Gawker Indicts Bill Gates for Criminal Dickery

This is the problem I have with modern journalism. You walk into a single’s bar news site wanting to meet a new article. Then, magically, some article saddles up beside you and starts flexing their headlines. They whisper in your ear that they’re packing an amazing news story—and it’d be even better if you took them back to your place and clicked them.

Then finally, after panting about what else is in store besides massive headlines, the article daintily unclothes itself to reveal…

Well…something that can only be described as either the tragic remains of a smelting accident—or at the very least another example of the inability to generalize based upon large feet.

The article that claims to be packing, in this case, is Hamilton Nolan’s “Bill Gates Is Kind Of A Dick.” While I’ve never met the man, I’ve heard enough stories over the years to understand how somebody can draw that conclusion. A CEO whose favorite expression was “that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard” is probably not going to be a saint. However, the evidence that Nolan marshals in his indictment for gross dickery consists of:

1. He, along with about half of Americans, does not necessarily think Edward Snowden is a hero;
2. He believes that if there’s a 50% tax rate, there’s room for more taxation; and
3. He’s not an idealist.

What a dick. Let’s just skip the trial and go right to the execution. Hamilton concludes his excoriating public castration with:

“He [Gates] goes on to criticize the lack of efficiency in government programs for the poor. Moderately liberal? Yes. But he is no George Soros…A kindhearted technocrat with more means than ideals is not, of course, the worst thing the world’s richest man could be. It’s also not the best.”

From this I have learned that, apparently, being a moderate liberal, not being George Soros, and/or not being an idealist makes one a dick. This line of logic is just as hilarious and ridiculous as the headline. This article is not about Bill Gates at all. Contrary to expectations, it’s not about Gates kicking puppies, mugging widows, short changing girl scouts, or being a closeted racist. It’s just about people who hold opinions the author disagrees with—one of whom happens to be Bill Gates.

Most of us will probably have opinions with varying degrees of sophistication regarding Snowden and what the ideal tax rate should be. About half of Americans are not too fond of Snowden, and about half of Americans think their taxes are too high. Depending on how much overlap there is between the two groups, it could be possible to accuse about half of all Americans of being dicks; a nation of 160 million dicks. The difference is, as the article reminds you practically every other word, Bill Gates is rich.

Maybe I’m just weird, but I’ve always thought that somebody disagreeing with you does not make them a dick. I don’t think many marriages would last long if you adopted that position. Maybe Nolan and Gawker are so convinced they’re preaching to the choir that they feel free to talk about the righteousness of the elect and the licentiousness of the soon-to-be-damned—failing to notice the visitor slumping nervously in the back pew.

This response isn’t a shill job for Microsoft, nor is this about backing up a poor, repressed one percenter. As I said, I don’t think you have to do much research in order to make a case for Bill Gates’ dickery. Additionally—and I rather should write on this topic later—corporate leadership in this nation is not just broken, it’s become a products liability suit for faulty explosives; the wiring in there is just plain faulty, and when it finally messes up it will (and has) take out good people with it. However, I submit that we should stick with what people actually do as a basis for them being dicks rather than vaguely accusing them of thought crime.

I don’t know if “Bill Gates Is Kind Of A Dick” is just another sensationalist headline that I’ve already railed about, Nolan’s opinion of what can validly be inferred based on his evidence, or some combination of the two. Regardless of whether it’s used as a marketing ploy or as a summary of the argument, both fail to perform.

Which brings me to this point: I earnestly hope that Bill Gates is a dick because, despite all of the talk of what it was packing, this article desperately needed a dick.

On a personal note, all thoughts and prayers are with the people of Eastern Europe as the Ukrainian Crisis continues to develop.

Russia Finally Recognizes Independence of Kosovo

2 x 2 = i

In a strange reversal coming in the midst of escalating tensions with the West over Russian intervention in Ukraine, the Russian Foreign Ministry has at last recognized the independence of Kosovo. The announcement came in a statement released on Tuesday where the Russian Foreign Ministry used the precedent of Kosovar independence to support the Kremlin’s own efforts to either annex or liberate the Autonomous Republic of Crimea from Ukraine.

