Going ‘Postal” in Hope Mills

Two quibbles this evening about usage/abusage of the English language:

(1)  Went to the Hope Mills Post Office late this morning to send a couple of cards to my in-laws in Germany (“Oma” fell this morning and is in the hospital) and to acquire some stamps. . . .   Postal Clerk:  Would you need anything else?   Me:  “Yes, I’d also like to have 40 ‘Forever’  stamps.”  PC:  “Sorry, we don’t have any right now.” Giggling followed.   Moral:  “Forever” is not always “always.”

(2) I read in the local daily this morning that Sean Penn won the Oscar for “Best Actor” for his role as Harvey Milk in “Milk.”  As part of his acceptance speech,  Penn proclaimed, “We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.”  A noble idea, certainly, but perhaps needful of some scrutiny and interpretation.  What think you about what Penn said? (He won the Oscar for portraying a gay, esteemed, popular, and rising San Francisco City Councilman who was murdered by a political rival.)

Please provide some comments/opinions.

RJR

Advertisements

32 Responses to “Going ‘Postal” in Hope Mills”

  1. Tammy Stephens Says:

    Title-Keep blog away from Xfriend, lol.
    1)So sorry to hear about your mother-in-law! May she get well soon!
    2)Equal rights- our country is, and has improved, but still has a way to go to be “equal”.

  2. Mr. Potatoe Head Says:

    RJR,
    In response to your “Postal” comment, I just retired last year from 20 years in the Postal Service, 15 of which was as an SSA (Window Clerk).
    It’s fairly common for the Branches and Stations to run out of stamps. We weren’t very high on the totem pole when ordering stamps from Charlotte, so we would run out on a regular basis. I used to liken it to McDonalds running out of hamburgers. There’s just plain no excuse for it, especially for someone who has stood in line for 20+ minutes for a book of stamps.
    Unfortunately, the USPS would rather you order your stamps online, by phone, by automated machinery, or at a grocery store. The powers that be would prefer that you mail everything using the Premium Express Mail Service anyway.
    In fact, if Express Mail was not given to you as an option, the clerk who waited on you would be open for disciplinary measures. We are ordered to up sell the product or face the consequences. Now that’s Going Postal.
    It’s not about the people anymore, it’s about the profit. I would challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

  3. pen Says:

    No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    No scrutiny or interpretation needed-equal rights for everyone.

  4. Goose Says:

    Homosexuals are afforded the protection of laws the same as heterosexuals. As of today, the law does not allow gay marriage. If you dont like it, get the law changed. Until then, majority rules.

  5. 58SF77 Says:

    Say Goose. Majority rules? Tell that to Al Gore. And how about
    the US Senate?

  6. pen Says:

    In the U.S. Senate majority only rules when the Republicans have it. When the Democrats have the majority 60 votes are needed to pass anything. Surely you know IOKIYAR?

  7. Forest Crump Says:

    Penn proclaimed, “We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.”

    Now, if we have equal rights to add for everyone is unnecessary because if they are not afforded to everyone then we do not have equal rights.

  8. pen Says:

    Some animals are more equal than others.

  9. GimmeABreak Says:

    I would like to suggest a white history month along with a hispanic history month. Equal right is a great thing.

  10. Forest Crump Says:

    The one thing that is equal to all humans, all life actually, Death, awaits us all.

  11. Disgusted Says:

    Raymond Rundus,

    Catchy thread title. But if you really want to see what “Going Postal in Hope Mills” looks like, I suspect you will if the spillway doesn’t pass inspection in April. 😆

    What do you think?

    This is JMDO.

  12. Tammy Stephens Says:

    Uh oh!

  13. David Wendelken Says:

    “Homosexuals are afforded the protection of laws the same as heterosexuals.”

    They do not have the basic right to defend our nation in the armed services.

  14. SimRacer Says:

    “They do not have the basic right to defend our nation in the armed services.”

    I must have missed the memo that said serving in the US Armed Services was a right, much less a “basic” right. It must have been on the same page as the “right” to have a driver’s license.

    Given your comment I have to assume that they’ve updated the civics text books with some revisionist Constitutional and Bill of Rights history since I was in school. Do we also now have the “right” to smoothies with no trans fat and coffee that won’t burn us if we spill it on ourselves? Along with the right to then sue the product providers because the smoothie tastes bland and our coffee is cold?

    See, I thought a basic right was something like “the pursuit of happiness”. Notice, there’s no guarantee of happiness in that phrase. Only the right to pursue it.

  15. GimmeABreak Says:

    David,
    Ever hear of don’t ask don’t tell? Homosexuals can serve as long as they do not flaunt their in moral behavior.

  16. pen Says:

    Heh. That’s funny, how you equate a person who wants to risk their life in defense of our nation to a person who files a frivolous lawsuit over coffee, because everyone knows they’re the same thing. Spend a second and think about whether or not there is a basic right to self defense, to defense of family and property, to defense of country, and think about how that might equate to a right to serve in the military.

    Is flaunting immoral behavior now not allowed by the military? Was that a shiver that just went through Fayetteville’s booze, strippers, and whores industry?

