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.
It's not physics, so one has to put together a circumstantial case. I've written about the way it looks to me.
In brief, the war was always unpopular, even when Kennedy launched it in 1962. That's why he hoped that US forces could withdraw -- AFTER victory, as he continually and forcefully emphasized, to the day of the assassination. Unpopularity turned to serious opposition to the war by about 1967. It was sufficient to prevent the government from declaring a national emergency, which would probably have been good for the economy, as it was during WW II. Instead, they had to fight a "guns-and-butter" war -- to buy off the population to quell dissent.
That's definitely bad for the economy, and combined with other world events, was leading to stagflation. The Tet offensive in Jan 1968 convinced business elites that the costs were mounting too high -- and the more sophisticated understood that the major war aims had already been achieved anyway. By then opposition was so strong that the Joint Chiefs were unwilling to send more troops because they were concerned that they might need them for civil disorder control in the US. LBJ was effectively instructed to move towards "Vietnamization," troop withdrawal, shifting of the (very visible) bombing of the North to bombing of Laos (easier to keep "invisible"), negotiations, etc., and not to run for re-election. And it suddenly turned out that intellectuals and political figures had always been (secret) "long-time opponents of the war": their strong support for the war was sent down the memory hole. One of the most interesting features -- but unmentionable, though well documented -- is the radical rewriting of memoirs of the Kennedy administration to "prove" that he was really a dove all along, and "memories" about the early opposition of elites (particularly JFK) to the war, refuted by overwhelming evidence at the time, but taken seriously.
The anti-war movement played a crucial role, by creating circumstances under which elites turned against further escalation, and limits were placed on the extent of destruction possible -- leaving a monstrous horror story, but it could have been a lot worse.
…The uproar set up conditions in which business and intellectual elites became tepid opponents of the war, never on principled grounds.
The public, in contrast, opposed the war as "fundamentally wrong and immoral," not "a mistake"; about 70% by 1969.