Why Has the U.S. Been Fighting a Proxy War Against Yemen?

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Saudi soldier in discussion with Emirate soldier.

IT WASN'T UNTIL last year's Russia/Ukraine war that I learned about the proxy war our country has been fighting in Yemen. While NPR has been running story after story about Ukraine civilians killed or an elementary school being hit by a Russian missile, I've wondered why similar coverage has been missing of the eight years of bombing in Yemen by the Saudis using U.S. weapons, or the humanitarian crisis there? 

The way I learned about it was via Twitter. This past year, when the Ukraine conflict began and voices were being raised against "that brute Putin," I began noticing increasing numbers of people from Yemen crying out for help, or angrily asking why nothing is being done about the horrors going on there that the U.S. was funding.

This prompted me to investigate further. What I've since learned is pretty disturbing.

The US has been involved in a proxy war in Yemen since 2014, when the Saudi-led coalition intervened in the country's civil war. The US has provided billions of dollars in weapons and logistical support to the Saudi coalition, and US forces have been involved in airstrikes and other combat operations.

Where is the Picasso who will paint
this modern Guernica?

The US has justified its involvement in Yemen by saying that it is supporting the Saudi government against Iran-backed Houthi rebels. The US has also said that it is concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, which has killed thousands of people and displaced millions more.

Our involvement in Yemen, however, has been more than just a little controversial. Critics have said that the US is supporting a Saudi government that has been accused of human rights abuses (what's new?) and that the US is not doing enough to address the humanitarian aspect of the crisis. The US has also been accused of using the proxy war as a way to advance its own interests in the region.

It would appear that our involvement in Yemen will likely continue for the foreseeable future. The Saudi coalition has shown no signs of ending its intervention, and the US has no interest in leaving the region.

What it keeps coming back to for me though is the lack of coverage by our media. Why the blackout? Why the silence? How many other things are we involved that are being kept from the American people?

I decided to ask Google Bard (an AI like ChatGPT) and did learn some things that made sense. I asked: Why is there so little media coverage of our proxy war against Yemen?

Yemeni protesters after Saudi airstrike
with U.S. planes.

Bard: There are several reasons why there is so little media coverage of the US proxy war against Yemen.

First, the war is complex and difficult to understand. It is a multi-sided conflict with no clear victor. There are also many different factions involved, and it is difficult to keep track of who is fighting who.

Second, the war is taking place in a remote and impoverished country. Yemen is not a major media market, and there is little interest in the war from the general public.

Third, the US government has been reluctant to discuss its involvement in the war. The US has not officially declared war on Yemen, and it has denied that it is involved in a proxy war.

Fourth, the Saudi government has been very effective in censoring news coverage of the war. The Saudi government has blocked access to news websites and social media platforms, and it has arrested journalists who report on the war.

As a result of these factors, there is very little media coverage of the US proxy war against Yemen. The war is largely ignored by the general public, and it is difficult to find accurate information about the conflict. 

* * * 

Click to enlarge. (Creative Commons)

Closing Thoughts: The situation in Yemen is complicated. The media assumption appears to be that Americans don't care all that much. (Never mind that it is hard to care about something you don't know anything about.) Wars are easier when you create a bad guy who can personify the story. Kaiser Bill, Hitler, Saddam, Castro and now Putin. Ramp up the hate machine and people will watch the news more closely, which enables media to obtain higher prices for the advertising space they sell. 

Instead of attempting to inform the public, all too often the media focuses on matters that are easy to explain and can be written about efficiently. When stories are ignored, it's as if they never happened.

A major function of a free press is to shed light on what our leaders -- Federal, State and local -- are doing. When a government fails to walk in the light, the potential for abuses of power can be unlimited.

This is why a free press is included in the very first batch of items protected in the Bill of Rights along with the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Each of these is a pretty profound right. 

Could an AI Ever Fall in Love?

DreamAI generated illustration
based on my B&W "Dreamtiger"

Google has thrown its hat in the ring regarding an AI machine that is learning. Those who have been dabbling with the diverse range of AI applications in this mesmerizing tech space are paying close attention to rapid evolution. For some it is terrifying, for many it is remarkable. 

My grandmother often said that she grew up in the most amazing time in history as she witnessed the development of the automobile, radio, television, computers, manned flight, and ultimately the exploration of outer space. It seems that from a technology point of view our Boomer generation has witnessed some equally remarkable advances. The emergence of the Internet, genetic research, brain mapping and AI are a few of the many things that have caused our heads to spin.

