Barry Saks

California State Sen. Lena Gonzalez hosted a Telephone Town Hall, Friday, April 10, featuring Congressman Alan Lowenthal and George Warner of Legal Aid at Work on unemployment benefits and on the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security) Act.

Gonzalez, who represents the 33^rd California Senatorial District, emceed.

Warner, who is a fellow with the Wage Protection Program at Legal Aid at Work, said people should apply by fax, mail or online for unemployment insurance even if they are unsure whether they qualify.  He encouraged people to apply online and said it would take at least 21 days from applying to get their benefits. 

Warner, who graduated from Stanford Law School in 2017, according to the Legal Aid at Work website, said for those who do not qualify for unemployment, they may qualify for the new federal program that is administered by the states, the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance.

He said, “If you’re still employed and you or a family member is sick or needs preventive care, including if a public authority or doctor has recommended self-isolation or quarantine, you can use paid sick leave.  Every worker in California should have access to at least three paid sick-days a year, local laws may provide more, including if you work in Los Angeles or a hotel worker in Long Beach.”

“Additionally, effective April 1, federal law took effect, if you work for a company of less than 500 employees, you’re eligible for an additional 80 hours or 10 days of paid sick leave for issues related to the coronavirus.  These paid sick days are paid by your employer but are reimbursed by the federal government…There is no cost to your employer for those additional sick days and you can use those federal-paid sick days if you can’t work, because you are sick, because a family member is sick or because you are taking care of a child who is home from school.”

Congressman Alan Lowenthal, who represents the 47^th Congressional District, discussing the $2 trillion CARES Act, said, “In the bill were $300 billion for direct cash payments to individuals, which means that if you filed taxes either in 2018 or in 2019 or if you are on Social Security and we know where you live that we’ve been sending payments…Those that have direct deposits will receive their checks first.  Those that receive their checks either from the IRS or from Social Security that are mailed they will be probably sent out within the next two weeks.

“You are going to get $1200, an individual, and if you earned up to $75,000 and then it’s taxed at $99,000.  So, if you earned more $99,000, you will not receive a check… If you are a family of four (two adults, two children), each spouse will get $1200 and each child will $500 for a total of about $3400.” 

The congressman added the IRS will be setting up a web-based portal to claim payments for those who have not filed taxes and IRS does not have either direct deposit information or mailing information; he stated the IRS would not contact a possible recipient and if people did not receive their money, people must use the portal.

The congressman said about $375 billion were allocated for small businesses in grants.  One is emergency grants of $10,000 to a small business; he said these must be paid back; according to National Public Radio, these are “to cover immediate operating costs.”  A second is what’s called the “Paycheck Protection Program,” which are forgivable, if “75 percent or more is used to keep current employees on the payroll for the next eight weeks.”  He added this program’s funding is being spent fast with $100 billion gone in the first four days of the $350 billion allocated and that these are first come, first served loans.”

The state senator said, “The state legislature…about three weeks ago enacted emergency funds for $1.1 billion in fact to ensure that we tackled local government issues relative to homeless services, our seniors, ensuring our health system service was upgraded, all related to Covid-19.  She added 2 million people in California have applied for unemployment insurance.

People may telephone Legal Aid at Work at 415-404-9093 to make an appointment and may visit its at website at https://legalaidatwork.org/unemployment/.

People wishing to apply for unemployment insurance online, they should go to https://www.edd.ca.gov/Unemployment/UI_Online_Registration.htm or wishing more information on pandemic unemployment assistance, they should go to https://edd.ca.gov/about_edd/coronavirus-2019/pandemic-unemployment-assistance.htm.

People may hear the Telephone Town Hall below.

California State Senator Lena Gonzalez held her second Telephone Town Hall, which included Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell, Congressman Alan Lowenthal and George Warner of Legal Aid at Work on Friday, April 10, on unemployment benefits and the $2 trillion CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security) Act.

The entire Telephone Town Hall including questions and answers, is available below.

Yesterday, Wednesday, April 8, I posted my story based on Professor Yousef Baker of California State University Long Beach talk to the Long Beach Area Peace Network.