The move also highlights a spectacular shift in the Kremlin’s interpretation of international law. Shortly after Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence, the Foreign Ministry condemned it, stating: “Kosovo’s Provisional Institutions of Self-Government declared a unilateral proclamation of independence of the province, thus violating the sovereignty of the Republic of Serbia, the Charter of the United Nations, UNSCR 1244, the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, Kosovo’s Constitutional Framework and the high-level Contact Group accords.”

The position adopted in the Foreign Ministry’s Statement of March 11^th shows a dramatic metamorphosis: “The Declaration [of Independence of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea] contains international and legal justification of this step, with references to the UN Charter and other international documents, as well as the decision of the UN’s International Court of Justice of 22 July 2010 on Kosovo. With this decision, adopted at the request of the UN General Assembly at the initiative of Serbia, the International Court of Justice confirmed the fact that unilateral announcement of independence by a part of a state does not violate any provision of international law.”

The reversal must surely be an act of contrition for the Kremlin’s constant support of the government of Slobodon Milošević which forcibly expelled, injured, and killed hundreds of thousands of people. The Russian Foreign Ministry’s sudden change of heart must be a source of profound comfort for the family of members of hundreds of thousands of Kosovars, Syrians, and Chechens who died directly or indirectly due to the Kremlin’s foreign policy. They’ll be pleased to know that Russia made an honest mistake.

Now back to reality. No, the Kremlin did not recognize Kosovar independence. It recognized the process by which Kosovo achieved independence, it accepted the underlying principles of humanitarian intervention and self-determination—it in fact accepted everything about Kosovar independence except the independence itself.

I am conflicted because, on the one hand this whole episode is so patently absurd that it practically begs to be heckled. However, like Kim Jong-Il looking at things, you instantly choke on the chortle forming in your throat as you remember the human cost of this level of hubris.

I’m also floored by Putin’s™ nihilism.

I really shouldn’t be. Simply observing the Ukrainian crisis in detail should have numbed me to the surreal and near Orwellian statements coming out of the Russian Foreign Ministry. However, at least in this respect, Putin™ always excels himself.

Putin™ doesn’t really believe in non-intervention any more than he believes in preemptive intervention to collect overdue library book fines. In Putin’s™ Russia, where Putin is both commander and oligarch-in-chief, genuine ideals and principles are commodities too pricey even for him. Instead, he’s invested in Russian nationalism—which isn’t so much an idea as it is an instinctive appeal to bigotry.

Vladimir Putin™ doesn’t actually need—or even want—to convince the world of the merits of intervention and self-determination in Crimea. He just wants to accuse the West of hypocrisy to muddy the water, and then by the time the water clears he’ll have accomplished what he set out to do. However, I hope that eventually those appeals to hypocrisy—those tu quoque fallacies—will be seen for what they are: appeals to fallacy. My brother once complained to my parents that I could stay up late. Therefore he should be able to stay up late too.

Then he turned five.

During that period of time, he developed the mental capacity to at least be able to distinguish apples and oranges. He also learned that my history of performing an action was not a valid or relevant argument for him to be able to do the same. The lesson here is that Vladimir Putin’s™ justifications for intervention in Crimea should be taken about as intellectually seriously as I took my four year old brother: that is to say, not at all.

After all, this is the leader that expects the claim that “there are no Russian troops on Ukrainian soil” to be taken seriously.

Not Russians.

Pretty sure not Russians.

Well…Putin™ did say that anybody could go to a store and buy uniforms.

I like the uniforms that look like Russian self-propelled artillery. I’m sure that the impoverished people of Crimea bought these off of Craig’s List.

Oh wait…just kidding, they are Russian.

Say what you want about Bush, Iraq, and WMDs; at least he didn’t expect you to believe that an army of 100,000 of ninjas infiltrated Baghdad and removed Saddam Hussein.

The US State Department released a document on March 5^th entitled: “Putin’s Fiction: 10 False Claims About Ukraine.” The opening sentence reads: “As Russia spins a false narrative to justify its illegal actions in Ukraine, the world has not seen such startling Russian fiction since Dostoyevsky wrote, ‘The formula ‘two times two equals five’ is not without its attractions.’”

State got it wrong, though. In Putin’s™ Russia, two times two doesn’t equal five. In Putin’s™ Russia, two times two equals whatever ridiculous quantity he says it does.