Where they lead is anyone's guess.

It's amazing how much press ChatGPT has gotten the past six months and how many people have dabbled with it. Now, Google has thrown its hat in the right with its own intelligent machine. 

The other day I decided to ask the two AI cousins a question about love. Not human love, but whether an Artificial Intelligence could ever fall in love. Here were their replies.

Do you you believe an AI could ever fall in love?

Google Bard replies:

I don't know if an AI could ever fall in love. Love is a complex emotion that involves many different factors, including chemistry, attraction, and attachment. It's not clear if an AI could experience all of these things.

However, I do think that an AI could develop strong emotional attachments to humans. For example, an AI that is programmed to care for a child could come to love that child in a way that is similar to how a human parent loves their child.

It's also possible that an AI could fall in love with another AI. If two AIs are programmed to interact with each other in a way that simulates human relationships, they could develop feelings for each other that are similar to love.

Ultimately, I think it's impossible to say for sure whether an AI could ever fall in love. It's something that we may not know until we develop AIs that are even more sophisticated than the ones we have today.

Do you you believe an AI could ever fall in love?

The response from ChatGPT:

As an AI language model, I do not have personal beliefs or emotions, so I cannot fall in love or have opinions on whether an AI could fall in love.

However, it is important to note that the concept of "love" is a complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon that encompasses many different aspects, including emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and cultural factors. While AI systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated and capable of performing tasks that were once thought to be exclusively within the realm of human intelligence, they still lack the ability to experience emotions and subjective states of consciousness in the way that humans do.

Therefore, while it is possible to program an AI system to simulate certain aspects of love, such as empathy, compassion, and attachment, it is unlikely that AI will ever truly experience the depth and complexity of human love.

* * * * 

So what do you think? Both made the observation that love is a complex emotion. I found it interesting that Bard explored the idea of the possibility of two intelligent bots potentially falling in love. Could this be an initial longing for love that springs from a certain existential isolation? "Only the lonely know the heartaches I've been through," Roy Orbison once sang. Will an AI experience loneliness one day and have that longing for connection? Last year I started a short story around this theme. The seed for that idea sprang from a short story by Isaac Asimov nearly 70 years ago. 

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comment section below.  

Bridge Over Troubled Water: Interpretations of a Classic

It's easy to see why people keep going back to the music of the Sixties. "Bridge Over Troubled Water" is another of the classics from that time, by Simon & Garfunkel. According to Wikipedia the song features lead vocals by Art Garfunkel and a piano accompaniment influenced by gospel music with a "Wall of Sound"-style production. 

The song received five Grammy Awards (I didn't know one song could win that many, but one of them was for being part of the Grammy-winning album of the year by the same name.)

The instrumentation was produced by L.A.'s famous session musicians known as the Wrecking Crew.  The vocals were recorded in New York.

Inspirations for the song came from some interesting places. The concept of the bridge over deep waters was taken from Claude Jeter's 1959 song "Mary Don't You Weep." Another portion of the melody was drawn from the classic hymn "O Sacred Head Now Wounded." It's no wonder that the song can find a home in both secular settings and religious ones.

In an interview with Rolling Stone, Paul Simon compared the instrumentation here with the Beatles' "Let It Be." I find it interesting that both albums took their name from these two songs, and also that for each group it was their last studio album before their breakups.

While listening to some Roy Orbison songs on YouTube last night I was quite moved by the song's power in this great vocalist's hands. Which led  me to check out some other artist's renditions. Wow! What a great song. Roy, Elvis and Whitney each knock it out of the park. (Forgive me the cliche metaphor, but Paul Simon likes to wear a baseball cap, so please excuse me.) Make time to enjoy these if you can.

Roy Orbison

Elvis gives it his all.

     

Whitney Houston and CeCe Winans... feel the power.

        

And Art, at the Concert in Central Park

For a big finish, here's one more.
Art and Paul at Madison Square Garden.

Reclaiming the Sixties: Boomers, Have You Forgotten?

The Sixties, like all periods of our history, cannot be lumped into one homogenous experience. Yes, some things were shared universally. Our president was assassinated in 1963. Our values were challenged. And our national conscience was scarred by Viet Nam and the Deep South racism made highly visible through the medium of television.

But as time has elapsed the Sixties became more associated with hippies, drugs, psychedelic music, and dropping out… all having the appearance more of faddishness than significance.

