Los Angeles Times - 02.08.2019

A1 0 FRIDAY, AUGUST 2, 2019 LATIMES.COM/OPINION

OPINION

EDITORIALS

---

LETTERS

---

HOW TO WRITE TO US

Please send letters to

[email protected]. For

submission guidelines, see

latimes.com/letters or call

1-800-LA TIMES, ext. 74511.

T

he Trump administrationim-
posed sanctions this week on
Iranian Foreign Minister Mo-
hammad Javad Zariffor doing
his job. That’s not a joke. The
first sentence of the Treasury Department’s
announcementof the sanctions says that
Zarif was being punished because he “acted
or purported to act for or on behalf of, di-
rectly or indirectly, the Supreme Leader of
the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
The administration also contends that
the Foreign Ministry under Zarif has cooper-
ated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps, an influential military branch
of the Iranian government that the U.S. des-
ignated as a terrorist organization earlier
this year. But that’s just a variation on the
same argument — that Zarif is a representa-
tive of the government that employs him.
The sanctions bar Americans from en-
gaging in business dealings with Zarif and
also freeze any property he has in the United
States. But Zarif took to Twitter, President
Trump’s preferred forum for diplomatic pro-
nouncements, to mock the sanctions and
note that they would have no effect on him or
his family “as I have no property or interests
outside of Iran.” So the primary purpose is
to discredit and demean him.
That sort of ostracism might make sense
if the United States were at war with Iran.
But even as he has authorized a campaign of
“maximum pressure” against Iran in the
form of crushing economic sanctions,
Trump has insisted that he isn’t seeking re-
gime changein Tehran.
The president also has said that he wants

to negotiate with Iran on a new agreement to

prevent it from developing a nuclear weap-

on. (Never mind that Trump withdrew the

U.S. from the 2015 international agreement

that placed significant restrictions on Iran’s

nuclear program, restrictions Iran was hon-

oring.) Sanctioning a country’s chief di-

plomat is a strange way to encourage it to

come back to the negotiating table. Who ex-

actly is he planning to negotiate with?

Bizarrely, administration officials sug-

gest that the action against Zarif doesn’t

jeopardize new talks with Iran because the

foreign minister isn’t all that significant a

figure in his country. That seems to contra-

dict Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo’s

description of Zarif as a “key enabler”of the

agenda of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah

Ali Khamenei.

Zarif is distrusted by some Iranian offi-

cials, partly because of his leading role in ne-

gotiating the nuclear agreement with the

Obama administration that Trump sub-

sequently (and recklessly) repudiated. But

Zarif ’s resignation earlier this year was re-

jected by President Hassan Rouhani and he

remains in his post. It’s doubtful that the U.S.

will be able to bypass Zarif and deal directly

with Rouhani or Iran’s supreme leader.

That assumes, of course, that the admin-

istration really wants to engage Iran diplo-

matically and pave the way for a new and

more ambitious nuclear agreement. Unfor-

tunately, we can’t be certain of that because

the administration lacks a consistent and

coherent policy toward Iran. Trump seems

more inclined to negotiate with Iran than

Pompeo or national security advisor John

Bolton, but the signals constantly change.

At a time of rising tensions with Iran —

caused in part by the Islamic Republic’s pro-

vocative behavior — the administration

needs to be credible when it says it wants to

pursue diplomacy. The sanctioning of Zarif

undermines that assurance.

Slapping sanctions on Zarif

The Trump administration’s move

to punish the Iranian foreign

minister is counterproductive.

