It is with a broken heart that we announce the passing of our beloved husband, father, grandfather and brother, Pablo Ortiz, Jr. has passed away. Pablo left this world on February 24, 2026, in Loxahatchee, Florida. He was 63 years old. He was born on January 15, 1963 in Eagle Pass, Texas to the his parents, Pablo and Paula Lopez Ortiz. Pablo was a kind, loving man who provided for his family. He was of the Catholic Faith. Pablo will be dearly missed by his entire family and close friends.
Pablo leaves fond memories with his loving wife, Ofelia M. Ortiz, his children; Richard Ortiz, Jacqueline Ofelia Ortiz, Evelyn Ortiz, Sandy Marie Ortiz, Bianca Alexsiya Ortiz, his sons-in-law; Alberto Valdez, Brian Leon, Noe Gonzalez, Kentron Fowler, his daughter-in-law; Yajaira Duarte, his adorable grandchildren; Andre Ortiz, Jazlynn Ortiz, Brandon Castro, Selina Velazquez, Maircella Vazquez, Brenda Johnson, Richard Ortiz, Kenneth Fowler, Kentana Fowler, Alberto Valdez, Jr, Analee Valdez, Elias Valdez, his brothers and sisters; Evaristo Ortiz, Maria de Jesus Gusman, Maria de Rosario Segura along with many extended family members and friends.
Pablo's life will be celebrated on Tuesday, March 3, 2026, with a Mass of Christian Burial at 11:00 a.m. at St. Margaret Catholic Church in Clewiston. Visitation for Pablo will be held from 6-8 p.m. on Monday, March 2, 2026, at Akin-Davis Funeral Home in Clewiston. Pablo will be laid to rest next to his daughter Brenda Ortiz in Ridgelawn Cemetery.
Pablo was entrusted to the caring staff of Akin-Davis Funeral Home - Clewiston.
Saturday, February 28, 2026
Complex Wars In Gulf States Brings U.S. Into War
The complexity of relationships among Gulf monarchy states has led to continuing wars, conflicts with up to hundreds of thousands of casualties, and funding of armed violent groups to promote the interests of the various states.
Which Gulf states have backed armed groups abroad?
Analyses of proxy wars and regional interventions identify multiple Gulf monarchies and Iran as backing or arming non‑state or semi‑state armed actors in other countries (often alongside Turkey, Western states, and others)
The GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) states are a political and economic union of six Arab nations bordering the Persian Gulf: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Established in 1981, this bloc focuses on regional cooperation, security, and economic development.
Saudi Arabia
Led or co‑led coalitions and backed armed factions in Yemen and Syria, among other conflicts, as part of broader regional rivalry, particularly with Iran.
In Sudan, Saudi Arabia has been aligned with the regular Sudanese Armed Forces, providing political and some military support in a war where both sides commit abuses.
United Arab Emirates (UAE)
Supported and armed local militias and political factions in Yemen, southern Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Ethiopia (e.g., drone support and training to Ethiopian forces), and has been repeatedly reported as supplying weapons to Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) despite mediation efforts.
Has built or used military outposts and bases in Yemen, Eritrea, Somalia, Chad, Libya, and Egypt, enabling projection of force through partners and proxies.
Qatar
Along with Saudi Arabia, Qatar was implicated in financial and material support to various Syrian opposition and Islamist factions in the early and mid‑years of the Syrian civil war, with charitable and private channels playing a role; all four key GCC players (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE) later tightened counter‑terror financing rules under international pressure.
Has also provided financial support to Sudanese actors and been part of broader Gulf competition for influence there.
Kuwait and other GCC states
Kuwait has been cited as a jurisdiction from which private fundraising for extremist groups in Syria and Iraq originated, prompting new charity regulations and enforcement mechanisms.
Other GCC members (e.g., Bahrain) have played smaller but sometimes supportive roles in the broader Saudi‑ and UAE‑led regional alignments.
Iran (not a GCC member but a key Gulf actor)
Provides extensive support (financing, arms, training) to non‑state armed groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, various militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthi movement in Yemen, contributing to prolonged conflicts and cross‑border attacks.
