?

More than 50 million babies have been sacrificed on the altar of "choice," "women's rights" and "inconvenience" since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Those were potential humans who would now be contributing to our society in some way today. Of course, many of those murdered babies were female — are the "feminists" and "women's rights" advocates choosing to stand up for them? Does this gladden your heart or perhaps sadden it? — Bette Strouth, Medford