For those of you who read the story, please note that there is a one-day difference for some dates between Dec. 27 and Jan. 8.  I’ve used the dates in the New York Times to be consistent.  Between New York City and Tehran, there is an eight and half-hour difference.  For example, when it’s midnight in New York, it’s 8:30 p.m. in Tehran.  

His talk is below.

Yousef Baker, who is an expert on Iran and Iraq, spoke to the Long Beach Area Peace Network, on Thursday, Jan. 16, providing a brief history of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known as the Iran nuclear deal followed by his thoughts on the consequences on the Iraqi uprising after the U.S. assassinated Qassim Suleimani. 

Baker, who is an assistant professor at California State University at Long Beach, said while each U.S. administration differed regarding tactics toward Iran, the stated policy was and still is regime change.  He pointed out from the perspective of the Iranians, they consider themselves at war and view themselves under “existential threat.”  Consequently, he said Iran’s regional policy has been partially shaped by or in response to the U.S. policy.

The professor, who received his doctorate in sociology in 2014 from the University of California at Santa Barbara and whose thesis “Global Capitalism and Political Control: Investigating the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq,” said while the George W. Bush administration spoke a lot about “Iran’s supposed nuclear ambitions,” it refused to meet or speak with the Iranian government while the Europeans and others met regularly with the Iranian government. 

Comparing the George W. Bush to the Clinton administration, he added, “If you remember the Bush administration ramped up its threats against Iran after the Clinton administration had …worked to kind of cool the waters a bit.”

Regarding the Obama administration, the professor said, by the second term, as part of its general plan of moving away from the Middle East and towards the Asia-Pacific region, it wanted “to fix” the issue of the Iran nuclear program, so it entered into the negotiations. 

The United States signed onto the Iran nuclear deal, on July, 14, 2015, along with China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany and Iran.  However, the Saudis and the Israelis opposed the deal, according to Baker. 

The professor said, in response to opposition from the Saudis, the U.S. told the Saudis if they “put up with it,” in return the U.S. would allow the Saudis “to have the war…with Yemen and we (U.S.) will support the war.”

Baker said the Obama administration’s response to the Israeli opposition was it “pushed hard against Netanyahu’s objection to the deal.”  However, “(i)n return, the Obama administration increased the level of military aid to Israel at the time.”

According to Baker, the U.S. began to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal on Oct.13, 2017 and completed the withdrawal by May 8, 2018.  With the withdrawal from the agreement, the Trump administration began the campaign ‘maximum pressure,’ which Baker characterized as “everything short of…actual physical assault or physical violence.”  The campaign includes banning travel for Iranians to the U.S. along with other Muslim countries, imposing “draconian sanctions on the Iranian economy,” which from his example, the Iranian currency lost 70 percent of its value.  The campaign includes “putting pressure on anyone doing business with Iran and (it) tried to cut off Iranian oil sales to other countries.”  In the case of India, Baker said, “So, Americans imposed or threatened to impose sanctions on India…one of the main consumers of Iranian oil.” And added that it was a “more drastic turn of events” because the U.S. was going to sanction other countries having independent relations with Iran. 

The professor said the U.S. campaign of ‘maximum pressure’ also included coordinated cyber-attacks on Iran and increased the “discursive narrative” relying on “old racist tropes.”  He said the U.S. “prodded the Iran’s military… hover(ing) closer and closer to Iranian waters, to borders” baiting the Iranian military to respond to justify U.S. retaliation. 

The professor recounted the tit-for-tat attacks between the Iranian and U.S. militaries of Dec. 27, 29, 31, Jan. 3 and Jan. 8.  According to the New York Times, the Iranian military, on Dec. 27, killed an American contractor at an Iraqi military base near the city of Kirkuk; the U.S. responded, on Dec. 29, with airstrikes on three Iranian-backed militias in Iran and on two in Syria and the Iranian-backed militias responded by storming the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Iraq; the U.S. military again, on Dec. 31, attacked Iranian-backed militias; the U.S., on Jan. 3, assassinated by drone Suleimani; Iran, on Jan. 8, fired more than 20 ballistic missiles at two bases, where U.S. troops were stationed.

