Sunday Round-Up - 16th February 2014

by Graham Email

1. Kansas House Bill 2453
This bill, which permits all types of providers of public service (including, but not limited to medical professionals, hospital staff, pharmacists, and law enforcement) to refuse to interact with or serve people they perceive to be homosexual, using a brand new "religious belief" exemption. I use the word "perceive" because I do not believe that there is any normal way that anybody interacting with a member of the public can definitively know if that person is gay, unless they are in possession of NSA data, or they are engaging in invasion of personal privacy.
It is my opinion that this bill is an excellent example of what I term political masturbation. It was dreamed up to address the fears and trepidations of electors who think that when something happens that do not like (in this case, the appearance, seemingly out of nowhere, of The Gayz), somebody needs to Pass A Law Against It. It is possible that the bill may not become law, since the GOP appears to have decided that the shitstorm is too great. UPDATE - The Bill has essentially been put on indefinite hold by the State Senate.
Even if the bill is signed into law, it is my belief that it will rapidly be ruled unconstitutional, since it appears to conflict with the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution (aka the Equal Protection clause). However, if the law is declared to be unconstitutional, that does not matter. What really matters is that the legislators who voted for it can then turn to their supporters, shrug their shoulders, and say "well, we tried..." and then go on to explain how they were thwarted by . This is the worst kind of pandering, rote politicking, and the sad reality is that electorates fall for it every time. More fool you, Kansas electors.
UPDATE - If you want to understand the extent to which a broad religious belief exemption could be exploited, read this article about a Walgreens pharmacist who engaged in guerilla warfare against the sale of contraceptive drugs where he was employed. He was fired, and is now suing Walgreens.

2. Political Correctness
I am wary of this phrase. It gets thrown around a lot, mostly by people who seem to be unhappy that they cannot be obnoxious about other human beings or their worldviews without being called on it.
John Scalzi has a very good summary of his view of what you should think about before you use the phrase over at his blog:

“Political Correctness” is a catchphrase which today means one of two things. The first is, “I have done no substantial thinking on this topic in at least twenty years and therefore anything I say past this point cannot be treated with any seriousness.” The second is “It is more important for me to continue my ingrained bigotry than it is for you not to be denigrated or offended by my bigotry, because I am lazy and do not wish to be bothered.” If in fact you do not intend to convey either of these two things, you should not use, nor sign on to a document which uses, the phrase “political correctness.”

3. The Jonathan Martin bullying affair
Those of us who follow the NFL heard all about this over 3 months ago, when Jonathan Martin suddenly left the Miami Dolphins. It soon became clear that he had left mainly because he perceived that he had been subjected to unfair and threatening harrassment by team-mates.
The NFL commissioned an investigation of the incidents and the culture of the Miami Dolphins. The investigator has now released his report. It is exhaustive, detailed, and does not make good reading for either the Miami Dolphins or the NFL. Briefly, it confirms that several team-mates of Martin, led by Ritchie Incognito and Mike Pouncey, also involving John Jerry, engaged in a campaign of harrassment of Martin. It also confirms that coaches were aware of the harrassment, but did not take any action.
In the wider USA, these sorts of events would be prima facie evidence of a hostile workplace or work environment, and legal consequences would be inevitable. It is going to be interesting how the NFL and the Miami Dolphins react to the report, but here (for what it's worth) are my observations:

1. Ritchie Incognito is, by his own admission, a man with a troubled past and mental challenges. The Miami Dolphins signed him presumably knowing those facts. It therefore was incumbent on them to monitor his behavior to ensure that he did not create issues for the team. It appears that no such monitoring occurred. If you needed proof of his mental fluctuations, you need only look at how he jumped on and off of Twitter in the past week, finally deleting his Twitter account not long after the NFL report was published. This is not the behavior of a smart or well-balanced person.
2. It is the job of the coaches and leaders of a team to get the most out of all of the players on the team. This extends to making sure that the players are taken care of in terms of their work environment. Workplace interactions are sometimes not part of playing the game, but all players deserve a positive working environment and respectful treatment. This means that players who are different in their approach to workplace interactions, in a positive way, need to be embraced. If they are different in their approach to workplace interactions in a negative way, they need to be informed of this, given the chance to change their behavior, and if that does not yield a positive result, they may need to be shown the door. There is no compelling evidence of negative behavior by Jonathan Martin, but there is plenty of documented evidence of bad behavior by Incognito and other team mates.
3. Under no circumstances must leadership abdicate responsibility for managing a workplace environment. If they do so, they are effectively signalling that any majority viewpoint on how team members should behave is acceptable. Using the "buck stops here" process, senior leaders in the Dolphins, including the head coach, should have known that the issue existed and should have been involved in crafting a solution. However, it seems that no action was taken by leadership, who were subsequently surprised when Martin walked out on the team. This suggests a lack of attention to workplace behavior and discipline.
3. The "boys will be boys" rationalization of bad behavior is not viable in a workplace where the average age of the workers approaches 30. Neither does calling Jonathan Martin a "snitch" or a "pussy" magically eliminate the accountability for bad behavior by his team-mates, or the lack of interest shown in the behavior by the Miami Dolphins. The use of those words tells me more about the bully-enabling mindset of the accusers than it does about Martin's behavior.
The NFL is under increased scrutiny about workplace behavior, both as the result of the Jonathan Martin affair, and the decision of draft prospect Michael Sam to announce that he is a gay American. The NFL needs to take the lead and inform teams that the old "law of the jungle" working environment, with coaches looking the other direction as immature and dysfunctional behaviors occur, is not acceptable. More importantly, the NFL needs to beware of the trap into which a lot of corporations fall, when they tolerate jerks and assholes, to the detriment of the corporation, because they are perceived to be successful or talented.
Yes, this will change the culture of the locker room. It's called evolution. The NFL had better get used to it, before they and teams find themselves not only buried in lawsuits, but potentially under Federal investigation.

4. Amazon's e-book strategy
This excellent post by science fiction author Charlie Stross explains the dynamics, strategy and consequences of the entry of Amazon into the e-book market.