Because these interventions usually occur within complex multi‑sided wars, responsibility is shared with local actors and other external powers (e.g., Turkey, the U.S., Russia, European states), and most sources describe “Gulf‑backed” or “Iran‑backed” groups as one part of a larger conflict system.
Casualties linked to these proxy conflicts (rough orders of magnitude)
No authoritative dataset attributes a precise casualty count to each state’s funding or arms shipments; instead, we have total deaths in specific wars where Gulf or Iranian backing has been significant.
Sudan (RSF vs Sudanese Armed Forces, with UAE, Saudi, Egypt, Qatar, Iran involved to varying degrees)
ACLED data cited in 2025 reported about 28,700 fatalities, including over 7,500 civilians killed in direct attacks, with other estimates (BBC) putting total deaths potentially as high as 150,000.
Reports argue Emirati arms and support to the RSF, and Saudi support to the army, have “exacerbated” and prolonged the conflict, but they share responsibility with local commanders and other external backers.
Yemen (Saudi‑ and UAE‑led coalition vs Houthis, with Iran backing Houthis)
The Yemen war is widely described as a major proxy confrontation between Saudi Arabia/UAE and Iran, with each side supporting local armed groups.
One 2024 review of proxy wars notes Yemen as among the “most devastating” current proxy wars, with “around 100,000 killed in the last five years of war” and enormous humanitarian fallout, though this figure includes all sides and does not isolate deaths strictly from Gulf or Iranian support.
Syria (Saudi, Qatar, UAE, Iran, Turkey, U.S., Russia all backing different factions)
The Syrian civil war, a textbook multi‑state proxy battleground, has produced enormous human costs. The Syria Observatory for Human Rights reported about 560,000 deaths over seven years from 2011–2018, many civilian.
A policy paper on GCC foreign assistance notes Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE were all implicated in financing extremist networks in Syria after 2011, even as they later tightened controls.
Horn of Africa and neighboring conflicts (Ethiopia/Tigray, Somalia, Libya, etc.)
The UAE has been cited as supplying drones and training to the Ethiopian government during the Tigray conflict, and supporting various factions in Libya and Somalia, contributing to battle outcomes and prolongation of wars, though casualty counts are usually reported at the conflict level, not broken down by external patron.
Because these wars feature overlapping backers and complex local dynamics, credible researchers warn against simple “X state caused Y deaths” statements; rather, Gulf and Iranian support often enables and intensifies conflicts that already exist, significantly raising lethality and duration, but in conjunction with many other actors.
Why precise attribution is difficult
Casualty databases (ACLED, Syria Observatory, UN, etc.) track who was killed, where, and by which armed actor, not which foreign state financed which bullet or missile.
Funding is often covert or deniable, routed through charities, intelligence services, or private intermediaries, making quantitative links between specific financial flows and specific deaths highly uncertain.
Many conflicts (Yemen, Syria, Sudan) have multiple foreign backers on each side, plus local war economies, so responsibility is diffuse and political narratives about blame are contested.tcf+1
Saudi Arabia
Led or co‑led coalitions and backed armed factions in Yemen and Syria, among other conflicts, as part of broader regional rivalry, particularly with Iran.
In Sudan, Saudi Arabia has been aligned with the regular Sudanese Armed Forces, providing political and some military support in a war where both sides commit abuses.
United Arab Emirates (UAE)
Supported and armed local militias and political factions in Yemen, southern Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Ethiopia (e.g., drone support and training to Ethiopian forces), and has been repeatedly reported as supplying weapons to Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) despite mediation efforts.
Has built or used military outposts and bases in Yemen, Eritrea, Somalia, Chad, Libya, and Egypt, enabling projection of force through partners and proxies.
Qatar
Along with Saudi Arabia, Qatar was implicated in financial and material support to various Syrian opposition and Islamist factions in the early and mid‑years of the Syrian civil war, with charitable and private channels playing a role; all four key GCC players (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE) later tightened counter‑terror financing rules under international pressure.
