Home » Posts tagged "should" (Page 3)

We Should Have a Review of our Constitution

We should have a review of our Constitution.

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate,

Formerly employment Officer P.E.S. II.

E.Mail. dalipsinghwassan @ Yahoo Co.In.

We must accept that our Constitution had accepted all good items available in Constitutions of other countries and therefore, it is a comperhensive document and shall be guiding us for all the times to come. We have been conducting review and there had been some amendments in this Constitution. Still we need more amendments because uptil now we could not provide that only competent people should come forward in the houses. We could not provide maximum age uptil which they shall be in the houses. It would have been better if people who are more than 70 years age should not be present in the house and we should have abolished all the state level legislative assemblies because one Parliament is enough to represnt us. We are one country and we have got one types of our problems and the situations and conditions are also the same. We have got one nation and when we have a deep look, all the provinces have created so many problems for us. These units have given birth to religious and regional political parties and now these parties are taking more than due place in the centre too. Had there been one Parliament in this country, there were chances that there could have been two to three political parties there were chances that these parties would have taken competent people in them. All and sundary would not have been allowed to enter these two to three parties and there were chances that these parties would have adopted the path of giving us shadow cabinets and we, the people of India would have been given a chance to elect ministers direct. The present system of appointing ministers by the Prime Minister is not healthy because here we are obliged to appoint ministers as their share in the government and merit is no consideration. That is the reason there is no unity in the cabinet and they just work. Since ministers are not appointed on the basis of merits, they are not in a position to hold charge of people working under them. Rather they work under the bureaucracy and in most of the cases orders are passed by the bureaucracy and signed by the ministers. Such government cannot be called a

democracy.

We should think of establishing one Public Service Commission for the whole country and similarly there should be Subordinate Services Selection Board for whole of the country. We should see that the Employment Exchanges are also allowed to function and if candidates appointed through these agencies are found fit their services should be regularised without rooting them thrrough the Subordinate Service Selection Boards. Recruitment to all offices should be made through these agencies and even establishments in private sectors be invited to utilise the services of these organisations. We should not disturb and put into difficulties our unemployed people and they should be tested once and given job as per their performance in the competitive test.

We should abolish all schools and colleges which are estrablished on religious basis and there should be educational institutions as national institutions and none should be allowed to preach his own religion through these institutions. We should limit the religious institutions in the country their numbers be fixed by the state and the state must have an eye on these institution so that they may not be giving birth to fundamentalists who can cause danger to our unity and integrity.

We should have one law for the whole of India so that the people must be in a position to understand law and they also start believing that people of one part are not better placed. Whole of India must be open to all of us and none of the state be allowed to see that people of its own area are getting jobs under the state and people from other states are not allowed to participate in competitions.

We should ensure that each one of us has got proper education, proper training and proper adjustment at work from where each one is carrying adequate income with which he is able to run his family administration. We are more than 100 crore in number and therefore, we need a working force of about 40,00,00,000 and if such an assessment is carried out, we shall be short of workers. There had been some defect in our plannings that we could not develop such a structure in which each one of us should have been at work and none should have been dependant upon others.

We may allow to the people religious libirty, but time has come when we shall have to see that people who are living on charity should not be allowed to increase in number. even to day this number is on higher side and we must try to see that no one is allowed to live on charity alone and everyone should be at work because when a nation has got a large number of people living on charity, more and more people shall be joining this line and thus burdon on working people is increased and this is not a healthy sign. We should have an introspection and must see that this number is decreased.

We should see that people of one religion should not be allowed to concentrate on one place. They must be asked to disperse and locate themselves amongst people of other religions because people of one religion are located at one place, they start demanding something which our Constitution dies notallow. We should have one common civil code in which system of marriage and divorce should be one and similarly we should be having one succession law with us. We should see that the family should be bound to look after the infirm and old people and every child must get proper education and proper training. The nation must look after the child through his or her parents, but none of them should be allowed to go astray.

Till we have one spirit, we shall never become a nation and till we attain the status of a nation all these terrorism and riots shall be hampering our progress and we shall remain a backward country. Therefore, we should see that each one of us must get all these fundamental rightws automatically and is not is compelled to fight for these rights in Courts.

High-Security Shredders – What You Should Know

In order to meet increased needs of National Security, a new type of high level shredder has been developed. Here are a few facts about these impressive machines.

A New Kind Of Security

There are times and situations where only the very highest security will do. This standard, it should go without saying, applies when it comes to the destruction of secret and confidential government documents. In the US, in order to ensure that our national security is protected, top military and intelligence organizations have begun to use what are known as Level 6 Security paper shredders.

Recently, the United States Department of Defense and the National Security Agency have increased the requirements for shredding what are regarded as top secret documents. Known as the NSA/CSS Specification 02-01, it creates a new standard for shred particle size, as well as the durability of the machines themselves and their cutting mechanisms.

If a shredder manufacturer claims their machine meets these Level 6 Security specifications, that means that it shreds a document into particles that measure no more than one millimeter across by 4.7 millimeters long, reducing the sheet of paper into approximately 15,500 pieces. Shred particles of this miniscule size amount to essentially a mulch of paper, and ensure beyond a shadow of a doubt that documents that are fed into these Level 6 machines are rendered forever unreadable and can never be reassembled.

