Assemblywoman Donna Simon: Inane and On the Job

As the nation continues to pull out of the most devastating economic downturn in a half-century, New Jersey lags behind. From most credible points of view – statistically, academically, and though plain observation, The Great Recession never ended here. Instead, it continues to grind on under the completely inept, arrogant leadership of a largely absentee governor in hot pursuit of national office. Here in the Garden State, joblessness, poverty, deteriorating social services and a dangerous wealth gap continue like it’s still 2008.

Tip O’Neal, the late, great speaker of the House of Representatives once said “all politics is local.” Upon considering his famous phrase, I began to think how my local legislators (I live in the Princeton area, or District 16) are reacting to this ongoing crisis. The State Legislature is absolutely the most powerful governmental entity in this state – and any state. While frequently divided, if a state legislature has enough political will, I can quickly take the reigns of power and direction from a governor and make him or her bend to its will. Only the legislature has the power to raise taxes, spend money, and make law. Any governor, however much in possession of personality or constitutional authority, has little or no clout in the face of a determined legislature. And let it also be said that the New Jersey legislature has the ability to impeach and remove the governors or any of his appointees.

So with Christie on his constant interstate adventures, who is minding the store? Well, it’s not the legislature, and especially not the lawmakers in my district. And if I could point out any legislator who is more out of touch, more uninterested in directly tackling the state’s numerous and very serious problems, it’s Republican Assemblywoman Donna Simon. When it comes to politicians who seemingly operate on a form of cruise control to nowhere, she takes the cake.

Just consider three bills she’s either sponsoring or co-sponsoring in the current legislative session. Now before I go into the bills, allow me to explain why I’m not nitpicking. Proposed Bills mean a lot to legislators and their constituents. Bills are the only solid, tangible indicator of what a particular politician seeks to achieve. Legislators can make speeches and all kinds of promises during campaigns, but only through their bills do they really have any chance of implementing actual ideas. So these proposals really ‘count’ and ought to be considered as the most genuine reflection of what a politician is contemplating and has to offer.

Assemblywoman Donna Simon
aims to protect New Jerseyans from
 such modern horrors as being forced
 to pay for your kids' college and people who
 make love to dogs. I am not kidding.

Let's examine this ‘trinity’ of bills which amply demonstrate what makes her faulty clock tick.

First, there is A3104, or more straightforwardly (and I’ve named it) the “New Jersey Gun Control Repeal Act.” This bill is perhaps the most radical, most right-wing, most reactionary proposal of the entire legislative session. It’s right out of Alabama. The bill would effectively eliminate most if not all forms of gun control in the state. It would enable county officials to undercut gun control laws by having the power to issue firearms identification cards, but that’s not the most extreme part. The bill, if ever passed, would transform the New Jersey into a “shall issue” state for people seeking to get licenses to carry concealed weapons. Under the bill, any person qualified to purchase and own a firearm (again, which would be a simplified process on the county level) would be entitled to pack heat.

So basically, if Simon’s bill were brought to lawful fruition, New Jersey would quickly be transformed into another version of Florida, complete with nonstop daytime shootouts at convenience stores and weekly household massacres. Oh, and of course, there’s the ever-present possibility of another Newtown slaughter.

Firearms aside, Simon’s also turned her attention not to pressing issues like cancer research at Rutgers, or student poverty, but to one of the most imperative issues today: Parents who face the nightmare of a court ordering them to pay for their kids’ college education. Yes, she actually wrote a bill, A4070, addressing this predicament directly. It would bar N.J. courts from ordering any parents to pay for college. I’ll call it the “Good Luck Kid, You’re On Your Own Act.” Though her party ostensibly champions the notion of “Family Values,” apparently Simon thinks that this personal form of parental betrayal ought to be enshrined in law itself. You can’t make this stuff up.