F

or years, overnightshelters have
had a bad reputation for being
crowded, cot-filled caverns where
homeless people can’t bring all their be-
longings and where violence and stealing
are all too common. I’ve rarely met a home-
less person on the street who wanted to go
to one. But the homeless woman sitting on
the sidewalk on an industrial stretch of
Cotner Avenue in West L.A. was different.
She smiled wanly at me as she leaned
against a wall. She was rational and calm.
In her small plastic bag of belongings, she
had the card of an outreach worker from St.
Joseph Center, a provider of services to the
homeless. Now she just wanted a bed in a
shelter for the night. Her name is Michelle,
she is in her 50s, and she had no phone. Her
abusive ex-fiance had smashed it, she said.
I write about homelessness. I know all
the numbers to call, I thought. Even though
a court agreement known as the Jones
settlement allows people to sleep on the
streets because there is not enough shelter
or housing for all of L.A.'s homeless people
in the aggregate, I figured that didn’t mean
that on this particular night there was no
shelter bed in the city for a single homeless
person.
First I called the cell number on the
outreach worker’s card. I got a voicemail
and left a message. But it was 5:30 p.m. on
the day before a holiday.
Next, I tried the county’s 211 hotline for
health and human services referrals. I said
that Michelle was a victim of domestic
violence. The 211 staffer said she couldn’t go
to a regular shelter bed. Michelle would
have to go to a domestic violence shelter for
security reasons. We were connected to the
domestic violence shelter hotline, and I
turned the phone over to Michelle.
I could hear her describing her ex-fiance.
He was on parole, she said. “He hit me in
the face three times.” There was a little cut,
healing, across the bridge of her nose.
The 211 staff person gave me numbers for
two domestic violence shelters. But both
were in Lancaster in the Antelope Valley.
“We’re in West L.A. We can’t get to Lancas-
ter!” I protested, foreseeing an hour-and-a-
half drive. She said those were the only
places with beds available.
She connected me to another hotline,
which directed me to yet another hotline.
When I called that number, I decided
(rightly or wrongly) not to mention that
Michelle had been a victim of domestic
violence. That person told me to call a
shelter for women run by Volunteers of
America. I called it and got a cryptic record-
ing indicating that no one was available. I
tried twice. By that time, Michelle had
slumped over on the sidewalk, saying she
didn’t feel well. She wanted to go to a hospi-
tal. The owner of the wine store Michelle
was sitting near came out and offered to
help. We put her in an Uber to the Cedars-
Sinai emergency room, the only place in the
city that I could find that would safely put
her up for the night.

It turns out that a single homeless wom-

an, without a child in tow, who is a victim of

domestic violence and decides after 5 p.m.

that she would like to stay in a shelter for

the night is generally out of luck in the city

of Los Angeles. Overnight emergency shel-

ter beds are in dwindling supply.

If Michelle had had a child with her, the

211 operator probably could have gotten her

a motel room for the night with a county-

funded voucher. But many shelters won’t

take a victim of domestic violence, fearing

that her abuser could find her and endan-

ger the other shelter residents. I under-

stand that, but turning away a homeless

person who might need to be off the street

to avoid an abuser seems particularly cruel.

As for the outreach worker who didn’t

call me back, she and most of her colleagues

work an 8-a.m.-to-4:30-p.m. shift.

And a big problem is that there is no

real-time system that allows 211 workers to

know what shelter beds are available at any

given time. That’s ridiculous in this day and

age, and it needs to change. The L.A. Home-

less Services Authority has created a pilot

website for that service but it has problems.

There are now 9,702 emergency shelter

and transitional housing beds in the city of

L.A. (That does not include domestic vi-

olence shelters.) Obviously, that’s not

enough beds for all the 27,000 unsheltered

homeless people in the city.

But frankly, the city can’t afford to put

its limited resources toward a building

boom in shelters. L.A. has been moving

toward building “bridge shelters” where

people have cubicles and storage space and

room for their pets. Those are better than

the old-style warehouses full of beds, but

still, they’ve taken longer and cost tens of

millions of dollars more than the city ex-

pected. Building more shelters siphons off

money that could be spent on permanent

housing.

The county will spend more than a quar-

ter of the $460 million allocated this fiscal

year from its Measure H funds on service

providers and operations at shelters, transi-

tional housing, and recuperative care facili-

ties for homeless people. That’s fine, but we

cannot lose sight of the fact that the longer-

term solution to homelessness is a perma-

nent home, not an interim shelter bed.

We need better deployment of the re-

sources we already have to help someone

like Michelle find a scarce shelter bed for

the night. I don’t expect outreach workers

to put in 12-hour days or be on the streets in

the middle of the night. But homelessness

doesn’t exist only during banking hours.

Shouldn’t there be an after-hours worker

who could have talked to Michelle and

discussed her options?

