It would be impossible to really recap the book or the range of thoughts that it inspired.  Frankly, it landed in the middle of a Venn diagram of my personal and professional interests–gay rights, politics/public policy, and public health.  I think one line in the prologue really captures the essence of the book:

In those early years, the federal government viewed AIDS as a budget problem, local public health officials saw it as a political problem, gay leaders considered AIDS a public relations problem, and the news media regarded it as a homosexual problem that wouldn’t interest anybody else.

There were exceptions to all of these generalizations and that is the element of the book that gives a reader hope in such a tragic situation; that despite these obstacles, many stood up.  Others eventually rose to the occasion.  However, what speaks most to Shilts’ intelligence and fairness as a reporter and author is that almost none of the characters are portrayed in a flat or villanous way.  Shilts doesn’t pulls punches, but he gives everyone he describes a very human depth.  Almost every person is made real through both their bravery and shortcomings.

I think that every gay man and woman who didn’t live through this time should read Shilts’ account.  It gives a history and context to the struggles that our community faces that is easy to overlook when you enter the community after it has come so far.

All of that said, a really interesting point came up in my discussion of the book with a colleague.  I had been telling him about my adventures in blogging and he asked a fascinating question: “What if there had been the internet and social networking in 1980?”

It’s fascinating for so many reasons and highlights exactly what online communities can do. Without the internet, the general public is limited in both the community within which it can communicate, and more importantly, it is subject to the filters of the mainstream media; represented solely by the few prominent lobbying and advocacy organizations; and rarely heard by policymakers.

Now blogs and online organizing can drive a news story into the mainstream media.  Look at Philip Spooner from Maine’s No on 1 campaign (or any number of countless examples).  Where the media was squeamish talking about gay men or sex, people with the internet wouldn’t have had to live in ignorance of the epidemic that was exploding in the country’s major cities (and eventually beyond).

When public health departments wouldn’t adequately educate or stopping behaviors that were dangerous to the public health, the internet would have offered Google, WebMD, and online forums to find out more about what puts people at risk.

When an administration claimed that AIDS was its “number one public health priority,” the internet would have allowed facts and reports ignored by the media to be made public.  Policymakers could have had their feet held to the fire and heard from real people more easily.

When lobbying and interest groups failed to represent the broader gay community, people could have organized online on their own. The voice of the community would not have been one consensus determined by those who saw the disease as “bad PR.”

Instead of holding valuable research and science from the public and other researchers in order to be published in prestigious medical journals,  research could have been more quickly peer reviewed and published.  Instead of worrying about careers, researchers could have communicated vital science to the broader scientific community in a timely fashion.

I’m not so naive as to think that the internet would have fixed all of these situations without any drawbacks.  The internet creates a cacophony of voices with a certain number of complete wackjobs.  But more important–and in true democratic nature–the views that resonate with more people rise to the top.

Bottom line: it’s impossible to tell exactly what would have come from this bizarre–and probably idealized–alternate history I’ve imagined.  I can say two things with absolute certainty, though:

1. The internet and blogosphere would have it would enabled a broader conversation.  People would have been able to organize themselves and demand better of the media, advocacy groups, and local and federal governments.
2. The struggles we face today for equal rights do not face the limitations that were witnessed in the 1980s.  We can–and more importantly DO–organize and communicate online to increase the impact of our voices.  The DNC will hear from angry donors, the No on 1 campaign received over $1 million dollars from ActBlue, and campaigns can organize volunteers to call and visit from around the nation.  That’s why I write here and hope it resonates beyond the people I could have simply told over the phone.

Update: A few edits were made from the original post for clarity.

UPDATE: The Huffington Post (unsurprisingly) has more.

NEW YORK (AP) — The popular blog Huffington Post says it is bankrolling a group of investigative journalists.

The Huffington Post is collaborating with The Atlantic Philanthropies and other donors to set up a $1.75 million fund to pay staff journalists and freelancers.

The investigative fund will direct reporters to look first at stories about the nation’s economy.

The Huffington Post is following a trend of foundation-backed journalism that is attempting to keep investigative reporters working at a time of retrenchment in the news industry.

Blog co-founder Arianna Huffington says she hopes to draw from the ranks of laid-off journalists.

The fact that Obama is taking a message past the leaders of another country and appealing to the citizens of Iran with talk of their culture, and with a cultural sensitivity not seen in 8 years, is really striking.  This is the antithesis of the Bush “Us vs. Them” mentality.  Relying on the viral nature of the internet, Obama can put out this message that circumvents all traditional gatekeepers and diplomatic channels.  No Iranian leader can stop the people from seeing and sharing this message (short of cutting off internet access–which has been done in the past).

Obama is using his international star power in a truly groundbreaking way.

I know that this won’t be reached easily. There are those who will insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi so many years ago: “The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence.”

Click more to read the full transcript.

H/T to Towleroad and Huffington Post

Full Transcript:

Today I want to extend my very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world.
This holiday is both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal, and I hope that you enjoy this special time of year with friends and family.

In particular, I would like to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nowruz is just one part of your great and celebrated culture. Over many centuries your art, your music, literature and innovation have made the world a better and more beautiful place.

Here in the United States our own communities have been enhanced by the contributions of Iranian Americans. We know that you are a great civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United States and the world.

For nearly three decades, relations between our nations have been strained. But at this holiday, we are reminded of the common humanity that binds us together. Indeed, you will be celebrating your New Year in much the same way that we Americans mark our holidays, by gathering with family and friends, exchanging gifts and stories, and looking to the future with a renewed sense of hope.

Within these celebrations lies the promise of a new day, the promise of opportunity for our children; security for our families; progress for our communities; and peace between nations. Those are shared hopes. Those are common dreams.

So in this season of new beginnings, I would like to speak clearly to Iran’s leaders.

We have serious differences that have grown over time. My Administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran, and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek, instead, engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.

You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right, but it comes with real responsibilities. And that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization, and the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.

So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It is a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It is a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you, and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater peace and security.

I know that this won’t be reached easily. There are those who will insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi so many years ago: “The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence.”

via Ben Smith’s Blog: Twitter solidifies grip on Beltway – Politico.com.

Twitter solidifies grip on Beltway

Social networking programs tend to tear through communities — high schools, upper levels of media — at exponential rates, and Twitter has now fully arrived in Washington’s media scene.