Then there’s the icing in the cake. A bill so perceptibly ridiculous, so hideously unnecessary, so completely silly, that it more than demonstrates her aloofness from the everyday concerns of residents. Again, does the bill fund our ailing highways and bridges? Does it enable the students of Camden to learn in a decent environment by requiring its schools provide heat? Is this a bill that aims to bring billions of dollars to Atlantic City so that coastal community doesn’t literally fall into the sea? Nah. Simon’s ‘best’ bill, A3012, bans bestiality. Yes, you read that correctly. Simon’s not concerned with the chaotic gun violence in Trenton. She’s apparently not losing any sleep over the horrendous, months-long delays for families applying for Medicaid. No, she wants to direct the state’s attention against the real enemy: people who French kiss their dogs. Now I’m not a person who advocates bestiality – but there was one time that my dog Dusty greeted me at the door and licked my face. So for all I know, depraved pet owners like me could be in Simon’s crosshairs.

Donna Simon. Yes, she’s thinking outside the box. Far outside of it. Really, miles away from it. She’s floating away from the box, to the point where it's become a visible speck. Perhaps she’s laughing, perhaps not, but the joke is on us. As New Jersey continues to flounder, Simon and her pals remain focused on complete and utter nonsense. They get away with it because we let them. 

Getting New Jersey's Urban Residents Organized is in Everyone's Interests

In a blog published earlier this month, I introduced an important but little-appreciated topic that is at the core of what is ailing our troubled inner cities, that being, a lack of empowered community organizations. As crime and poverty continue to stifle New Jersey's urban areas, it must be noted that if we expect the residents of places like Camden, Newark and Paterson to help themselves, they have to have a place to meet. Literally, there are little if any places to gather, talk about issues, prioritize, network and plan, plan, plan. So often we hear from the residents of the Garden State's wealthier suburbs and rural areas (such as Sussex County) that the first step in solving the problems of our inner cities is getting the people who live there to work together. Or more cynically, we'll read posted snippets like "We've been throwing money at these places for years and things just keep getting worse," and even "if more of this crime continues we'll have to call in the National Guard."

Community self-help and activism are not derived some set of magical powers. It takes specific kind of infrastructure, a unique skill-set, lot of work, and a multitude of relationships to get the ball rolling. People need to not only have the abilities to organize and run gatherings, they need a physical location to hold events.

Martin Luther King Jr. at a local civil rights
meeting in the early 1960's 

Suburban and rural communities don't really have this problem. Small and medium-sized informal gatherings, especially those involving both political parties and major civic organizations, take place at community-oriented venues and even Starbucks or some other local coffeehouse. For larger, more formal gatherings, organizations will approach a local hotel, like the Marriott or Hilton, and rent out a meeting room for a day or two. Conveniently situated in these hotels, organizations will typically utilize their kitchens to provide catering and refreshments. Since almost everyone has a car, transportation and free parking aren't a concern. Sure, this costs money, but everyone chips in, or if the organization has deeper pockets, it pays the hotels directly.

These modern-day meeting facilities are specifically designed for their designated functions. They're all equipped with wireless Internet so everyone's smart device is instantly enabled. Power Point presentations and films can be seen on provided overhead projectors. And, of course, we can't forget tables, chairs and lecterns. Additionally, most also have amplifying equipment built-in, enabling anyone to be heard at even the largest gatherings. It's all very convenient.

Political Scientists and historians actually have a name for the culture that's produced by such gatherings: Civil Society. Perhaps the term rings a bell. Civil Society is made up of all of the clubs, organizations and citizen gatherings that aren't part of any formal governmental structure, yet comprise of one of the essential components of any healthy democratic society. Americans used to be famous for it; in the early 1800's, the famous French traveler Alexis de Tocqueville couldn't help but notice it in every region of the young United States he visited. He devoted entire portions of his masterpiece Democracy in America on the subject.  

In these clubs and organizations - and not really in school - people acquire the essential skills of democratic citizenship. People learn how to act like free, responsible individuals - responsible not only for themselves but their communities as well. These skills aren't so much stressed in any of our public schools these days, which have been more or less hijacked by reformy organizations bent on preparing students to succeed on standardized tests.

These essential skills are the stuff that keeps us free. How to recruit members of an organization. How to elect and sustain leadership. How to create an agenda and run a meeting. How to delegate tasks by committee. How to network within and outside of the organization. How to compromise and draft bylaws and resolutions. How to take collective action in the form of a bake sale, a direct-mail campaign, a demonstration, a write-in, etc.  

Okay, so let's return to our inner cities. If people are the "software" for democracy, meeting places are part of the "hardware." But there isn't any "hardware" to be seen, not any more. So what kinds of things can be done to help the residents of our inner cities help themselves? What "classic" and 21st Century solutions are there?

