The Olympics vs. The Orange-Hued Conman

        
I have a confession to make: I love sports. I love watching them, and I love trying to play them. Much of this love stems from my love for for following rules--few disciplines have such specific, rigid, and closely-monitored rules as sports do--and for watching elite athletes perform and even create something new within those strict rules. Perhaps more importantly here, though, I love watching sports because they are true (discounting rare exceptions and conspiracy theories). I can watch an entire baseball game or track race and not wonder if something was cut or changed for time or effect or deception. Katie Ledecky really finished a swimming race five seconds ahead of her nearest competitor on Sunday, breaking her own world record. Odell Beckham Jr. truly made that uncatchable catch in his rookie NFL season. The amazing things athletes do are visible and measurable and hard to fake.

The Olympics, therefore, are like my quadrennial birthday. I could watch nearly every event, even ones whose rules I am baffled by, like rugby and wrestling. The wins (and sometimes losses) can bring tears to my eyes even though I have no personal connection to any of the athletes and usually don't relate to their stories. I am awed by the combination of natural talent and sustained effort to improve that these athletes exhibit. I'm sure I'm not alone in this--why else would NBC and its affiliates run almost non-stop television coverage for two weeks? It's all a refreshing break from election news and other world crises (if problematic that we can ignore crises to watch someone pole vault).

News outlets, too, have suggested that The Olympics are a break for the Presidential candidates themselves from the spotlight, a way for them to rest and regroup before the big election push. Donald Trump, especially, seems to need a break after his last two weeks of attacking dead war heroes' parents, citing film footage that didn't exist, and throwing babies out of his rallies, among other headline gaffs. However, he continues to attempt attacks on Clinton, this time with the dubious claim that "many people are saying" that an Iranian nuclear scientist was killed because of her hacked emails. #manypeoplearesaying is now trending on Twitter, but this type of phrase has been a hallmark of Trump's campaign; he makes outlandish claims that can't be supported by fact and then places the onus of their truth vaguely on others. In this way he can say anything he wants without owning or verifying it, and if it is racist or false, he can blame it on others, whether they are specific others or vague, unnameable ones.

Rather than a welcome break from campaigning, The Olympics, I posit, will mostly highlight the  contrast that an unskilled, untruthful Trump makes with world-class athletes who are the pinnacle of skill and whose very skills are displayed, mostly unedited, to the world. Hillary Clinton certainly is not the pinnacle of truth herself, but one might well argue that she is close to a political pinnacle due mainly to her diligence and hard work. My guess is that the U.S. will return to the Presidential candidates from Rio with less tolerance for shoddy, fake antics.

Professionalism and Fraudulence

I recently learned of a television show, now in its second season on the Food Network, in which four contestants attempt to "con" celebrity chef judges into believing they are professional chefs. Its title, Cooks vs. Cons, was what first captured my attention, and is essentially all that continues to hold it, as there is very little difference between this show and any other cooking contest otherwise. Certainly the alliteration is likely the main reason for this choice of titles, but in the idea that non-professional cooks are automatically somehow "cons" (short for con-artists and not convicts in this case, thought the ambiguity is also notable), the show succumbs to the trend begun in the second half of the nineteenth century to turn skills and livelihoods into professions by increasingly requiring formal schooling and exams for entrance into a variety of fields. While some outcomes of professionalization have undoubtedly been positive (I'd like my doctor to have a measurable set of skills, for example), in many cases the trend has excluded already marginalized groups such as women, racial minorities, and the poor from entrance into fields now requiring expensive schooling and/or extensive leisure time. What also happens is an effective monetizing of skills--one must acquire set knowledge and skills through legitimate (paid for) channels in order to be considered a "professional" in a given field.