Has also provided financial support to Sudanese actors and been part of broader Gulf competition for influence there.
Kuwait and other GCC states
Kuwait has been cited as a jurisdiction from which private fundraising for extremist groups in Syria and Iraq originated, prompting new charity regulations and enforcement mechanisms.
Other GCC members (e.g., Bahrain) have played smaller but sometimes supportive roles in the broader Saudi‑ and UAE‑led regional alignments.
Iran (not a GCC member but a key Gulf actor)
Provides extensive support (financing, arms, training) to non‑state armed groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, various militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthi movement in Yemen, contributing to prolonged conflicts and cross‑border attacks.
Because these interventions usually occur within complex multi‑sided wars, responsibility is shared with local actors and other external powers (e.g., Turkey, the U.S., Russia, European states), and most sources describe “Gulf‑backed” or “Iran‑backed” groups as one part of a larger conflict system.
Casualties linked to these proxy conflicts (rough orders of magnitude)
No authoritative dataset attributes a precise casualty count to each state’s funding or arms shipments; instead, we have total deaths in specific wars where Gulf or Iranian backing has been significant.
Sudan (RSF vs Sudanese Armed Forces, with UAE, Saudi, Egypt, Qatar, Iran involved to varying degrees)
ACLED data cited in 2025 reported about 28,700 fatalities, including over 7,500 civilians killed in direct attacks, with other estimates (BBC) putting total deaths potentially as high as 150,000.
Reports argue Emirati arms and support to the RSF, and Saudi support to the army, have “exacerbated” and prolonged the conflict, but they share responsibility with local commanders and other external backers.
Yemen (Saudi‑ and UAE‑led coalition vs Houthis, with Iran backing Houthis)
The Yemen war is widely described as a major proxy confrontation between Saudi Arabia/UAE and Iran, with each side supporting local armed groups.
One 2024 review of proxy wars notes Yemen as among the “most devastating” current proxy wars, with “around 100,000 killed in the last five years of war” and enormous humanitarian fallout, though this figure includes all sides and does not isolate deaths strictly from Gulf or Iranian support.
Syria (Saudi, Qatar, UAE, Iran, Turkey, U.S., Russia all backing different factions)
The Syrian civil war, a textbook multi‑state proxy battleground, has produced enormous human costs. The Syria Observatory for Human Rights reported about 560,000 deaths over seven years from 2011–2018, many civilian.
A policy paper on GCC foreign assistance notes Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE were all implicated in financing extremist networks in Syria after 2011, even as they later tightened controls.
Horn of Africa and neighboring conflicts (Ethiopia/Tigray, Somalia, Libya, etc.)
The UAE has been cited as supplying drones and training to the Ethiopian government during the Tigray conflict, and supporting various factions in Libya and Somalia, contributing to battle outcomes and prolongation of wars, though casualty counts are usually reported at the conflict level, not broken down by external patron.
Because these wars feature overlapping backers and complex local dynamics, credible researchers warn against simple “X state caused Y deaths” statements; rather, Gulf and Iranian support often enables and intensifies conflicts that already exist, significantly raising lethality and duration, but in conjunction with many other actors.
Why precise attribution is difficult
Casualty databases (ACLED, Syria Observatory, UN, etc.) track who was killed, where, and by which armed actor, not which foreign state financed which bullet or missile.
Funding is often covert or deniable, routed through charities, intelligence services, or private intermediaries, making quantitative links between specific financial flows and specific deaths highly uncertain.
Many conflicts (Yemen, Syria, Sudan) have multiple foreign backers on each side, plus local war economies, so responsibility is diffuse and political narratives about blame are contested.tcf+1
Takeaway
Multiple Gulf monarchies (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, among others) and Iran have, at various times, funded or armed violent groups or partner forces in other countries, especially in Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and parts of the Horn of Africa.
These proxy involvements are associated with wars that have caused tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of deaths each, but current evidence does not support a precise, state‑by‑state casualty ledger; instead, their role is best understood as part of broader proxy war systems that massively increase human costs.