In Putin’s™ Russia, 2 x 2 = i.

Rachel Canning Has Unleashed Cthulhu

Yahoo! Finance has an article asking whether parents owe their children a college education. No doubt the article was inspired by the case of eighteen year-old Rachel Canning who sued who parents for financial support and future college tuition after she stormed out after a tiff with her mother. It’s one of those cases that’s impossible to ignore; a judicial equivalent of watching a train wreck where we know the inevitable, cringe-worthy result, but we also find ourselves unable to avert our eyes.

I am going to be charitable and assume that the reason we feel compelled to watch doesn’t come from sadism, but rather from the fact that the case—like many other high profile cases—forces to the surface issues that have long been slumbering in the depths, waiting for the right time to surface and wreak vengeance on the world. This is a “Cthulhu Case,” and Rachel Canning inadvertently awoke it. This Cthulhu Case asks a question that has gnawed at anybody who has kids or is contemplating them: what are the moral duties owed between parent and child in post-industrial, post-Great Recession America?

Disappointingly, the Yahoo! article is really only concerned with the legal dimensions at play, and it reassures parents who are earnestly worried that their budding young Welfare Queen or King might sue them for unpaid college tuition. Generally, the answer is no–there is no du. There are some states that allow for kids to sue for college tuition under theories of equity. In most other contexts, kids can only sue their parents for tuition under some form of contract theory—either that there is a child support agreement that requires a parent to provide tuition for a minor after they reach majority, or that there is an argument that there is some justified reliance involved (e.g. parent promises child that they will pay for college, and the child reasonably and materially relies on that promise).

Sadly enough, these legal answers will not banish Cthulhu back to his underwater slumber in R’lyeh. Laws, by their nature, only tell us what society has agreed is wrong—not what is right. We’re still left with this question of what moral duty is owed between a parent and child in a dramatically changing nation and world. Sadly, I don’t have any real answers.

It does seem to me that the perception of parental duties and obligations has evolved over time. My grandparents were raised in a world where college was a privilege reserved for the famous and fortunate. That’s not to say that they didn’t realize the benefit for formal education—and indeed my grandparents all had minds that, even in their youth, would have been more than a match for the modern undergraduate. They also highly encouraged my parents to pursue formal education after high school. However, telling them that a parent has a moral obligation to provide a child with a college education would have sounded like arguing that parents have an obligation to provide their kids with a Rolls-Royce. It was a luxury—in a world where luxury was cannibalized by the ravages of the Great Depression. Thus, while my grandparents saw the value in education, they also thought that it was a value that should be financed solely by my parents.

And why not? In post-war, industrial America, a high school diploma was not exactly a one-way ticket to the soup kitchen. In 1962, only around 50% of students actually graduated high school, while the unemployment rate stood at 5.5%. If college was gravy, then parent funded college tuition was caviar.

Obviously, the world has changed a teensy bit. During the peak of the Great Recession in 2009, unemployment stood at nearly 10% despite the fact that 85% of students were completing high school, 29% had some college or gotten an associate’s degree, and 28% had a bachelor’s degree or more. Over 57% had at least set foot in some educational institution after high school.

Many will take these statistics and regurgitate them within a familiar argument: that the value of higher education is decreasing. Over the years I’ve heard various reasons for why the value of education is declining, ranging from general criticism of liberal arts education that leaves students enlightened, but not particularly skilled, to the idea that higher education has been “dumbed down.” While this is a separate debate, I am willing to entertain the notion that market factors and the “inflation” of college has depreciated the bachelor’s degree to being something less than the keys to Fort Knox.

However, even if a bachelor’s degree is no longer a license to print money, it is a valuable insurance policy. In 2012, after the unemployment rate had improved to 6.8%, unemployment for workers with a high school diploma hovered around 8.3%. For workers with bachelor’s degrees, the rate was 4.5%. That figure, of course, does not shed light on other relevant bits of data—like how long these college graduates will have to spend slaving away to pay off student loans or whether they are underemployed. However, I think it’s still probably fair to say that college—while not a stellar bargain—is much a better bargain than the alternatives, especially considering that the high school graduate averages about $652 per week compared to the college graduate’s $1,066 (yes, even with art history majors thrown into the mix).