Baker pointed out that the Iranian-backed militias were able to surround the embassy in the Green Zone, which is about four square miles in central Baghdad under tight security, because “the supporters of these militias of these Popular Mobilization Units, of course, have close connections to the Iraqi-political elites, some the Iraqi political parties…Those  people were the ones that kind of allowed them to come in.”

Speculating on the Jan. 8 events, the professor said, “When the Iranians respond, they let the Iraqis know and when they let the Iraqi know, they do so, knowing that the Iraqis are going to tell the Americans.  So, that it was a carefully orchestrated attack, where the Iranians could say we have the capacity and capability to reach you and your forces but we’re not going to shoot you…That was kind of their thinking.”

The professor reminded the audience that since October 2019 anti-government protesters were in the streets, in the major cities, including in the south of the country where some of the most ardent supporters of the Iraqi elites were; by December, “the Iraqi politicians didn’t know what to do” and were in a “crisis of legitimacy.”

The New York Times reported, on Nov. 4, 2019, “more than 200,000 Iraqis marched in Baghdad, raging against the Iraqi government and a foreign occupier­­­­­­ — not the United States this time, but Iran.”  The same story also said, “It is a struggle, above all, between those who have profited handsomely since the American invasion toppled Saddam Hussein, and those who are struggling to get by and look on with fury as the political parties, some with ties to Iran, distribute payoffs to the well connected.”

According to the professor, the protesters were not only protesting the foreign intervention of the Iranians, and corruption, but also the lack of civilian infrastructure, meaning electricity, water and sewage.  

However, because of the assassination, the Iraqi political landscape changed.  The professor added, “But as a result of this assassination now, the United States has intervened and put itself, once again,…at the forefront of what’s happening in Iraq and it has made the obstacles that the Iraqi protesters, the Iraqi uprising had, in terms of what they wanted to do, about changing their government and their elites.  It made them completely secondary and made that problem even worse, because now what the Iraqis have … to venture into… a debate where they have to pick sides between the Americans or the Iranians.  Even though they have been adamant that what they have been actually fighting for is independence from intervention from Iran and the U.S. and the Israelis and the Saudis and the Turks….Once again, the United States and what it is attempting to do in the region become the central focus rather than this nascent democratic movement that had this possibility for an opening or change in Iraq.”

According to the Facebook page of the Long Beach Area Peace Network, it’s “a grassroots network of community organizations and individuals who are dedicated to serving the cause of world peace at home and abroad” and that it “also support(s) local and national organizations that fight for social, economic, and environmental justice.”

People who heard Professor Baker and read my story may have noticed a one-day difference for some dates between Dec. 27 and Jan. 8.  I’ve used the dates in the New York Times to be consistent.  Between New York City and Tehran, there is an eight and half-hour difference.  For example, when it’s midnight in New York, it’s 8:30 p.m. in Tehran.  

Almonds and apples

Avocados and artichokes

Bagels, bacon, bananas and basil

Burgers, bourbon, broccoli and bread

Barb-e-cued black beans and blueberries

Parsley, pecans, peppers, pesto and potatoes

The California Democratic Party finished its three-day convention in Long Beach on Sunday, Nov. 17 of 2019, which included endorsing candidates and adopting a platform only after an impassioned floor debate on a platform amendment regarding Israel and Palestine.

A convention rule states if an amendment garners at least 300 signatures, it qualifies for a debate on the convention floor. 

The amendment failed on the convention floor, after a six-minute debate with both sides getting equal time before the vote.  The amendment stated the party’s support for “a solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict negotiated by the parties that guarantees equality, security and democracy for all, no matter what the final settlement regarding states and borders.”  It also stated the party’s opposition to “any unilateral annexation of territory” and the party’s support for “right of all those who were forced from their homes to return to their homelands and receive compensation for their losses.”