Multiple Gulf monarchies (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, among others) and Iran have, at various times, funded or armed violent groups or partner forces in other countries, especially in Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and parts of the Horn of Africa.
These proxy involvements are associated with wars that have caused tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of deaths each, but current evidence does not support a precise, state‑by‑state casualty ledger; instead, their role is best understood as part of broader proxy war systems that massively increase human costs.
Source: Perplexity.ai was sourced for the above material
Friday, February 27, 2026
Road Closing Alert - State Road 29
Florida Highway Patrol State Troopers will be closing State Road 29 from Interstate 75 to US 41 on Saturday, February 28, 2026, from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
ONLY local traffic (residents on SR-29) that have not been evacuated will be permitted to enter the area.
Florida Forestry Services will be conducting burns along the roadway in preparation of shifting winds in days to come.
State Troopers will continue to monitor the visibility conditions along the Interstate 75 corridor.
Additional updates will be provided as needed.
ONLY local traffic (residents on SR-29) that have not been evacuated will be permitted to enter the area.
Florida Forestry Services will be conducting burns along the roadway in preparation of shifting winds in days to come.
State Troopers will continue to monitor the visibility conditions along the Interstate 75 corridor.
Additional updates will be provided as needed.
Nuclear Treaties - Will They Hold Up in Our Changing Political World?
There are several major international agreements whose core purpose is to limit the spread, testing, and potential use of nuclear weapons, though none can absolutely guarantee non‑use as will be noted below.
The last nuclear test took place in North Korea on September 3, 2017. The previous longest period without a detonation was between May 30, 1998, when Pakistan conducted its last test, and October 9, 2006, when North Korea conducted its first. The 2017 nuclear test caused a 6.3 magnitude earthquake in Punggye village, which resulted in the collapse of several civilian buildings.
The Core global treaties
Treaty on the Non‑Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT): In force since 1970 with more than 190 parties, it is the central global agreement.
Recognizes five nuclear‑weapon states (U.S., Russia, U.K., France, China).
Requires all other members not to acquire nuclear weapons.
Commits nuclear states to pursue negotiations toward disarmament.
Places non‑nuclear states under international safeguards to ensure nuclear energy is used only for peaceful purposes.
Comprehensive Nuclear‑Test‑Ban Treaty (CTBT): Opened for signature in 1996, it bans all nuclear test explosions in any environment, aiming to freeze qualitative improvement and signal political commitment against nuclear use, though it has not yet formally entered into force because some key states have not ratified it.
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW): Entered into force in 2021. It completely bans development, possession, deployment, and use or threat of use of nuclear weapons for its parties; it is the first treaty to categorically outlaw nuclear weapons as a class of arms. Nuclear‑armed states, however, have not joined.disarmament.unoda+1
Nuclear‑weapon‑free zones
Several regional treaties declare whole regions free of nuclear weapons and include negative security assurances (promises by nuclear states not to use or threaten nuclear weapons against those regions), for example:
Treaty of Tlatelolco (Latin America and the Caribbean)
Treaty of Rarotonga (South Pacific)
Treaty of Bangkok (Southeast Asia)
Treaty of Pelindaba (Africa)
Treaty of Semipalatinsk (Central Asia)
But, taken together, they create legal, political, and verification frameworks that:
Restrain the number and spread of nuclear weapons.
Make testing and preparations for use more visible.
Strengthen global norms that nuclear use would be illegitimate and catastrophic.
The Core global treaties
Treaty on the Non‑Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT): In force since 1970 with more than 190 parties, it is the central global agreement.
Recognizes five nuclear‑weapon states (U.S., Russia, U.K., France, China).
Requires all other members not to acquire nuclear weapons.
Commits nuclear states to pursue negotiations toward disarmament.
Places non‑nuclear states under international safeguards to ensure nuclear energy is used only for peaceful purposes.
Comprehensive Nuclear‑Test‑Ban Treaty (CTBT): Opened for signature in 1996, it bans all nuclear test explosions in any environment, aiming to freeze qualitative improvement and signal political commitment against nuclear use, though it has not yet formally entered into force because some key states have not ratified it.