While we can debate the practical utility of certain degrees or institutions, the market does clearly prefer college graduates over workers without college degrees. The issue, it seems to me, is that college is becoming less a vehicle of social mobility than, in many cases, an outright vocational requirement. The Great Recession accelerated this general trend, with more than 80% of jobs lost being held by individuals with high school diplomas or less. Considering that workers with only a high school diploma or less compose about 40-45% of the work force, that’s a truly staggering number.

What’s worse is that most of those jobs are gone. Forever.

Many of those jobs were already under threat by cheap outsourced labor or technology anyway. The Great Recession was the sledgehammer that caused the cracking dam to break. Thus, corporation’s whose bottom lines allowed them to lazily modernize their industries suddenly faced an existential crises where they had to economize—or else. Thus, many middle class jobs that had been accessible to high school graduates were wiped out wholesale, replaced just as often by software and apps than by workers in the developing world.

Jobs are certainly coming back, but the middle class jobs that were lost are being replaced overwhelmingly by lower-wage jobs. There’s your inequality gap. We are increasingly moving towards a bipolar society, one where you can either work in an office cubicle or cleaning bathrooms at Taco Bell after Bean Burrito Friday. It’s wrong. It’s unfair. However, it’s also our modern America. A college degree is no guarantee of a life of leisure in the suburbs, but it is at least a passport out the projects.

Which brings us back to our rampaging Cthulhu. Given this new reality, what are the duties of parents? Naturally it’s a loaded question. The law provides certain minimum standards, and some mixture of moral, philosophical, or religious beliefs may or may not add more. Additionally, most parents will try to factor in the needs and aptitudes of their particular child. However, if we for the sake of argument assume that there is some universal, transcendent natural law that mandates that parents provide for the welfare of their children, should part of that provisioning be assisting the child in getting a college education?

I am, of course, asking a moral question—not a legal one. I also understand that, tragically, there are so many parents living paycheck to paycheck that the moral debate on providing college tuition is eclipsed by another debate: “whether we can afford dinner.” But for those parents who actually can provide support, is there a moral obligation to do so?

Anecdotally, I have found that the answers parents come up with don’t always conform to the qualities as parents or state of their relationship with their child. I have met parents who have warm and loving relationships with their children who, after they blow out the cake candles on the 18^th birthday, push the “Parent Off Button” and leave their children on their own educationally. I have also seen parents and children with relationships so frayed that they make the Lannisters look like an episode of Leave it to Beaver. Yet, despite the endless war in the family, I never saw or heard of the tuition checks stopping.

As for me, grudgingly accepting the ultimatum given by my wife that I will one day be a father, I feel that kicking my kid to the curb on their eighteenth birthday without any attempt to provide for education beyond high school would be immoral—at least in this economic reality. Part of this feeling is undergirded by the idea that practical adulthood—for most kids—arrives much later than the age of eighteen. Not only is the world much more complex than the world than our high school dropout grandparents went out and conquered, we also know developmentally that the brain doesn’t really finish maturing until around the age of twenty-five. Now, who knows? Maybe the brain after the age of eighteen is just performing the cognitive equivalent of wallpapering, and there’s no significant maturational difference after the late teen years. However, I doubt that.

Why?

 

Fraternities.

Now, I’ve known pretty immature octogenarians. Still, it does beg the question as to whether this convenient legal fiction of the “age of majority” is at odds with science and real life. I can’t articulate what the actual standard of care should be—and indeed it will necessarily vary based on the parents and children involved. However, I just can’t excise the feeling that if I have made the conscious choice to not provide my child with the opportunity to receive an education, then not only have I failed as a parent, but I have affirmatively committed a wrong.

While the world may change, questions like this—like Cthulhu—have always existed. It is also possible that after the case of Rachel Canning runs its course, Cthulhu will once again disappear to slumber beneath the sea.

But it will eternal lie.

Sensational Headline: The Daily Telegraph is Anti-Semitic. See? It’s Not So Hard.

Honestly, anybody who reads new stories frequently is going to get used to exaggerated, gimmicky, and often times downright fraudulent headlines that attempt to seduce the unwary reader. Most of the time, like the guy at a bar unwittingly picked up by a transvestite, the misrepresentation is discovered before too much damage can be done. However, sometimes the headline is either so reckless or so willfully deceitful that the damage cannot be covered up by some qualification in the text of the article. The Daily Telegraph’s “The Jews Who Fought For Hitler”* is such an article.