    How patriotic to prefer re-deploying the same exhausted troops over and over rather than allow every American to do their part.

  17. Dave Hayes Says:

    In college, I was the only member of ROTC on my campus (I went to a program at nearby Seton Hall). I had a friend who was gay and he asked me to explain why the military wouldn’t let him serve.

    He went on to explain that he loved his country and that, if there was a war, he would lie to be able to serve. For him, this was not some abstract political issue.

    I remember thinking that most of the other people I knew would be more likely to lie to avoid serving.

    Here was a person who shared my values, if not my sexual orientation, and I had to explain why he was deemed not good enough to serve.

    As I spelled out the standard justification, every word I said sounded hollow to me even then.

    As to whether serving is a right, when the country was formed it was viewed as an obligation, so it’s hard to put it in constitutional terms.

  18. Tammy Stephens Says:

    I never seen what the big deal was. When I was in the Army I had to share tents, motel rooms, etc… with men. All that anyone was concerned with was doing the mission to get back home. The times you are with people, you’re working. (Or ready to catch the very few hours of sleep you can get.) And what you do on your own time- should be your business.

  19. Raymond Rundus Says:

    2/27/09 and February 2009 is about to expire.

    Appreciation to all who spent the time, energy, and at times some solid thinking and valuing in responding to the “Going Postal” posting. Although “Mr. Potatoe Head” gave us a valuable insider’s look at the marketing practices of our postal service, most of these were replies to my request that readers comment on Sean Penn’s opinion that “We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.”

    Because Mr. Penn won his “Best Actor” award for portraying a gay San Francisco City Councilman, Harvey Milk, several of the blog responders took his commentary to be significant primarily to, or solely relevant to, homosexual “rights” in America. If Penn meant, then, that all gays or homosexuals should be equally protected by our laws, that is one thing. But if he mean that all Americans should have “equal rights,” that is a much different thing. As blog responder “Pen” (no relation) pointed out, our Constitution provides that “no State . . . will deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    But is “equal protection” in the legal sense the same as “equal rights” in the moral or social sense (being fully accepted as an “equal” to others?).
    This would seem to conflict with the basic Constitutional guarantee of “freedom of assembly.” That phrase has usually been interpreted to mean that any group of Americans can include or exclude members of it as it collectively wishes.

    Another caveat: We have probably all heard or read somewhere this statement, “All generalizations are false–including this one.” Sean Penn’s generalization is about as sweeping as it gets.

    The semantic distortion is also troublesome. As the founders of modern semantic inquiry (Alfred Korzybski, S.I. Hayakawa, and so on) have maintained, proper semantic distinctions rest upon the perception that “we” are all different, individual entities. And so are “they.” Lumping all together as “the same” leads to illogical, even possibly dangerous consequences: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal,” a slogan proclaimed as gospel by the pigs after they drove out the human farmers in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm.” (“Pen” brought this usefully forward.)

    To avoid bigotry or racism or prejudice, it is greatly helpful, as Hayakawa pointed out in “Language in Thought and Action,” to see each member of a group as having distinctive features or traits that make it/him/her an individual entity. This kind of equation is very helpful:
    Dog #1 is not Dot # 2 is not Dog # 3 and so on . . . .
    Heterosexual # 1 is not Heterosexual #2 is not Heterosexual # 3 and so on . . . .
    Jew # 3 is not “Jew # 2 is not Jew # 1 and so on . . . .

    Enough to mull or think about for now. Here, however, is a recent “factoid” I came across: Of a population of well over 300 million Americans now, 116 million are “bloggers.” What does this say about us? Blogger # 1 is not Blogger # 2 is not Blogger # 3 and so on . . . ?

    RJR

  20. Forest Crump Says:

    Blog on Ray-mond

  21. Tammy Stephens Says:

    What does this say about us?
    I enjoy that we are different. Especially getting to know everyone. Being different makes them all special. The blogs would be too boring to read if we all had the same opinions or thoughts. We might even end up writing on the same topics.
    I guess that means we all enjoy blogging, lol! 🙂

  22. Paetzold Says:

    http://move.happydayonline.info/
    hot hot best sait
    http://move.happydayonline.info/

  23. Colantro Says:

    Many thanks for sharing this great article. Please keep up this blog as it’s one of my favorite blog in my reader, thanks 🙂 Apple iPad

  24. Dembo Says:

    First reaction when i saw the before and after: awesome.

  25. Krieger Says:

    First reaction when i saw the before and after: awesome.

  26. Celia Says:

    First reaction when i saw the before and after: awesome.

  27. Bunton Says:

    First reaction when i saw the before and after: awesome.

  28. Finnen Says:

    First reaction when i saw the before and after: awesome.

  29. Palomar Says:

    cool pics

  30. Opitz Says:

    First reaction when i saw the before and after: awesome.

  31. Galt Says:

    First reaction when i saw the before and after: awesome.

  32. Dacosta Says:

    this news is totaly fine my friend i have tested it and i am sure it’s ok to take care if you need to contact please don’t hesitate to contact me to my email.

    http://worlds-online.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: