Letter to the editor: Radicals then & now | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Radicals then & now

The shouting down of anyone who doesn’t agree with the left wing’s liberal agenda is nothing new. The radicals have always tried to drown out any reasonable discourse over the decades.

In the midst of the sexual revolution of the ’60s and ’70s, people who tried to warn the public about the dangers of promiscuous sex were shouted down. In his book “Dark Agenda,” David Horowitz writes that “At the height of the ’60s … doctors saw the incidence of amebiasis, a parasitic sexually transmitted disease, increase 50 times in San Francisco, a center of gay life. … By the end of the ’70s, two-thirds of gay men had already contracted hepatitis B.”

Gay reporter, Randy Shilts, Horowitz writes, “described the atmosphere in the liberated zones on the eve of the AIDS outbreak: ‘Gay men were being washed by tide after tide of increasingly serious infections. First it was syphilis and gonorrhea. Gay men made up about 80% of the 70,000 annual patient visits to [San Francisco’s] VD clinics.’ ”

Despite the warnings, the mantra of the radical left was to call out anyone who disagreed with them as being “homophobic” and “Nazis.” This promiscuous lifestyle was even celebrated with parades in major cities.

In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control estimated that between 2000 and 2003, 850,000 to 950,000 people in the U.S. were living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

Does anyone see a correlation between then and the political atmosphere of today? It’s the same words with a different tune.

Edward Liberatore

Turtle Creek


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.