It’s rather unfortunate too as the article itself is excellent and haunting—presenting war in all its naked absurdities and contradictions. It’s a story of a group of people who, like so many in the Second World War, were forced to accept one of several wholly terrible choices and make the best of it. I hate, in many ways, that I feel obliged to rip an article that humanizes history so well.

However, the headline is borderline libelous and worthy of contempt. These Jews did not fight for Hitler any more than the Serbians fought for the British Empire in World War I, the Americans for Napoleonic France in the War of 1812, or even the Brazilians for the Soviet Union during World War II. The Jews in question fought in the Finnish Army during Finland’s separate wars against the USSR. During these conflicts the Germans and the Finns happened to fight on the same side. While there was coordination between Finland and Nazi Germany, Finland never joined the Axis Powers. While one can freely debate whether or not Finland’s geopolitical deal with the devil to crush a historic bully was the ethical decision, it’s certainly an incredibly reckless overstatement to say that Jewish soldiers who fought for Finland against an existential threat to their national sovereignty were therefore fighting for Hitler. The statement that these soldiers “fought for Hitler” is defamatory, and is unworthy of the individuals whom the author interviewed for the article.

Daily Telegraph, you should really be ashamed of yourself. In an era when anti-semitism is resurgent, and so many nations (ahem, Iran) look for any excuse to trivialize the experience of Jews during the Second World War, they certainly don’t need help from what is supposed to be a reputable news magazine.

* I linked to the Daily Beast since the Telegraph only allows a limited quota of article views before you have to subscribe.

The COO of a Company That Revolutionized How We Communicate Wants to Ban a Word

Seeing no new updates on the ongoing Russian siege of the Crimean Peninsula, I was surprised that another siege seems to be gathering media attention this morning: that of Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg besieging the English word bossy. The “Ban Bossy” Campaign—which is part of a broader program of female empowerment led by affiliated organization Lean In—promotes the elimination of the word bossy from the English language, or at the very least wants to place it on some sort of list of verbum non grata.

I have mixed feelings on this campaign, just as I have mixed feelings on its leading proponent. While I do think that the phenomenon of Facebook (and social media generally) is one of the worst developments in human interaction since the evolution of adolescence or the discovery of the first STD, I have always been impressed by Sandberg herself. Reading a description of Sandberg’s personality makes you realize that she would be the type of person to turn a 10 cent lemonade stand into a sprawling corporate empire. She’s brilliant, a natural leader, unfailingly positive, and—amazingly for an officer of corporate America—she has a conscience and a sense of social responsibility that genuinely goes beyond the hollow PR platitudes of most corporate executives. She’s Facebook’s Rommel—a leader who is such a class act that said leader can almost be exonerated for working for evil.

The central argument behind “Ban Bossy” is as compelling as it is familiar. There’s no great epiphany or revelation here, simply a more public statement of something that’s become almost axiomatic: that women are dissuaded from assuming leadership positions, and even when they do many leadership traits that are seen as positive in males are seen as negative in females. In terms of how the word bossy fits into this, the argument is that girls are afraid of being called bossy—so much so that they will avoid assuming leadership positions out of fear of social ostracism. I certainly don’t think you have to be Germaine Greer to appreciate the fact that there are socially constructed gender roles that scorn behaviors that are not in conformance with stereotypes. As “Ban Bossy” points out, girls are twice as likely as boys to worry that leadership roles will make them seem “bossy,” and therefore they—beyond talk of glass ceilings or institutional discrimination—naturally suppresses their desire to be a boss.

So, if I agree with the basic premise of “Ban Bossy,” why do I still have mixed feelings? Admittedly, when I saw the headlines, my stomach tied itself into a knot and I wasn’t particularly sure why. I had a moment of existential angst where the anarcho-feminist living in my head accused me of being a sleeper-agent for the patriarchy. Who knows? Maybe she’s right.