After the holiday, I found a voicemail on

my office phone from Michelle. She had

been released from the hospital. There was

still no domestic violence shelter space for

her, she said, so she was back on the streets.

She was OK, but she’s still looking for a bed.

—Carla Hall

Seeking shelter? Good luck

OUT HERE

The right to bear arms

was included in the 2nd

Amendment specifically to

support a “well regulated

militia” by the founders,

who were opposed to the

creation and maintenance

of a standing army.

The existence of the

U.S. armed forces, the

most powerful military in

history, makes this ludi-

crously obsolete.

The 2nd Amendment is

now only used to justify

practitioners of blood

sports who needlessly kill

the few remaining wild

animals on the planet and

to provide weapons for

criminals and lunatics. It is

time for it to be repealed.

John Sherwood

Topanga

::

California has some of

the toughest gun-control

laws in the country. Howev-

er, it restricts only the

rights of law-abiding citi-

zens who would not misuse

their guns, but does noth-

ing to stop criminals.

As the state attorney

general noted, the weapon

used by the shooter cannot

be sold in or imported into

California, and there is the

very strong likelihood that

he violated California law,

on top of the crime of homi-

cide.

If California’s gun laws

will not stop criminals from

possessing firearms, what

good are they?

James Fedalen

Calabasas

California’s

ballot meddling

Re “The tax returns of

candidates,” editorial, Aug.

1

As a Democrat, I am

distressed that my party

has joined Republicans in

erecting barriers to voting.

If people want to vote

for a candidate despite a

flaw — be it financial

opaqueness or any other —

by what right should the

state stop them?

In 2016, the new Cali-

fornia election law requir-

ing any candidate to re-

lease five years of tax re-

turns in order to appear on

the primary ballot would

have erased more than 1.

million votes cast for Don-

ald Trump. Had Russian

hackers erased this many

votes, would we consider

the election legitimate?

Ilya Shlyakhter

Allston, Mass.

::

This is another exercise

in futility by the Democrats

in Sacramento. California

is facing challenges of

biblical proportions to be

wasting time in this sort of

symbolic legislative work.

Anyone with a basic

understanding of the Con-

stitution will know that

this bill will be laughed out

of any court. There is this

fundamental principle of

federalism in which the

states can’t alter or amend

the U.S. Constitution.

There is a process in place

as to how the Constitution

can be amended, and

California can use its 53

representatives in the

House to start the process.

Of course, the other way

to deal with Trump if he is

refusing to disclose his

returns is to vote him out of

office.

Chamba Sanchez

Los Angeles

::

The new California

election law is a “hyperpar-

tisan” slap at President

Trump, The Times decries.

You betcha — our hyper-

partisan president de-

serves it.

Trump’s unprecedent-

ed refusal to disclose his

financial records should

have disqualified him from

running for the highest

office in the land the last

time.

And given his incessant

insults and policy slights

directed at the Golden

State, it’s only poetic and

political justice that we are

the first state to return the

favor, with a perfectly

reasonable measure that

ought to serve as a model

for other states.

Vincent Brook

Los Angeles

::

The idea of opening the

Pandora’s box of giving 50

states the option to devise

50 different ways of keeping

anyone off the ballot re-

minded me of Russian

President Vladimir Putin’s

skill in keeping candidates

of opposing parties off the

ballot in his country’s

elections.

Democrats of Cali-

fornia, let’s keep the pro-

Putin Trump on the 2020

primary ballot and vote

him out of office instead of

perverting the democratic

process by crafting Puti-

nesque regulations to keep

him off the ballot in the

first place.

Janet Weaver

Huntington Beach

Concentration

camps? No

Re “ ‘Concentration camp’

debate is nothing new for

California,” July 28

Some of my relatives

were forcibly removed from

their homes and relocated

to Nazi concentration

camps because they were

Jews. Members of my wife’s

family were forcibly re-

moved from their homes

and relocated to concen-

tration camps in America

in 1942 because they hap-

pened to be of Japanese

descent.

What is happening at

the border with migrants

today does not involve

concentration camps.

Historian Andrea Pitzer

defines concentration

camps as places of forced

relocation of civilians on

the basis of group identity.