The 2020 platform on Israel and Palestine, in part, continues to call Israel a “democratic Jewish state” and call for a “two-state solution,” meaning a separate state for Jews and a separate state for Palestinians.

Delegates David Mandel and Yassar Dahbour argued on the convention floor for the amendment.  Mandel, who wrote the amendment, said as an Israeli he fought against the occupation for ten years, while witnessing the acceleration of illegal settlements.  He added, “Our platform should not rule out any solution, but it should not attempt to dictate how many states or the nature of those states.  Instead, it should affirm the values of equality, human rights and international law which must be the foundation of any just peace.  Sadly, however, the democratic values we espouse…too often evaporate when it comes to the Palestinians.”

On Friday, Mandel acknowledged that a compromise was reached in which anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of Israel) language was removed from the platform.

Dahbour told his family’s history of forced migration in 1948 from Israel, first to a refugee camp in Lebanon, then to Syria.  He added because of the civil war in Syria, his extended family is spread among 16 countries on three continents.  In closing, Dahbour said, “When we defend the rights of our Jewish brother(s) and sisters against anti-Semitism, we (should) also stand by the Palestinians to end their oppression and occupation…Please vote yes…to support my right to exist.”

California State 43^rd District Assemblywoman Laura Friedman argued against the amendment. The Assemblywoman said she sits on the board of the legislative progressive caucus.  Friedman, like Dahbour, told the audience some of her family’s history.  The Assemblywoman said she comes from a family with a long history progressive Jewish activism supporting civil and human rights.  She said, “My grandfather came to this country as a refugee between the wars, fleeing the deadly pogrom in Poland…His family, who stayed in Poland, were decimated during the Holocaust, with only about 5 percent of them surviving.  When they tried to flee, they were rejected from every nation on earth.  It wasn’t until the other countries of the world decided to send Jewish refugees to Israel did he have a place to call home.”  Friedman added she told her family’s story to explain “why the existence of the state of Israel is so important to so many American Jews.”  At the end, she said the amendment makes “Jews feel attacked and marginalized in the Democratic Party.”

California State District 11 Senator Scott Weiner also spoke against the amendment.  Weiner said, “This amendment….eliminates the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine co-existing and it advocates for a one-state solution of Palestine.  The State Senator, echoing Friedman, reminded the delegates six million Jews were exterminated during the Jewish holocaust.

Before Sunday’s floor debate, Lisa Armony––Director of the Rose Project of the Jewish Federation and Family Services, Orange County––was passing out a flyer advocating against the amendment.  Armony said, “(F)undamentally at its core the BDS movement is anti-Semitic…because BDS calls for the elimination of the state of Israel.”

No verbiage on  the of the website of the BDS movement calls for the elimination of Israel.  However, it does characterize Israel as “a settler-colonial state” and makes an analogy with the apartheid of South Africa.  It does urge “nonviolent pressure on Israel until it complies with international law by meeting the three demands.”  The first is “(e)nding its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall (sic).”  The second is “(r)ecognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality.” And, the third is “(r)especting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.”

The day before, Progressive Zionists of California held a rally, called “Facing Anti-Semitism, a Solidarity Rally” outside in a public space in front of the convention center.

Mathew Finkelstein, who emceed, near the beginning of the rally, told the audience the circumstances that prompted him, Susan George and others to form PZC within the California Democratic Party.  Finkelstein said, “(In) 2017,….we attended the Progressive Caucus Rally…at the California Democratic Party and for a half an hour, the speakers spoke about why Israel is an evil, racist and apartheid state worthy of being singled out by the BDS movement as opposed to any other country on the planet.  As a Jewish person, I felt that my organic identity was not welcomed in many progressive spaces here in the California Democratic Party…We have since decided to organize with a group of our friends a truly progressive response to the problem of leftist anti-Semitism, one that is both progressive and Zionist.”    

The elected officials, who spoke at the rally were ­Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, California State Senator Scott Weiner, Assemblywoman Rebecca Baur-Kahan and Los Angeles City Controller Ron Galperin­.