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 correct that the Lancet study, by far the most authoritative available, deliberately excluded Fallujah, because that would have raised the estimates much higher -- recall that as in all scientific inquiries in related areas (technically, anywhere), this one is based on extrapolation from samples, and they wanted to err on the side of conservatism. For the same reason, they included Kurdish regions where there was very little conflict, thereby reducing the estimates.
You are also correct that the study ended before the devastating attack on Fallujah, a major war crime. For this and many other reasons, their 100,000 "most probable" estimate would be considerably higher if a similar study were done today.
Judging by news reports (not in the US, as far as I saw), a later study of a Swiss research institute basically confirmed the Lancet study, in their case investigating only direct killings.
The Iraq Body Count studies have been useful, but as the investigators explain, these are considerable underestimates, relying solely on newspaper reports of deaths and official figures. The Lancet study was a much more serious inquiry, and therefore has been ignored or attacked regularly in the US (and to a less extreme extent, England).
Any mention of it is usually accompanied by the statement that the "controversial" Lancet report estimates that extra deaths resulting from the invasion "may have been as high as 100,000," or something similar. Every such study -- e.g., the effects of cancer surgery on longevity -- is "controversial." And the 98,000 estimate was "most probable, so that an honest report would add "may have been as low as 100,000.
What is amazing about these studies is that they have been undertaken.
In the past, atrocities carried out by the US and its clients rarely are investigated. Take Vietnam. Apart from completely fraudulent "body counts," there was essentially no inquiry. We do not know, literally within millions, how many people died as the result of the US attacks on Indochina. Same in case after case. Crimes of enemies have to be scrupulously investigated, with massive forensic inquiries, etc. One's own have to no less scrupulously ignored (or simply denied).