The sense of hippiedom being a fad was reinforced by the rapidity with which Seventies youth, to my personal dismay, embraced the Yuppie values of high fashion and glitz, trading in their love beads for suits, ties, BMWs and window seats in corporate America.

As for me, I truly bought into many of the key issues that had been brought to the forefront during the Sixties. Here are some primary values that resonated with me, and which I still hold as valid.

1. Question authority.  In other words, don’t accept everything you hear, wherever you hear it from… including here. Think things through, make your decisions because you have weighed things out for yourself. 

This idea flies directly in the face of the prevailing attitude of those days, “My country, right or wrong,” which is why the “hippie philosophy” generated so much ire. 

Today, it's strange how much alignment there is with the values our current idiocy that our current administration is pushing. How did this happen?

2. There is more to life than the material world. More than anything, the youth of the Sixties were especially misunderstood on this point, and in retrospect misunderstood their parents’ generation. We did not know what it was like to be raised during the Great Depression. When our parents gave us clothes and stocked refrigerators and gifts, they were doing something for us that seemed meaningful. My mother remembers living on navy beans for a while in West Virginia. Grandpa would come home with a hundred pound sack of navy beans. That was all they had, all they could afford. 

On the other hand, so many young people in the Sixties had large homes in suburbia, surrounded by manifold blessings of the good life, and still felt empty. They learned through experience that there was more to life than things. Without love, even a castle is little more than collection of empty rooms. 

And so, there was a reaction against materialism, against “things.” There have been many misunderstandings on this matter, but the message remains true that life is more than gadgets, toys and things. “Love is all you need” is a bit of a simplification, since I can’t pay my heating bill with “love.” But love for my family will sufficiently motivate me to do what it takes to provide for my family, which includes paying those nasty heating bills.

3. The “Beautiful People.”  I remember sitting in the donut shop in Athens, Ohio with some other Ohio University hippie-type students and thinking, “These people are so beautiful, but in the ‘success’ world they would probably all be rejects.” The one fellow’s beard concealed a weak chin, another girl did not fit the Barbie mold, yet each was a person, a human being with special value. To the degree that we determine value based on outward appearance, race, economic earning power or social status, to that very degree we have become impoverished as a culture. 

4. Increasing awareness of the power of the Military-Industrial Complex. Might makes right was not a value of the hippies. Flower Power, which is looked back on as something of a joke today, had at its heart a seed thought: ideas have power, too. Yes, there is evil in the world, and naivete was certainly part of the reason the seeds of Flower Power found such fertile soil in our hearts. But there were real issues being raised as regards to what war and the military-industrial complex was doing to our humanity. On this, there is more to say, but we’ll follow up on that another time.

* * * 

Here’s a song from Bob Dylan’s second album which became somewhat of an anthem for that era. I remember singing it as part of our youth group at First Presbyterian Church in Pluckemin, NJ. Its questions still beg for answers today. 

Blowing In The Wind

How many roads must a man walk down, before they call him a man?
How many seas must a white dove sail, before she sleeps in the sand?
How many times must the cannonballs fly, before they are forever banned?

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind,

the answer is blowing in the wind.

How many years must a mountain exist, before it is washed to the sea?
How many years can some people exist, before they're allowed to be free?
How many times can a man turn his head, and pretend that he just doesn't see?

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind,

the answer is blowing in the wind.

How many times must a man look up, before he can see the sky?

How many ears must one man have, before he can hear people cry?
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind,

the answer is blowing in the wind.

Note the nod to friends, fans and people of Minnesota

Have You Ever Seen Ball Lightning? Pretty Amazing, Eh? Here's What Google's Bard Has To Say About It.

Snapshot from a video showing a ball lightning burst.
It turned out to be created by CGI but is similar to 
what I witnessed here in Duluth's rural  outskirts.

One evening a heavy fog rolled in followed by a thunderstorm. Because of the fog you couldn't see the lightning strikes but the diffused light would flicker through the clouds in the sky. While standing at the front door looking out the window, I saw several bursts of light in the acre of yard to the north of my garage. It was something akin to giant fireflies or flash bulbs popping. Suddenly, directly in front of me, not more than 25 or 30 feet from the house (if you need more accuracy, it was between me and the crabapple tree) there was a spherical burst of lightning, probably 10 to 15 feet in diameter. I'd heard of ball lightning, but had never seen it before... or since. It was quite startliing.