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW): Entered into force in 2021. It completely bans development, possession, deployment, and use or threat of use of nuclear weapons for its parties; it is the first treaty to categorically outlaw nuclear weapons as a class of arms. Nuclear‑armed states, however, have not joined.disarmament.unoda+1
Bilateral arms‑control treaties (mainly U.S.–Russia)
Agreements such as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START/New START) and the now‑collapsed INF Treaty limited the number and types of deployed strategic nuclear weapons and banned entire classes of missiles, with verification measures to reduce the risk of sudden escalation or large‑scale use.
Agreements such as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START/New START) and the now‑collapsed INF Treaty limited the number and types of deployed strategic nuclear weapons and banned entire classes of missiles, with verification measures to reduce the risk of sudden escalation or large‑scale use.
Nuclear‑weapon‑free zones
Several regional treaties declare whole regions free of nuclear weapons and include negative security assurances (promises by nuclear states not to use or threaten nuclear weapons against those regions), for example:
Treaty of Tlatelolco (Latin America and the Caribbean)
Treaty of Rarotonga (South Pacific)
Treaty of Bangkok (Southeast Asia)
Treaty of Pelindaba (Africa)
Treaty of Semipalatinsk (Central Asia)
These aim to reduce the chance of nuclear weapons being stationed or used in those regions. None of these agreements can absolutely prevent nuclear use, especially because some nuclear‑armed states are outside key treaties or have left certain agreements.
But, taken together, they create legal, political, and verification frameworks that:
Restrain the number and spread of nuclear weapons.
Make testing and preparations for use more visible.
Strengthen global norms that nuclear use would be illegitimate and catastrophic.
How To Tell If You May Have Hearing Loss - World Hearing Day March 3
VGS What are the early signs of hearing loss? Can it be cured? And what can you do to protect your hearing? Hello and welcome to Science in 5. I am Vismita Gupta-Smith. We are talking to Dr Shelly Chadha, today. Welcome, Shelly. Let's get started with what are the early signs of hearing loss?
SC Hi Vismita. Well, perhaps one of the earliest indications that you could have a hearing loss is when you arenot able to make out very clearly what people are saying in a noisy place like a restaurant. If you go withfriends and you have to keep asking them to repeat themselves because of the background noise and you canmake out clearly, then that is when you should suspect that you could have hearing loss.
Also, if you have to frequently turn up the volume on your television or your radio or listening device thatyou are listening to music on, for example.
Another indication is if people are telling you that you speak loudly, that could also be an indication that youare developing hearing loss.
And finally, if you have a persistent ringing or buzzing sound in your ear, what is called tinnitus. Tinnituscould be one of the first indications that you have a hearing loss.
So if you have any of these signs, it's important to take note of them and to get your hearing checked as soon as possible.
You could also check your hearing yourself, do an initial check using WHO's free app, which is called“hearWHO". So you can also use that app to do a first screening and see if you need to geta hearing test done.
VGS Shelly, can hearing loss be cured?
SC Vismita, there are some causes of hearing loss that can be cured. For example, if you have wax obstructing in your ear making you feel a little blocked or if you have an ear infection or if the ear drum ruptures, these are things which can be treated by medicines or by surgery, but a lot of hearing loss cannot really be cured.What can be done is that people with hearing loss can communicate better through the use of devices likehearing aids and cochlear implants.
What's important for these interventions to be effective is that they should be initiated at the earliest possible.And for that, it's important that we get our hearing checked regularly and we watch for those signs of hearing loss that I already mentioned earlier.
VGS So, Shelly, talk to us about the steps we can take every day to protect our hearing.
SC I'd like to start with what you should not do. So firstly, don't use anything - any Q-tips, cotton buds, pins,sticks to clean your ears. The ear is a self-cleaning organ. It doesn't need to be helped with these. And actually they can lead to infection. That can lead to obstruction. They can lead to rupture of the ear drum. What you should also not do is: if you have a ear problem to use home remedies like putting oil into the ear.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)