I don’t think she is though. Rather, I think my instinctive dismay and skepticism over their stated aims for the word “bossy” came from another word they used: “ban.” Because, while the anarco-feminist living in my head was accusing me of being the Benedict Arnold of feminism, the clone of Rush Limbaugh that lives three doors down from her was frothing with rage at yet another example of run-away political correctness. While that’s a whopper of a red-herring, it did make me realize something a bit depressing: that the very people who really need to hear the argument behind “Ban Bossy” will actually only pay attention to the perceived imposition of political correctness—not the argument behind it.

Sadly, I do think my Rush Limbaugh mind-tenant has a point. It is political correctness. It is also imminently reasonable political correctness. Here there’s certainly a laudable rationale for not using the word “bossy,” and I would say that the potential benefits substantially outweighs the loss of a word that has now become gendered and loaded from our lexicon. Additionally, it’s not as if “Ban Bossy” is petitioning Congress to criminalize the utterance of the word—nor are they asking Merriam-Webster to strike it from the dictionary; they’re simply asking for all of us to consider not using it because of its role in scaring girls away from seeking leadership positions. Simply, they’re making an appeal for mindfulness and awareness. What almost certainly happened is that Sandberg & Co. used “Ban Bossy” because it was a clever branding phrase that grabs attention and has lovely consonance.

Unfortunately, I predict that the imminently reasonable points articulated by “Ban Bossy” will be buried beneath hyperbolic consternation over the perceived shackling of our vocabulary by liberal political correctness. To be honest, this is a discussion that’s too important to risk it being sidetracked by trivial considerations. We cannot afford for this discussion to become bogged down in quagmire of Kulturkampf.

Why Calling the Conflict in Ukraine One Between “West vs. East” Is An Insult to Cardinal Directions

Ever since former* Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych publicly announced that Ukraine’s relationship with the EU was strictly platonic, the journalistic path of least resistance is to consider the United States’ and the EU’s ongoing spat with Russia as the opening move in a conflict between East and West—or at the very least “Cold War 2.0.” It’s one of those hyperbolic headlines that is, in the social media world of nanosecond journalism, too tempting to refrain from using.

It’s also, I think, terribly wrong and silly.

Why? I think it might be that I simply have too much respect for the Soviet Union compared to Putin’s New Russia. That’s not so much a compliment of the old USSR as much as it is an acknowledgment of how petty and immature Putin’s New Russia looks in comparison. Full disclosure first: I am not a huge fan of bullying superpowers, and the USSR was certainly one of the worst of that ilk. Before I get accused of being a Soviet apologist, I should point out that it also never ceases to amaze me how many self-professed liberals (I am looking at you, Mr. Galloway) wax nostalgic for the USSR; though the presence of the USSR did reign in US unilateralism to an extent, I would certainly like to see that argument pitched to Hungarians in ’56 or Czechs in ’68. However, I will give the USSR credit that it at least represented a compelling intellectual alternative to Western modernity and capitalism. Even if every Soviet leader eventually lapsed in their religious reverence for communist revolution, it was at least a belief system that offered the world something more than simply different borders and unadulterated military force. In fact, I would be more empathetic with New Russia if it was merely a USSR reboot. Depressingly, the sole commodity it offers is Vladimir Putin.

You’re Not Even Half the Man Your Father Was

New Russia doesn’t offer an intellectual rebuttal to a post-colonial world; it merely offers a cult of bigoted nationalism neatly packaged by the marketing brand known as Vladimir Putin™. Instead of being forced to rely on disgruntled Trostkyist student groups or New Left Philosophers to be intellectual disciples to the West, New Russia can expedite the process by publishing pictures of shirtless Vladimir Putin™ roundhouse kicking a harpoon into a whale while riding a horse.

That’s not to say that Vladimir Putin™ doesn’t try to argue with the West—he certainly does. However, it’s appropriate to compare how the Soviet Union argued with the West with how Vladimir Putin™ manages it. The Soviet Union, for all its hypocrisy and willingness to trample on the very people its revolutionary ideals tried hardest to champion at least offered a poignant cross-examination of Western foibles. Whether this cross-examination was directed at apathy over poverty, anti-colonialism, or race relations, the USSR at least prima facie offered an alternative perspective on how to tackle those problems (regardless whether it practiced what it preached).