Other Features:

Most manufacturers high security shredders include a lot of the same features that are found in the rest of their lines. For instance, the vast majority feature automatic on and off functions that allow the user to leave the machine on in a sort of standby status until it needs to be used. The user can then just place the document into the feed opening and walk away knowing that what they just placed in the machine will never be read again.

Many of these machines also include features such as automatic shutoff when the door to the cabinet is open, and when the shredder’s waste bin is full. Features like these assist with the general user safety of the shredder, and if there is an automatic revers function as well, can save the machine from experiencing the added wear and tear of paper jams and other maintenance issues.

While most shredder manufacturers offer lifetime warranties on the cutting heads of their lesser shredders, often the longest warranty you will find for those of a Level 6 shredder is two years.

Machine Sizes:

High security shredder are available in many different sizes, depending on the manufacturer. There are machines that are meant to be placed at the desk side of high ranking officials and used on an as needed basis throughout the day, and there are some high security shredders that have the capacity to shred up to 28,000 sheets per day and can be placed in busy departments that need the very highest security on a daily basis. There are even machines that are designed to be used out in the field and come with rigged carrying cases.

Who Needs It?

Level 6 security machines are ideal for governments of all levels, as well as for military outfits. Contractors who work with these institutions may be required to use Level 6 Shredders as well.

If you are interested in more information about Paper Shredders you might want to visit Mybinding.com. They offer a great price on these essential office machines, and even offer Free Shipping on orders over $75. MyBinding also carries large selection of Shredder Accessories, such as shredder oil, bags, and boxes. Check it out today!

State should prioritize education, health

State should prioritize education, health
Subject: Editorial- Author: Brandi Panter- Published: Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Read more on The Daily Beacon

Should I have to pay to get information about me under the Freedom of Information act?

At university to get our exam papers back with the examiners’ notes on them, we need to pay a fee of £10, but should we need to do this when the information is legally entitled to us by the Freedom of Information Act?
There are no materials other than my exam paper. I already pay thousands of pounds for this degree too.
Freedom of Information in Britain is relevant in this instance, yes.

Why Freedom Should Trump Privacy Online

Why Freedom Should Trump Privacy Online
A global movement for Internet freedom sprang from the Iranian protests. A BBC poll found four in five people around the globe think access to the Internet is a fundamental right. We should target the “dirty dozen” countries that have Internet-access restrictions in place.

Read more on Newsweek

Understanding the US Constitution part 1- 5 Key Concepts Everyone Should Know


Easily understand the basic concepts of the US Constitution by mastering 5 Key Concepts. Understand Freedom, Liberty, Founding Principles and American History like never before. By Craig Seibert.

Should Religion Stay in the Pledge?

Can you still remember all of the words to the Pledge of Allegiance? Most of us recited the pledge every single school day from Kindergarten all the way through the sixth grade. Some junior high and high schools also required a daily flag salute and the recitation. This being the case, can you remember all of the words? Can you still rattle it off without thinking like most of us could do by the middle of our kindergarten year?

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” Hey! I can do it!

It’s funny how those two little worlds “under God” have caused such a ruckus. Many people insist that our country was founded on the idea of the freedom of religion. Others insist that forcing children to recite the words “under god” is forcing a single religion down school children’s throats—a religion that might not be taught or encouraged at home.

A few years ago a Congressperson caused quite a stir when he recited the entire pledge—without the words “under God.” Suddenly people were screaming that he wasn’t patriotic at all.

What do you think? Do you think that religion should play a part in our politics, or should the two be kept completely separate? Would it surprise you to learn that the original pledge did not contain religion at all? It was added in the 1950s as homage to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The Washington Post’s website has published an article that claims it is time to take the phrase back out of the pledge.

When the phrase was added to the pledge, the primary religion in the United States was one of the Protestant Sects and only five percent of the population did not claim any single religion. Today the United States has a much larger variety of religions within its borders. Today, there are people who claim Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, Muslim and Wicca (among a few others) as well as those who claim traditional Christian and Jewish sects as their religions.

The Washington post agues that “under god” and religion be stricken from the pledge because the greatest threat to the United States is not those who are “godless” but those who are “fundamentalist” in their religion—willing to harm or kill anyone who does not subscribe to their exact belief system. The Post argues that our beliefs about religion are not what set us apart from other nations, but that our tolerance of each religion is what makes us unique.

What do you think about the topic? Do you think that the pledge should acknowledge religion and, if so, how should that acknowledgement of religion happen? Not everyone is of a monotheistic faith. How do you incorporate each religion without the pledge taking five or six hours to recite?

For more information on religion, visit http://www.religionmicroblog.com and http://www.jewishmicroblog.com.

If Rand Paul says the Federal govt should adhere strictly to US Constitution, why’s he against 14th Amendment?

Look at this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052802231.html

I can understand being against “anchor babies”.

However, how can one claim to be a strict Constitutionalist, and then contradict something explicit in the US Constitution?