While migrants are

being forcibly detained,

they relocated themselves

when they chose to come to

America. And unlike the

Jews in Europe and the

Japanese Americans in the

United States, migrants

are not being detained

because they belong to a

specific group. No migrant

is being held because of

who he or she is. Migrants

are being detained because

of what they are attempt-

ing to do.

It is understandable

that emotions are height-

ened when describing the

treatment of migrants on

our border. But, to ensure

that the lessons of history

will not be lost, we must

refrain from obscuring the

context of terms such as

“concentration camp” by

misusing them to express

how we feel about events of

our time.

Josef Colman

Santa Monica

::

The Nazi concentration

camps started out as pris-

on camps. But they are

infamous for becoming

death camps.

The transition from

concentration to extermi-

nation is what we should be

concerned about. This in

no way minimizes the

Holocaust (in fact it does

the opposite), but it re-

minds us how dangerous it

is to minimize the forced

imprisonment of a targeted

group of civilians.

Denise Nardi

Woodland Hills

::

As a Jew who is the son

of a Holocaust-surviving

mother and family, I also

recoil at the sound of the

term “concentration

camp.” I want all to under-

stand why: The Nazis used

the term as a euphemism

for “death camps.”

I am willing to let go of

the term “concentration

camp” so it can be applied

to other circumstances

such as those discussed in

the article, but only under

one very significant condi-

tion: that usage of the term

“concentration camp” not

be connected to Nazi death

camps, and that efforts

should be made to make

the distinction.

Never again should the

term “concentration

camp” be used to describe

Nazi death camps.

Jeff Drobman

Chatsworth

In the red after

‘gray divorce’

Re “Middle-age divorce is

especially brutal,” July 28

I agree with the studies

that call “gray divorce”

emotionally and financially

harrowing.

The study mentioned

that women older than 50

who divorce may suffer a

sharp decline in their

standard of living. But the

article made no mention of

what happens when a

middle-aged woman has to

support the middle-aged

man who is divorcing her.

This is becoming more and

more common.

According to California

law, if you have been mar-

ried more than 10 years, the

spouse with the least

amount of money may ask

for financial support. If a

spouse is over 65, that

support can go on until

death because you can’t

force a person over that age

to work.

I found out about all of

this the hard way. I am a

woman who must pay

spousal support with no

end in sight (unless my ex

remarries).

So, getting a “gray

divorce” can be a major

financial shock.

Linda Cooper

Studio City

Poisoned minds

Re “As American as apple pie,” editorial, July 30

The L.A. Times Editorial Board writes about the

Gilroy mass shooting: “The inevitable debates after

Gilroy will touch on the usual themes. It wasn’t the gun,

it was the poison in the man’s mind. There’s some truth

to that, given that firearms are inanimate objects. But

without a firearm, the man couldn’t have shot anyone.”

I agree that it takes a firearm to kill people as easily as

the Gilroy shooter did. But the real issue is who or what

poisoned this person’s mind?

I believe there are too many so-called activists

running around this country who are affecting young

vulnerable minds. Without such activism, there probably

would not have been a poisoning of the mind.

The statement that guns do not kill people, people kill

people, is true. The gun cannot pull its own trigger.

Firearms like the assault rifle used in Gilroy should

not be sold on the retail market, as such weapons ought

to be for military use only. But if the rhetoric from

extremists can somehow be toned down without

violating their 1st Amendment rights, it would certainly

help.

John T. Kirages

Arcadia

Kent NishimuraLos Angeles Times

LAURA MILLERplaces a stuffed bear at a memo-

rial to those killed in the Gilroy shooting.

EXECUTIVECHAIRMANDr. Patrick Soon-Shiong

EXECUTIVEEDITORNorman Pearlstine

MANAGINGEDITOR

Scott Kraft

SENIORDEPUTYMANAGINGEDITOR

Kimi Yoshino

DEPUTYMANAGINGEDITORS

Sewell Chan, Shelby Grad, Shani O. Hilton,

Julia Turner

ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITORS

Len De Groot, Stuart Emmrich,

Loree Matsui, Angel Rodriguez

Opinion

Nicholas Goldberg EDITOR OF THEEDITORIALPAGES

F OUNDED DECEMBER 4, 1881 Sue Horton OP-ED ANDSUNDAYOPINIONEDITOR