First, our urban residents need to get online. The Internet is the ultimate network for networking. We need to get people emailing, Tweeting, Facebooking and Blogging. Here the State can make a real difference by funding low or no cost municipal WiFi, or wireless Internet. By creating wireless clouds in our urban areas, we'll increase interactivity, reduce crime and bind neighborhoods together. People cannot organize and solve their own community problems if they're not communicating. Municipal WiFi used to be an exorbitantly expensive proposition, but no more. With bandwidth and equipment prices now at historic lows (and heading lower - thanks "Made in China"!), it's entirely possible to "unwire" places like Newark, Trenton, Camden and Paterson. It all doesn't have to be done at once, and there are many ways to fund it without much public expenditure. Put Internet routers on telephone poles, billboards, traffic lights, etc. Get the place humming.

To promote networking and organizational skills, call in the experts. The State could join hands with Non-governmental organizations and service agencies like AmeriCorps and our state colleges to provide classes at local high schools or community centers (do we even have community centers anymore?) on basic managerial skills.

And what about places to meet? Here, the Legislature can help. Pass laws requiring communities to open neighborhood schools after hours so that urban clubs and organizations have a places to gather. Some funding will have to be provided for security and operations, but remember - this entire plan is to make our cities safer by getting urban residents to work together. It would be, more or less, an anti-crime effort. Any financial investment made by the state would have the potential to more than pay for itself if residents can organize and network.

With everything I am proposing, I will admit, there's are no guarantees. But if our urban centers continue to deteriorate, the costs of policing and aiding them will continue to skyrocket. Before we call in the National Guard, before another round of riots on par with 1967 occurs, promoting urban civic organization and activism is certainly worth a try.

Think about it. As I always say, am I on to something here, or is this all just pie in the sky? Should we help our urban residents help themselves? Isn't it time to brush the cynicism aside, and try something different? I look forward to your comments.

New Jersey's Quakers: Their Nonviolent Legacy Still Echoes in Name and Law

New Jersey’s history is a rich one, especially its now underappreciated but intense a religious past. New Jerseyans aren’t the most religious of Americans, at least not anymore. Yes, a look around our cities and suburbs reveals a wide variety of faiths; Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Hindus all share space in our small state. And let us not forget the increasingly vocal minority of nonbelievers who are making their voices heard through their own organizations. Then there are a lot of my own neighbors, who tend to treat religion like it’s a salad bar, hopping from church to church depending on all sorts of factors, from requested church contributions to the personality of the leading priest or pastor. I say to them, bless you all. You keep our state an interesting, vibrant place - filled with people concerned with this life and the next.

But here and there – you don’t see them so prominently these days – you may notice a coworker or a friend refer to church as “Meeting.” Perhaps you may spot one of their “Meeting Houses” – typically a plain white or brick structure, unassuming in nature. Yet their intellectual, historical and spiritual contributions to the state of New Jersey are so prevalent that much of our landscape still bears their name or at least their legacy. To each other they’re known as “The Society of Friends,” but to the rest of us, we call them Quakers.

Stony Brook Quaker Meeting House, Princeton, N.J.

They’re usually associated with William Penn’s neighboring Pennsylvania, yet

The Garden State owes this small religious minority a debt that can never be repaid. Place-names like Quakerbridge, Penns Neck, Pennsauken and dozens of others attest to their presence. More importantly, the legacy of religious freedom, toleration and the lack of an established Church – core elements of our state’s own Constitution - testify to their heritage of intellectual vigor, personal mercy and liberality.

There are a lot of qualities of the Quakers worth recounting, but one in particular I find most compelling simply because it’s gotten them into the most trouble with authorities over the past four centuries (they were founded in England in the late 1640’s). Quakers are Christians, but their interpretation of Christianity demands political and personal pacifism. Quakers despise all forms of physical violence and religious coercion. Since their founding to today, they will tell you that the best way to worship Jesus is to continually try, in our imperfect human form, to imitate him. And since Jesus never killed anyone, or fought in any wars, or burned any witches, or practiced any form of religious violence, then no one should. Period.

