Presidential Entertainment: A Brief History

In my opinion, the current political arena is portraying an intensely controversial debate. The stunning content of the arguments delivers provocative views that may seem to misrepresent free speech. Don’t get me wrong, I respect honest people and those who are not afraid to express their beliefs; however, I admire those who are able to articulate their thoughts in a humanely fashion. An important feature of a democratic society permits each person the right to hold his or her own opinions and express them freely without legal interference.

            Notions of equality and citizens entitled to natural rights including political rights were different in the 18^th century. Nevertheless, I will begin with the foundations of U.S. government, which rest on solid political principles and carefully designed documents such as the Constitution. The introduction to the Declaration of independence states the purpose of government in terms of social contract theory, that people create government in order to secure their rights. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. It includes individual rights the government must respect. Moreover, it guarantees the freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press.

           

            The Declaration of Independence reflects the social contract principle since the colonists at the time believed that King George III failed in his duty to protect the people and their natural rights. The idea of natural rights comes from the philosopher John Locke, and it says that when government is no longer doing its job of protecting natural rights, people have the right to change the government or get rid of it and start a new one.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

– John Locke

            These are rights individuals are born with, that no government can take away. People have interpreted those words to determine rights that give people protection of their personal selves, their material goods, and the ability to determine their future without interference. Everyone’s right to life is protected by law. We must bear in mind other human rights. It is our individual duty to behave conscientiously in respect of other people’s rights in order to prevent misconduct. To convey an opinion ethically, one must proportionately restrict his or her freedom of expression. Article 10 protects political debates and includes the freedom to hold opinions as well as to receive and impart information.

            In addition, Benjamin Franklin explained the idea of popular sovereignty when he enlightened the idea that people are the source of authority and power in government. Government only exists because the people have willed it or given their consent to certain leaders to rule. Popular sovereignty is the principle that the people themselves, rather than the government, have final authority. A direct democracy upholds this principle because the citizens themselves vote to make decisions. A republic can also reflect this principle because the people give power to those they elect as representatives.

            A government is legitimate only if the people agree with its existence, meaning the government has their consent to rule. Social contract takes this a step further to say that this consent places government under an obligation to fulfill its purpose by protecting the people and their rights. If it does not, the people could withdraw their consent, abolish the government, and form a new one.

            The principles of social contract, popular sovereignty, and natural rights are closely related, and they are evident throughout the Declaration of Independence. Political debates are one of the most anticipated events in a presidential race. They are ‘game changers’ and can attract votes faster and guarantee victory. We have come a long way since the 18^th century, and in today’s world, it is more important than ever to be open minded and at the same time to identify controversial bullies. A controversial bully is the type of person that does not want to discuss a topic, but rather they know they are right and they feel the need to educate you.

            In our normal lives we encounter people with different views that we seriously disagree with, who tempt us to try to change their minds. I believe that the first step is for us to be tolerant to people’s views and seek to understand different visions before trying to change other’s opinions. It takes a lot of patience no matter how wrong the other person is, but it allows us to actually think and contemplate in order to state reasonable arguments. It is imperative to avoid arrogance and stubbornness and most importantly, we have to use respect. Human beings must reciprocate their kindness on respecting and tolerating each other’s opinions before imposing their views.

Maternity Leave is Coming

Women do take maternity leave and is often times unpaid. Moreover, it is through a patchwork system where they use up their vacation time and their sick days. This is not how it should work; mothers should not have to stitch together time to recover from childbirth. There are women who want to get back to work as soon as they can and that is obviously fine, but for many women, the current situation forces them to return well before they want to. What if the pregnancy does not go according to plan and the baby is born prematurely? Then, women are forced to make some truly heart-breaking choices due to financial reasons. As a woman and a taxpayer myself, it is insulting to know that there is no real plan that allows mothers to recover.

The United States have a bad reputation when it comes to taking care of expectant mothers. When it comes to maternity leave, the U.S is one of the worst countries in the developed world: 12 weeks of unpaid leave ties for the shortest time off. According to the United Nations, the United States and Papua New Guinea are the only countries in the world that do not provide any paid time off for new mothers. In the U.S., federal law grants workers just 12 weeks of unpaid leave and the main disadvantage is that this policy is restricted: the expectant mother would have to work for a company with fifty or more employees, she’d have to have been there for over a year, she’d have to be a full-time salaried employee, as in, if she is a freelancer or a contractor, it does not apply to her, which means that 40% of workers are not covered under the federal law.

This unpaid leave system in the United States was proposed back in 1993. I do not see advantages to this U.S. policy and it seems that any legislation that specifically seeks to support women often faces vocal opposition. The government’s current economic status does not allow federal contribution, and I agree. It is the employer who needs to value the employees enough to apply a different policy. Paid leave is perceived as burdensome when in reality, simple changes can be made to the U.S. policy: Partially paid leave can be funded through a small payroll tax as an insurance plan that would cost employers little to nothing. The few companies that have implemented this idea saw no negative effects and their businesses made it work. As a matter of fact, paid parental leave can be beneficial for the parents, the children, society and the companies.

Pre-employment Drug Testing

Recreational drugs are chemical substances that alter the mind and affect the body, and are taken for enjoyment and leisure purposes. While some states are legalizing certain recreational drugs, reducing government costs and raising tax revenues, it is sure to increase substance abuse. There is the notion that use of marijuana can lead people to experiment with harder drugs, and as a business owner, that’s a risk I would not want to take.

There are benefits to drug testing that I take into consideration when I agree with the importance of pre-employment drug testing. Though it brings a wave of debate, the most popular argument against drug testing states time-consumption and costs. It costs about $75 per applicant and the time it takes to put policies in place and conduct extra training is a small price to pay when I compare it with the time it takes Human Resources to bring corrective action against an employee as a result of the types of offenses that become more common when employees are using drugs.

Understandably, it depends on the size of the organization and the type of effort demanded by its employees, nonetheless I do believe that drug testing reduces absenteeism, accidents, workers compensation claims, loss of productivity and employee turnover. Lost time is more costly as it is the scarcest resource and if I take time and spend money to recruit, train and hire new employees, the cost of the drug test is completely justified. Moreover, legislation across all of the U.S protects companies that choose to drug test, as long as drug testing plans are laid out in advance to employees.  

Ironically, the legalization of marijuana might actually hurt most those who depend on it for their current livelihood and support its consumption. Additionally, making people pass a drug test before receiving welfare and government assistance justifies pre-employment drug testing. 

Corporate Social Responsibility

The task of corporate social responsibility is to prevent morally reprehensible practices, which can weaken society, damage companies and hurt employees. More and more companies have realized the relevance of moral practices in the business, even though they have not always sufficiently implemented CSR, yet. Concrete preventative measures are often labeled ‘risk management,’ a term more commonly used for avoiding financial risk and damage to a company’s reputation. Thus, companies define clear rules, so-called ‘compliance’ or ‘value-management’ systems. However, those are only one aspect of corporate social responsibility: CSR is not just about preventing ‘bad practices,’ like corruption and fraud and so on. 

There is no doubt that compliance management could be an efficient control mechanism in organizations, but companies can contribute to a good society through good business practices. CSR is about how companies make profits, not about how they spend them and it demands systemic changes in a market economy. Companies most not only become economic, but also moral actors. It requires an important and strong integrative perspective: Social and ecological criteria must be taken into consideration. We need employees of integrity at all levels of the company, and we also need organizational structures and clear rules. CSR is concerned with both individuals and institutional structure and ethics through questions of justification and implementation.