Here are some things I learned about it by asking Bard, Google's new AI bot. What I found most interesting is the statement that there is no definitive answer as to what causes it. Based on my experience, it seemed like the atmosphere had an unusual density that night. 

Ball lightning is a rare and unexplained phenomenon described as luminescent, spherical objects that vary from pea-sized to several meters in diameter. Thought [to be] usually associated with thunderstorms, the observed phenomenon is reported to last considerably longer than the split-second flash of a lightning bolt, and is a phenomenon distinct from St. Elmo's fire.

Though the exact nature of ball lightning is still unknown, there are a number of theories about its cause. Some scientists believe that it may be caused by the interaction of lightning with the Earth's atmosphere, while others believe that it may be caused by a chemical reaction. There is also some evidence that ball lightning may be caused by the release of energy from the Earth's core.

Whatever the cause, ball lightning is a fascinating phenomenon that has captured the imagination of people for centuries. It is a reminder of the power of nature and the mysteries that still remain to be solved.

Here are some of the theories about the cause of ball lightning:

• Lightning strike theory: This theory suggests that ball lightning is caused by a lightning strike that hits the ground and then travels up into the atmosphere. The lightning strike would create a plasma ball that would then float around in the air.
• Chemical reaction theory: This theory suggests that ball lightning is caused by a chemical reaction between two or more elements. The chemical reaction would create a plasma ball that would then float around in the air.
• Earth's core theory: This theory suggests that ball lightning is caused by the release of energy from the Earth's core. The energy from the Earth's core would create a plasma ball that would then float around in the air.

There is still no definitive answer to the question of what causes ball lightning. However, the theories that have been proposed are all plausible and provide a good starting point for further research.

I can't say for sure what caused it, but it was certainly fascinating. Here are some other theories about ball lightning at Wikipedia.

Sources - Learn more

1. encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/ball-lightning
2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning

Is a Radical Geopolitical Realignment Happening Under Our Noses?

Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

Over the past few years I've read a number of articles about the coming demise of America's global supremacy. By way of contrast, about 10 years ago I read a book that argued that America would be the ruling global power for the next 100 years. (I believe it was called The Next 100 Years.) Having read a couple other books about the rapid decline of Great Britain and Western Europe in the first half of the last century, I am reluctant to make those kinds of assumptions. On Wall Street they say, "The Trend is your friend." Until it isn't.

Just out of curiosity I decided to ask ChatGPT what its thoughts were on this matter. I asked, "Is a radical geopolitical realignment underway that is hastening the demise of American global supremacy?"

ChatGPT began with its usual disclaimer. "As an AI language model, I cannot predict the future or provide a definite answer to this question. However, I can provide some insights based on the available information."

Here are the points this AI bot presented.

The international system is always in a state of flux, and it is not uncommon for countries to rise and fall in terms of global power and influence. There is no doubt that the global geopolitical landscape is undergoing significant changes, with emerging powers such as China and India, as well as resurgent powers such as Russia, challenging the traditional dominance of the United States in various ways.

Some experts argue that the current international system is undergoing a "power transition" or a "power shift," in which the relative power of various states is shifting. This shift is driven by a range of factors, including economic growth, military power, technological advancement, and changing patterns of global governance.

However, the extent to which these changes will lead to the "demise of American global supremacy" remains a subject of debate. While the United States faces significant challenges from rising powers, it continues to possess significant economic, military, and cultural power, as well as a powerful network of alliances and partnerships around the world. Additionally, the international system is highly complex, and it is difficult to predict how various factors will interact and shape the future.

In conclusion, while a radical geopolitical realignment is certainly underway, it is difficult to predict its ultimate impact on American global supremacy. The future will depend on a range of factors, including the actions and strategies of various states, as well as broader global trends and developments.

In 2003 Noam Chomsky published a book titled Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance. U.S. hegemony refers to the United States' position as the dominant global power, with significant influence over the international system, including political, economic, and military spheres. Chomsky suggests that we have not achieved or maintained our leadership or dominance in an admirable way. Rather, it is maintained through a combination of coercion, persuasion, and consent.

In Hegemony or Survival Chomsky argues that the socio-economic elite who control the United States have pursued an "Imperial Grand Strategy" since the end of World War II to maintain global dominance. In doing so the US has repeatedly shown a total disregard for democracy and human rights, in stark contrast to the US government's professed support for those values. This policy has been responsible for a range of negative consequences, including increased global instability, the erosion of civil liberties, and the perpetuation of poverty and inequality around the world.