In both England and America, this literal embracing of pacifism got them fined, jailed, exiled, whipped, disqualified from the voting rolls and elected office, publicly humiliated and executed. Puritans in both England and New England, right up to the end of the 1600’s, regarded Quakers as their polar opposites and persecuted them relentlessly. Yet by the time of the American Revolution, Quakers comprised of a significant minority in North America, and in New Jersey in particular. Eventually their beliefs concerning religious freedom made their way into New Jersey’s first Constitution of 1776:

      “That no person shall ever, within this Colony, be

      deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God

      in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor,

      under any pretence whatever, be compelled to attend any place of

      worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall any

      person, within this Colony, ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes

      or any other rates, for the purpose of building or repairing any

      other church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the

      maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he

      believes to be right, or has deliberately or voluntarily engaged

      himself to perform.”

But even with victory in the Revolution, the Quaker dedication to non-violence would still create tensions with New Jersey. And this is where it gets most interesting, at least for me. Over the course of my research for my A.P. history class, I came upon an absolutely fascinating document from July of 1833. Specifically, the document is a formal petition from New Jersey’s Quakers to the State Legislature in Trenton. It is a document of principle, of a people dedicated to the cause of humanity, of a people who were ready at any time – even in an age when their formal persecution was over – to pay a steep price for their beliefs.

In 1833 the Legislature was considering a new bill addressing the state militia. As I’ve said in an earlier blog, the business of being armed and in the militia (New Jersey’s military service) was a social one. Militia service was considered an important part of civic life. The bill would continue the state law demanding, in times of need, all armed men to defend it. But in a new twist, those who opposed military service (i.e. Quakers) could opt out, but would still have to pay a sort of ‘substitution tax’ in lieu of their duty. The bill would then direct such monies to public education or some other non-violent, state-provided service.

The Quakers, though admitting that the era of persecution had passed, would not be moved. They would not serve, ever, in the state’s militia, nor would they pay any tax that acknowledged the state’s legitimate power to engage in the business of killing. And if this resulted in Quakers going to prison, then, so be it:

“As mankind are brought under the influence of the spirit of Christ Jesus, and fully obey his divine commands, wars and fightings must cease…To their sincerity in this belief, our predecessors invariably bore testimony, frequently suffering…long and cruel imprisonment…That which our Lord has forbidden us no human enactments can make lawful; when these require us to violate the divine law, we submit to suffer all that man may be permitted to inflict, rather than wound our consciences.”

What a remarkable group of people. The issue that fascinates me here is not just that the Quakers were strong believers in gentleness and pacifism, they were, even in the years after religious freedom had been secured, still willing to lose their liberty for such faith. The decades of freedom that followed the Revolution had not made them complacent. They never sought to hurt anyone; nonviolence was at the core of their being and they weren’t afraid to acknowledge it – even to their legislators in Trenton. They were willing to walk the walk, even if that path ended in poverty, humiliation and prison. And prison in the 1830’s was not a place where people went to sit around or lift weights or make license plates; it was a place where after a month or two you usually got sick - and died.

I tried to find out if their request for an amendment to the bill was ever fulfilled but I could not. I’ll keep looking though. Nevertheless, I do not believe that any Quaker was ever arrested before or since then for refusal to serve in any of New Jersey’s military forces.

Knowing what I now know about the Quaker legacy and presence here in New Jersey, I think I’ll visit the Stony Brook Quaker Meeting House here in Princeton this weekend. I need to pay my respects to some of the most progressive builders of the Garden State.

Jersey Scared: In 1812, New Jersey's Legislature Wanted to Give Peace a Chance

If the State of New Jersey is associated with any conflict in American history, it is the War of Independence. Our state is justifiably known as the "Crossroads of the Revolution." A look at any map of the state, even a modern version, would amply demonstrate this with the abundance of national parks and historic sights. Washington saved the Revolution at Trenton, boosted it at Princeton, preserved it (and the Continental Army) through two harsh Morristown winters. Almost every New Jersey city, town and township has an assortment of Revolutionary-Era street names; Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Lafayette.