This television show, then, pits four people against one another, two of whom are professional chefs, and two who are not professional chefs, asking the judges to choose the best chef, who then reveals that she is either a "pro" or a "con" and wins $10k if she is a professional cook, and $15k if she is a "con." The idea is neither particularly new nor particularly complex, but the name of the show and the money involved speak volumes. Although the amateur cooks are not expected to win the contest (a chef knows another chef when he tastes her food, after all), the amateurs are rewarded monetarily for "tricking" the judges into believing that they are professionals; the additional money signals both that the odds are against the "con" and that he or she can potentially use it toward becoming a "real" chef. The nomenclature "con" gives the viewer trouble deciding whom to root for--should we cheer on natural talent and untutored success, or condemn the amateur because she has carried out a successful confidence trick, gone around the system that creates legitimate "professionals," and led us to believe a lie? It seems that the problem is all the more fuzzy because we are dealing with cooking here, a skill that a large percentage of the population has to some degree, and one some might argue doesn't necessarily require any professional training.  Ultimately only the celebrity chef judges have anything to lose, because a vote for the "con" works to de-legitimize their training in the suggestion that a barber might be just as good a cook as a culinary schooled chef, or else that the celebrity chef might not be the best judge of fine cuisine.  

Ill-Gotten Gains

The story of Senator John Walsh (D) of Montana's plagiarism surfaced yesterday in a comprehensive article by the New York Times found here. The senator and decorated military veteran, who was appointed to replace someone else as senator in February of this year, seems to have received many of his recent achievements in part due to the Master's degree he "earned" from the United States Army War College in 2007. It's now been revealed that Walsh plagiarized nearly half of the final paper he wrote for completion of the degree, both by "forgetting" to quote cited sources and by wholesale copying of chunks of other documents without attribution. In a further development after the story broke yesterday, Walsh commented, claiming, according to the San Jose Mercury News, that "when he wrote the thesis, he had post-traumatic stress disorder from his service in Iraq, was on medication and was dealing with the stress of a fellow veteran's recent suicide." He explained that the "place" his "head" was in was not "conducive to a classroom."

Where should I begin?

The PTSD explanation seems like a flimsy excuse for stupid behavior, which demeans both the disorder and the classroom. Why would a man whose "head" was not ready for an "academic setting" choose to pursue a Master's degree? Walsh seems to say that plagiarizing an academic paper is something different, less serious, from other kinds of cheating and ethical missteps, apparently arguing that the so-called "academic setting" is different from real life and thus subject to different rules. And indeed, the repercussions for stealing someone's intellectual property are generally much less severe than those for theft of physical property that has more obvious monetary value. I don't want to begin a digression on academia, but I do want to point out that during and shortly after the time in question, Walsh seems to have been wildly successful in all other aspects of his life, becoming adjutant general of the Montana National Guard, lieutenant governor, and then U.S. senator in quick succession. In fact, much of this success seems to have led directly from the 2007 Army War College degree, which at least played a factor in his appointment to adjutant general of the National Guard. Were academics the only thing Walsh's PTSD negatively affected? Snarky comments aside, I fear that Walsh is making light of the importance of intellectual thought while he exploits a serious and complicated disorder. I don't question that Walsh had post-traumatic stress, but I also wouldn't accept that excuse for plagiarism in my own classroom, in much the same way as a security guard wouldn't accept a shoplifter's diagnosis of kleptomania and send him on his way, stolen goods in hand. Because really, what we are talking about here are stolen goods--the goods reaped from the seeds of intellectual theft, at any rate.

I'm curious to see what happens next. I've seen only minor wrist-slaps (if that) to other plagiarists (Fareed Zakaria, anyone?) and expect about the same here, though the U.S. Army War College may attempt some reprimand that at least sets an example to future students. I'm not sure how likely it was for a Democratic senator to get reelected in Montana anyway, so perhaps that ship sailed before this scandal.

Fake Intolerance and Viral Giving

A week or two ago, a story surfaced about a young child who was asked to leave a KFC because her scars from being mauled by dogs were bothering other patrons of the restaurant. An outpouring of support for the little girl and scorn for the restaurant employees soon followed; thousands of dollars and offers of free reconstructive surgery were offered to the family of the child, and KFCs were boycotted and their employees assaulted by beverages in drive thrus. KFC even offered $30,000 for medical costs.