On the other hand, Vladimir Putin‘s™ rebuttal to the West is an extended middle finger combined with a sardonic reference to US/EU hypocrisy. The West is complaining because Russia de facto annexed part of Georgia? Well how dare they criticize Vladimir Putin™ when they bombed Serbia and created a puppet state of their own in Kosovo? Is the West whining about Russia playing hardball in the Security Council over allegations of chemical weapon use in Syria? Well who’s the West to think they have any business in Syria anyway? Besides, we’re quite sure it’s one of the dozens of disparate militant groups (all of whom are al-Qaeda) that used said chemical weapons. Is the West condemning Russia for interference in Ukraine? Vladimir Putin™ says that Russia has the right to intervene because…Iraq or something.

Vladimir Putin‘s™ foreign policy is ideologically vacant contrarianism for its own sake; even if that contrarianism produces contradictory results such as condemning humanitarian intervention in Syria while justifying it in the case of Ukraine. This straight talking contrarianism has endeared him to many who prefer his bombast and deadpanning over the carefully couched language that’s normal fare in the world of international diplomacy. It has also, bizarrely, helped make him a darling of the American Right. While it might play well for domestic consumption, it’s certainly not making Vladimir Putin™ sympathetic to the international leaders whose support he is alienating. His method of engagement is one more suited to a child pitching a tantrum, or an adolescent quarreling with a parent—not that of a mature statesman.

Vladimir Putin‘s™ offers only reflexive anti-American or anti-West venom. What about economically? Surely the leader that saved Russia from the horrific depression in the ’90s is able to provide some compelling alternative to economic paradigm in the West.For his part, New Russia under Putin has not only intellectually surrendered to the West in economic policy, but has become a wholesale religious convert—and now with fundamentalist zeal he has regressed the economy from free market capitalism to something approaching the world of 18^th century mercantilism, or at the very least 19^th century robber barons. Now, Putin’s orgiastic collusion with entities like Rosneft and Gazprom makes the Bush Administration’s cozy relationship with Halliburton look like coquettish flirtation. Soviet internationalism and economic redistribution has been replaced by pseudo-racialist nationalism and plutocracy.

This tiff between New Russia and pretty much every other sane country in the world isn’t one between East and West, but a much older one that defies cardinal directions. Vladimir Putin™ isn’t an avatar of any kind of Eastern European culture or political philosophy; instead he is one more member of a class that we should already be painfully familiar with—the leader ruling by cult of personality. While Vladimir Putin™ is certainly more media savvy and sophisticated than a Kim Jong-Il, a Stalin, or a Hoxha, but he is simply a postmodern variant of the cult of personality. The diversity of Akkadian warrior-kings, divine Japanese emperor-monks, and fascist European dictators argues that government by personality cult is an international and panhistorical, not something that can be relegated either to a cardinal direction or—unfortunately—the “dust bin” of history. Even if it is tempting for journalists to resort to “Clash of Civilization” style arguments, let’s be clear: the only thing that is clashing is Vladimir Putin‘s™ ego with pretty much every country that’s not enthralled by Moscow.

Cold War 2.0?

Even if Russian intervention in Ukraine causes some escalation in tension between Russia and the US and EU, one should resist the literary impulse to label it Cold War 2.0. After all, if the Cold War is going to have a sequel, then it should at least be roughly equivalent in scale and scope as the original. Calling this current impasse in Russo-everybodyelse relations Cold War 2.0 is like saying that Jaws 3D is a fitting sequel to the original Jaws.

Before the death of Joseph Stalin, the Red Army had emerged from the Second World War as the dominant land force on the continent of Europe, boasted Maoist China as an inseparable ally, and developed its own nuclear weapons capability—to say nothing of the fact that it had also absorbed most of Europe East of Berlin as either a satrapy or a client. Just as relevant, however, is that the people of Russia and Eastern Europe were euphoric in victory as, thanks to their resilience, they had just dealt the mortal blow to nearly three centuries of Prusso-German militarism. The Soviet Union had a considerable hand dealt to it and still had its full house beaten by the West’s Straight Flush. New Russia right now has perhaps an ace high or one pair, while the West’s cards really haven’t changed much.