Broadside image, War of 1812

Okay, but what about the next war? Ah, it may have been a while since you were in history class, but there were several conflicts between the Revolution and the Civil War. The next war is commonly believed to be some kind of repeat of the Revolution, but believe me, it wasn't. It was the War of 1812. It was a long war that resulted in a massive foreign invasion, the burning of Washington, D.C. (with the Capitol and White House reduced to smoldering ruins) and the rise of one ruthless, genocidal Democrat by the name of Andrew Jackson. Jackson, if you recall, decimated an invading British army at the Battle of New Orleans in 1814.

But what about New Jersey? Surely, the patriots of the Garden State, upon hearing of the war's start in 1812, were ready to repeat their noble duty. Certainly they were ready to grab their muskets, brush off their boots and rush the Shore to give the invading British the hearty welcome they deserved. Yes, of course, these New Jerseyans mobilized to defend the Garden State. They were, surely, Jersey Strong.

Yeah, try Jersey Wrong. Or at least, Jersey Scared. War was the last, the very lastoption they wanted. In November of 1812, with the conflict already raging, the New Jersey Legislature sent a comprehensive petition against the war to Congress. In my opinion the petition is one of the most fascinating documents in American History, and predicts many of the constitutional arguments and controversies that would be at the center of future wars - especially Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The document opens by declaring that the national government had foolishly rushed into conflict, and by doing so, threatened the political and economic gains of the hard-fought Revolution. It puts the blame of conflict solidly on the shoulders of the president, that being the Madison Administration.

"The admonitions of prudence, the force of reason and justice, and the remonstrances of thousands have been alike ineffectual and disregarded-a great, prosperous and happy nation, without preparation have suddenly plunged into an unnecessary, and as we fear, hopeless war."

New Jersey's leaders also warned Federal Authorities, in an almost defeatist like fashion, of who the nation had taken on:

"...war with Great Britain, in which the present administration has plunged the United States, was inexpedient, ill-timed and most dangerously impolitic---sacrificing at once countless blessings, and incurring all the hazards and losses of men and treasure, necessarily resulting from a contest with a nation possessing so many means to annoy and distress us."

The Legislature then brought up a now accepted belief in American military doctrine: if you're going to have a war, know - or at least have a plan - for how it will end:

"The [Madison] administration being evidently chargeable with the multiplied disasters which have attended our arms, and consigned to captivity or death so many thousands of brave men, without the attainment of a single important object."

What really worried Trenton wasn't Britain, it was a certain vertically-challenged, maniacal French leader: Napoleon. Britain, it seemed, could be reasoned with; it might be open to compromise, whereby a "Devil's Deal" with the self-declared French emperor would be much more hazardous. In fact, the Trenton representatives not only citied this, but threw in a not so vague threat of the Garden State's secession from the Union itself:

"...we view with inexpressible concern the course of that destructive policy which leads to a connexion with the military despotism of France; and if it should happen, as our fears suggest, that a convention or confederacy with that power...will be considered by us more dangerous than the war itself, and as tending, in its consequences, to the dissolution of the union of the United States."

How long would the war go on? What were its goals? To answer these questions, Trenton demanded that Congress turn away from the machinations of war and instead immediately engage upon an investigation into how it all got started.

Today, of course, we know that one of the foremot causes of the War of 1812 was the British practice of impressment, or blatant kidnapping of American sailors at sea. New Jersey's sustenance was still largely maritime-based at this time, and the presence of the Royal Navy right off our coast was a constant and sometimes visible one. In the years between the Revolution and 1812, British warships had taken Americans aboard their ships to work and fight - and die. Frequently, many of those taken were not, in fact, born here and were recent British and Irish Immigrants. The British, in their defense, frequently citied this fact.

For the Representatives at Trenton, this British concern was acknowledged. Yes, the petition stated, impressment was horrendous and must be stopped, but:

"a principal object of the war is to obtain redress against the British practice of impressment...we do hereby declare our solemn conviction that a war at the expense of American blood and treasure to protect British subjects on the high seas from their due allegiance to their country, would be unjust, and that the abuse of this practice in regard to American seamen may be guarded against by an arrangement between the two foreign governments..."

So what about all of those immigrants serving on American ships? The answer couldn't be sharper: if the British want them, they can have them. Don't endanger American peace and commerce for their sake! Not exactly the noblest of statements, I'd say...but these are desperate words in desperate times.