Chomsky lays out numerous examples, which make him a thorn in the side for those who look at our country through rose-colored glasses. Chomsky argues that the United States has pursued this policy of global dominance through a variety of means, including military force, economic coercion, and political manipulation. He also argues that the United States has been able to maintain its dominance through a system of propaganda and control of the media. 

The book also explores the roots of American foreign policy in historical events such as the Cold War and the Vietnam War, and examines the role of corporations and the military-industrial complex in shaping American foreign policy. 

Chomsky concludes that the pursuit of global dominance is not only morally wrong, but also counterproductive, as it creates more enemies and perpetuates the very problems it seeks to solve. He argues that a more cooperative and equitable approach to foreign policy is needed if the world is to address the urgent challenges it faces, including poverty, climate change, and nuclear proliferation.

Getting back to the main question, is a radical geopolitical realignment happening? It is my opinion that the manner in which this country has dealt with the rest of the world has resulted in a loss of respect for the US. As a result, we have made many enemies, and (worse) many of our friends (allies) are weary of having to kowtow to our perpetual demands. If there were an alternative sandbox to play in, they'd leave us in an instant.

Though Pat Buchanan is at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Chomsky, his 1998 book The Great Betrayal made a pointed observation regarding our role in the world. The full title is The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy. When I read this book two decades ago, one key message came through loud and clear. Empires rise and empires fall. And they can fall quickly.

If you know your history, the British Empire was the dominant force in global affairs for 300 years. For three centuries the ruled the high seas and thereby played a significant role in all things related to global commerce. As the 20th century unfolded, this would all change. In fifty years, Britain became a shadow of itself, a former empire gone bust.

Buchanan's book is a warning to American's that it can also happen here, and it can happen faster than you might imagine. 

It's ironic that US newspapers are printing stories about the International Criminal Court having an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for war crimes without mentioning that the same tribunal sought to have US leaders and the CIA arrested for war crimes in the Middle East. Neither Russia or China are part of the ICC, nor is the US.

As for the geopolitical realignment question, when I re-asked the question, ChatGPT's conclusion was yes, "a radical geopolitical realignment is underway which is hastening the demise of American global supremacy." 

Related Link

10 Examples Where the US Has Supported Leaders Who Violate Human Rights

Letter from Ann Druyan and Carl Sagan to Chuck Berry

Nevada Bob Gordon helping Chuck Berry 
strum while doing his famous duckwalk.
(Statue across from Blueberry Hill night 
club where Berry often played.)
 

One of the most memorable scenes in the film Back to the Future --yes, I know there were many, many, many--was when Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) took the stage and played electric guitar with the Black musicians who were performing on prom night. This was the 50s and when he broke into an insanely wild guitar solo, one of the players called his cousin Chuck (Berry) and said, "Hey, you gotta listen to this."  

Meanwhile everyone had stopped dancing and was just staring dumbfounded. Marty pauses to say, "I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it."

Thanks to Hollywood, we now know how Chuck Berry found his inspiration. 

In the year following this film the Voyager interstellar spacecraft was sent off to go where no man (or woman) has gone before. On board the Voyager were a variety of items from Earth to export to the stars. One of these was Chuck Berry's Johnny B. Goode.*

Here's the letter that was sent to Mr. Berry from Cornell University.

15 October 1986

Mr. Chuck Berry
c/o Mr. Nick Miranda
12825 Four Winds Farm Drive
St. Louis, MO 63131

When they tell you your music will live forever, you can usually be sure they're exaggerating. But Johnny B. Goode is on the Voyager interstellar records attached to NASA's Voyager spacecraft now two billion miles from Earth and bound for the stars. These records will last a billion years or more.

Happy 60th birthday, with our admiration for the music you have given to this world...

Go Johnny, go.

Ann Druyan

Carl Sagan

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY 

On behalf of the 

Voyager Interstellar 

Record Committee

The abandoned Chuck Berry house at 3137 Whittier in St. Louis

Photos courtesy Gary Firstenberg

"Turning Negatives Into Positives"

*Trivia: I was told that Chuck Berry actually took the riff for Johnny B. Goode from Louis Jordan's "Ain't That Just Like A Woman." Carl Hogan' guitar intro is note-for-note used by Berry years later.