Zcom_simple

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

583275

Joe Emersberger's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/joeemersberger
Bio: Joe Emersberger was born in 1966 in Windsor, Ontario, Canada where he currently lives and works. He is an engineer and a  member of the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) union. (More)

All Emersberger Blogs

John Pilger's defence of Assange may have provoked banning of "The War You Don't See"

By Joe Emersberger at Jan 27, 2013


Change Text Size a- | A+
In June of 2011, Patrick Lannan, a billionaire patron of liberal causes in the USA, abruptly pulled the plug on a screening of John Pilger's film "The War You Don't See". A credible explanation was never offered. A good overview of that incident is provided here by Robert M. Christie, a professor at California State.
 
John Pilger updated me on this incident yesterday as follows:
 
It was certainly the opinion of those who investigated my banning by Lannan in 2011 that the reason was very likely my connection with Julian Assange, though no one could be sure. For me, Patrick Lannan's behavior seemed out of character - cancelling abruptly the showing of my film and my speaking event in Santa Fe before both could be publicised like other Lannan events, and giving no reason for the cancellation for almost a week, and then claiming there wasn't sufficient interest in my events, made no sense. According to a journalist at the Santa Fe New Mexican and the manager of the theatre where my film was to be shown, both events would have been sell-outs. Indeed, when the film was shown independently at the same theatre soon afterwards, it was a sell-out. The question asked was: 'What was the Lannan Foundation afraid of, or who were they seeking to please?' It is an important question.
 
Significant organised liberal opinion in the US is effectively 'bought' by liberal foundations such as Lannan. Left or liberal conferences, publishing, film-making and other outlets are substantially funded by them. The Martha Gellhorn Award for Journalism, of which I am a trustee, accepted money from Lannan - which my colleagues and I stopped following my banning. The patronage of Ford and Carnegie is not dissimilar from Lannan. These foundations promote some wonderful cultural work; Lannan has admirably backed Palestinian writers, such as the late Edward Said. The broadcaster, Democracy Now, is funded by Lannan and Carnegie. Following my banning by Lannan, Democracy Now cancelled an interview with me about my film on war and media -- the film Lannan did not want shown. This is not in any way to suggest the recipients of largesse do as their patrons want, but they know where the invisible boundaries are drawn. If they forget, they are reminded from time to time - as I was. If they believe otherwise, they deceive themselves. Censorship comes in many forms.
 
It is worth emphasizing that Lannan's "lack of interest" excuse was blown apart if "when the film was shown independently at the same theatre soon afterwards, it was a sell-out."
 
What is most disturbing is that Lannan seems to have pulled the plug not only on Pilger's film but also on Democracy Now. Why would Democracy Now have cancelled an interview with Pilger? And is there not a HUGE problem with supposedly "independent" and "alternative" media outlets taking money from billionaires? If there is more to this story, I hope Democracy Now tells us.
 
I also emailed Democracy Now recently about what I thought was a sub-par interview with filmmaker Alex Gibney.
 
Gibney claimed that Julian Assange is seeking to be placed "above the law" by seeking any kind of assurances from Sweden regarding extradition to the USA.
 
There were a few obvious questions Amy Goodman should have asked but didn't:
 
"Is it legal for Sweden to extradite Assange to the USA for political crimes or for doing journalism?"

It isn't - under both Swedish and international law, so how can seeking assurances that Sweden will abide by its own law be seeking to be placed above it?
 
"Doesn't the Swedish executive branch  - not its courts  - have the final say over extradition?"

It does.
 
Gibney was also allowed to claim  - without challenge from Amy Goodman - that "there’s absolutely no evidence that the United States is manipulating the Swedish legal process in any way, shape or form".
 
Goodman should have asked
 
"Does it not count as evidence that Swedish officials and US agents guilty of kidnapping, torturing and sexually assaulting two Egyptian men on Swedish soil have never been charged with any crime?"
 
By way of balance, Democracy Now did an interview with Jennifer Robinson, one of Assange's lagal advisors, but it was extremely brief.
 
Democracy Now does some exemplary work. This recent interview with Jeremy Scahill really stands out, but its appears that there are indeed "invisible boundaries" that we should all work to abolish. First step is to make those boundaries visible.
2011-simpson

An old quote

By Simpson, Daniel at Jan 28, 2013 21:03 PM

"If the idea is to bring down the government, I'm all for it. But you don't do that on a grant from the Ford Foundation."

Hunter S. Thompson, The Proud Highway, p. 464

Reply this comment


Img_0341

Wow...

By Kaushik, Raghav at Jan 28, 2013 02:00 AM

Very disturbing to hear this about Democracy Now. Many thanks to you for raising this issue.

Raghav

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re: Wow...

By Brussel, Morton k. at Jan 30, 2013 04:00 AM

There have been other instances where Amy Goodman has failed to answer the obvious probing questions, especially relative to Assange. I thought that perhaps it was a feminist response to accusations of his dealing with women, but now I am less sure.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Wow...

By Brussel, Morton k. at Jan 30, 2013 04:01 AM

There have been other instances where Amy Goodman has failed to answer the obvious probing questions, especially relative to Assange. I thought that perhaps it was a feminist response to accusations of his dealing with women, but now I am less sure.

Reply this comment

Loading_border