While, to my knowledge, the war never directly touched New Jersey territory, it would indeed wind up to be the profitless disaster that the Trenton representatives had predicted. The war, fought to a draw, devastated portions of the U.S. and Canada, and was settled by the Treaty of Ghent. And that New Orleans battle? It occurred two weeks after the peace treaty was signed. Talk about missing the email!

Still, I think we shouldn't be too hard on our early legislators. They were just a tiny component of an emerging nation with a shaky constitutional order. They were afraid, but their concerns led to important questions that should be asked before and during any national conflict.

Memo To My Legislators: Learn from Ukraine. Repeat as Necessary.

From: Daniel B. Kurz, M.A., New Jersey Citizen, Parent and Educator

To:    State Assembly Speaker Vincient Prieto

         State Senate President John Sweeney

         Assemblyman John Wisniewski              

         Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg

Cc:    Legislative Team from District 16 (My Home District)

Re:    Are You Kidding Me?

Over the past 24 hours we have seen dramatic developments in Ukraine. There, the democratically elected multiparty Parliament has voted unanimously to remove that nation’s chief executive, President Viktor Yanukovych. Most legislators have cited the former president's abuse of executive power as the primary reason for this constitutionally based, legal

Legislators: Burn the midnight oil if you must, but remove Christie and Guadagno now!

action.

Yanukovych clearly showed his contempt for both the law and for the lives of the people he served by authorizing the execution of demonstrators in the central square of the capital city. As more evidence comes to light, it is also obvious that a blatant pattern of corruption and patronage, not to mention bullying, has been the overall practice of his administration.

It is my firm belief that at this moment straightforward evidence persists that the administration of our governor, Chris Christie, amply demonstrates an equal pattern of corruption, contempt for the law and human life.

First, we must look to the events of September 2013. We know from documented evidence that members of the Governor’s inner staff ordered the closure of several Fort Lee lanes to the George Washington Bridge for no legally-based reason. In fact, evidence in the emails and texts between two of the governor’s appointees, Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Kelly and Port Authority Operative David Wildstein, display a genuinely sadistic attitude toward the people/victims of this state. In the traffic jam that ensued, millions of dollars worth of delays resulted, tens of thousands of lives were put at risk and accidents occurred. The entire Northeast corridor of the United States was affected, and it ought to be noted that these jams transpired during the anniversary of the September 11^th Attacks. Al Qaida, our sworn enemy, is known especially for its anniversary attacks on major pieces of infrastructure. By ordering these jams, the Governor’s administration put our nation in jeopardy and clearly damaged its wartime preparation and footing. Had an attack occurred on the region at that time, the consequences would have been beyond disastrous.

Additionally, over the past few months, allegations have been made by the mayor of Hoboken that point to a political use of Federal funds intended to ease the pain and burdens of those New Jerseyans effected by Hurricane Sandy. The mayor disturbingly documented in her notes that our Lieutenant Governor threatened to keep funds from Hoboken unless the certain political actions were taken that the Christie Administration favored. It is bizarre and frankly suspect that our Lt. Governor has, aside from denying the allegations, refused to discuss them at all with any member of the public, the press or the Legislature.

With these two scandals, a third has emerged that is more serious. The Governor has claimed total ignorance of any of these actions, from the order of the bridge closing to the threats of the Lieutenant Governor. His denials are frankly not believable, but anyway point to a leadership ability that is both negligent and incompetent.

If this governor is capable of such missteps, or at least, being at the center of their whirlwind without knowing of them, then he is capable of much, much more. The Legislature must act now to protect the people of New Jersey from this kind of chief executive by impeaching and removing him as soon as possible. Whether or not he ordered the lane closures and the Sandy aid withheld is something that, as a private citizen, he will have to answer for in a court of law. But as for the standards of impeachment and removal, I believe his actions have already surpassed any reasonable threshold for action.

What are you waiting for? How far are you willing to toy with our liberties on behalf of the Governor’s political career? Are you waiting for this governor to order police officials that are loyal to him reroute traffic from the Lincoln Tunnel? Would such officers open fire on drivers who ignored such a likely and illegal order? Isn’t it time to stop ignoring these dangerous hypothetical situations, knowing what we already know?

If you think that I'm being overreactive, or unfair in my comparisons to the situation in Ukraine, I must ask: Are you kidding me?