Today, this article appeared explaining that the whole situation (except for the girl being scarred by a dog mauling) was fabricated by the girl's grandmother; no one asked the family to leave, and in fact the family was not even in a KFC on the day in question. What will be done now is unclear, but so many interesting/disturbing questions are raised by this particular "hoax," as the article terms it. The motivations for lying are fairly clear based on the facts: the grandmother's gofundme.com page had $600 before the "hoax" and managed to raise over $100,000 afterward. What is not certain is why the grandmother resorted to lying and false accusations rather than some more benign method to raise funds needed for her granddaughter's recovery. Innocent people were adversely affected by these lies even while one poor little girl was about to receive necessary care.

Do we respond more strongly to stories of injustice than other sob stories, and if so, why was facial disfigurement of a three-year-old not itself enough for us to open our pockets? Further, why is generosity not enough in these cases--why are people also tempted to retaliate, often ignorantly and indiscriminately, and sometimes violently, against those perceived as unjust? Is intolerance alleviated or simply perpetuated by a person like this grandmother who has fabricated intolerance and animosity where they likely did not exist before? What facts (or fictions) give us reason to be (or not be) generous?

High-Profile Fakes

It's been a long time since I wrote in this blog, both because I've been very busy and because I've been overwhelmed with the number of possible topics about which to write. I'm clearly just following a large-scale trend with my interest in frauds, and I cannot begin to keep up with all of the stories about them these days. However, this morning's story about the fake sign-language interpreter at Nelson Mandela's memorial adds yet another layer to my thoughts/questions about the motivations (and brazenness) some people have for putting themselves in a spotlight regardless of consequences. I am also increasingly interested in the lack of oversight that makes these kinds of impostures possible. I see two possible reasons to pretend you speak South African sign language in order to be chosen to "interpret" at a worldwide event: you cannot pass up the chance for worldwide visibility/fame, regardless of consequences, or you'd like to somehow critique or ridicule the event itself in an extreme, public way. Neither makes much sense to me, perhaps because I fear authority, crowds, and public appearance, but ultimately the whole situation is little more than an offense to a small group of people who are already underrepresented in media and government, both an offense in the sense that someone got on a stage and prevented the deaf audience from knowing what was being said, and offensive that the organizers of the memorial allowed him to get on the stage in the first place. How do we decide what is important enough to double-check and what is either so unimportant or so uncommonly fraudulent that it can be assumed or trusted without question? Do we still all assume that most people tell the truth, or do we just not care in some cases whether they do or not?

On the Trail of an Academic Forger

I have little to add to this fascinating story except to urge you, when you need a long break from doing something else, to read it.

The Sport of Lying

This week's news events seem to demand a post, though it is often difficult to add to what's already been said by dozens of news sources by now about either Lance Armstrong's belated doping confession or Manti Te'o's fake girlfriend, but perhaps there is yet more to consider. Lance Armstrong's confession by Oprah interview to taking illegal substances in order to win seven Tour de France races is a baffling move, explained in this article as a delusional attempt to make a clean comeback in cycling. Why would any cycling association allow a man who successfully hid his illegal doping for twenty years allow him to have any association whatsoever with any sport? Certainly delusion must be involved, excessive pride that becomes delusion given enough reinforcement. Perhaps sports should not affect their spectators so much, but many have been betrayed who believed that Armstrong honestly overcame all obstacles to become the world's greatest bicyclist, and were convinced that they could, perhaps, achieve anything with hard work.

Much of the above language is sappy and sentimental, but the sentimental is what made Armstrong a millionaire. Armstrong's story led directly to celebrity, endorsements, and the wild success of his livestrong organization. Of less obvious purpose is the other big hoax story of the week, the revelation that Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te'o's deceased girlfriend never existed. Questions abound as to whether Te'o was complicit in fabrication of the tragic story, or was himself duped and actually in love with an internet fabrication. It is possible that the story, claiming his girlfriend and grandmother had both died within a few days or weeks of each other, helped Te'o gain national attention and eventually become a Heisman Trophy finalist, which might also answer some questions concerning why the nation is finding out about this now, only after the college football season and BCS championship game. If he was unaware of the hoax, what gain was someone else getting? Is national attention enough, especially when it is essentially anonymous? Or perhaps malicious manipulation of a semi-public figure is enough, even without national attention. I expect it will soon be revealed that Te'o helped concoct the story to help his own football career, but if not, the story is a bit more bizarre.