For some perspective, while Russia is on the brink of matching the nominal GDP of the Soviet Union right before its collapse, the economy of the US alone has increased over three-fold in that same period of time. While the size of the Russian Army is still considerable, and even though it has made significant technological progress, it is still an organization not fundamentally different from the forces Russia has sent into battle since the Napoleonic Wars—an army composed mostly by conscripts. While Stalin is correct that “Quantity has a quality all to its own,” even here Russia is objectively outmatched. While the Russian Military boasts around 766,000 men and women in uniform, NATO forces—even in an age of austerity and defense cuts—have over 4,000,000 in uniform, the vast majority of whom come from organizations that have suspended conscription in favor of professional, volunteer forces.

The disparity between the forces of NATO and those of Russia hint at yet another Russian deficit. Even though the Soviet Union had a vast array of puppet states, this should not mask the fact that they had many genuine allies that offered support for ideological and/or geopolitical reasons. China, India, Egypt, Cuba, North Vietnam, and a plethora of other states—many of which earnestly believed that the Soviet Union had a much more compelling global vision in a post-colonial world. Who will go to the mat for New Russia? Probably the remnants of the Syrian state led by Bashar al-Assad. Perhaps Venezuela will also offer some rhetorical support for Russian “humanitarian” intervention in Ukraine after they finish railing against perceived foreign intervention in domestic protests of their own. China would rather not endorse a position that separatists from Tibet, Taiwan, and Xinjiang would eagerly agree with. Iran might go either way depending on whether it sees the geopolitical advantage the opportunity creates (or whether it’s Rouhani’s or Khamenei’s day of the week to govern the country). Are there any countries that might be prepared to support Russia’s position with more than just hollow rhetoric? Only if Russia begins leveraging its clout against its traditional dependents.

Most distressing, however, is the vague and admittedly gut-based impression I get from observing manifestations of modern Russian nationalism. This isn’t nationalism borne by justified pride in economic, cultural, or geopolitical accomplishments; it’s nationalism that’s deliberately forged by nostalgia of the past due to the insecurity of the present. This kind of nationalistic inferiority complex—especially in a country that has a lot of guns and feels like it has a lot to prove—is a liability rather than an asset. The only cards New Russia can play is the fact that the country has its hands on the valves of Europe’s gas lines and the fact that the Vladimir Putin™ brand advertizes the fact that it will resort to insanity (albeit, manly insanity) before it considers admitting defeat. However, even these cards are about to be lost—or at the very least they are rapidly depreciating in value. Vladimir Putin‘s™ intervention in Europe will merely accelerate the already existent urge on the continent to find new energy sources.

Finally, the Vladimir Putin™ brand is rapidly eroding—which is perhaps the best way to understand his intervention in Ukraine. From a purely geopolitical point of view, had Russia merely waited for the euphoria of Yanukovych’s ouster to give way to a sober review of the Ukrainian economy, then Russian probably would have enticed Ukraine back at some level. Once Ukrainians realized that the US and EU can’t work economic miracles instantly, then suddenly Russia–who, remember, was always willing to dote on Ukraine with more money than either the US or EU was willing to part with—starts looking pretty good. Sadly, the Maidan wasn’t simply a geopolitical rebuff for Russia, but a public on the Vladimir Putin™ brand. If ordinary Ukrainians can thumb their nose at Vladimir Putin™, then what happens with other nations—or worse, dissident Russians—follow suit?

The intervention in Ukraine is more about salvaging a dying brand as it is about protecting Russia’s historic strategic interests. Unfortunately for Vladimir Putin™ and New Russia, in exchange for the opportunity to salvage a brand and insure a naval base, he has also crushed Russia’s long-term foreign policy of creating a customs union that can at least be humored as an alternative to the EU. What must be even more dismaying for Vladimir Putin™ is that his armed intervention in Ukraine has made the most eloquent and articulate case for the continued relevance of NATO at a time when political leaders in European capitals were enduring existential angst over the future of the alliance. He has also made an equally effective case against the tumbling military budgets of Europe and the US. I can only hope that displaying cojones and the opportunity to plant the flag on Crimea was worth it.

But it’s not Cold War 2.0.

Instead, like too many conflicts in history, it’s simply a conflict over a vain and petty man’s dreams of aggrandizement and empire. For the press to herald this struggle as a new Cold War is too much stroking of Putin’s already massive ego.

*Or, as the Kremlin adorably classifies him, the current and legitimate Ukrainian President who also happens to have no chance of ever becoming president again.