Took Finn to the groomer, and now he's all pretty

[conuly]

When we got there, and we were waiting, I sat on the bench outside. I'd brought Moonpie with me to get her nails trimmed, and she hid under the bench.

First the tech came to take Finn for his distemper shot. Moonpie decided she was safe and climbed onto my lap. Then the tech came back and went for Moonpie. That dog made several valiant attempts to scramble out of her arms and back into the safety of my lap, but to no avail. Poor baby.

On the one hand, I'm really touched by her obvious trust in me. On the other, honey, your nails urgently needed trimming!

**************

Building mechanical memory boards using origami

Photos of NYC in the 1880s. (Lots of pictures of people jumping, probably because the photographers thought that it was supercool to get snapshots of people in midair.)

Solving a Century-Old Typographical Mystery

On Streets and Subways in South Korea, Poetry Hides in Plain Sight

COVID-19 Is Transmitted Through Aerosols. We Have Enough Evidence, Now It Is Time to Act

New US virus cases fall as masks gain favor but testing lags

Fauci says rushing out a vaccine could jeopardize testing of others

We Need to Talk About School Transportation

Office Life at the Pentagon Is Disconcertingly Retrograde

‘You Are Not an American’

Suppressing Native American Voters

Inmate beaten to death at federal lockup

Despite Huge Number of Misconduct Complaints, Cops at NYPD’s 75th Precinct Keep Getting Promotions

Shot by police, thwarted by judges and geography

Comments

[kengr]

Shot by police, thwarted by judges and geography

There's a pattern here. Well several, actually. But the one I'm going to talk about is this:

Cops acting in a legal justifiably manner, cause damage to an innocent person or their property.

Those people are owed *some* sort of compensation for the mistake. I say we pass a federal law requiring the departments to pay compensation at regular insurances rates (ie standard amounts for bodily harm, property damage etc).

The departments will be encouraged to carry insurance for this, but if they don't want to they don't have to. They still have to pay. And said payments get first cut at their budget.

No more leaving victims on their own whether it be a shooting or "just" major damage to a house/apartment during a search of the wrong place.

In short, if malicious intent is found, you still get to sue. But even if it was an "innocent" mistake, the department is still on the hook for the damages.

And it should roll uphill. If the law enforcement agency can't pay, then the remaining debt goes to the jurisdiction they are under.

Police rolls over to city, sheriffs rolls over to county, state agencies roll over to the state, federal ones roll over to US government.

We *need* to establish that injuries resulting from the actions of government agencies or their agents *must* be paid for. Period.

I'd like it if payments made were public not part of some confidentiality deal. but I'll defer to legal types as to whether that would cause problems for the victims.

Having a public record of how much it is costing a department for these sorts of things might help rein them in.

[brokenallbroken]

robably because the photographers thought that it was supercool to get snapshots of people in midair

IIRC, the first few generations of photo film required exposures of several minutes (which is why everyone looks so dour), so an exposure speed fast enough to catch someone jumping in midair was supercool and novel.

[conuly]

Yes, previously long exposure times is what I was alluding to - although I'll point out that while it's true this contributed to people's "dour" expressions in old photos, it's also the case that it was culturally appropriate for people to look more serious in pictures then than it is now. Even with faster exposures, people didn't "say cheese" or "whiskey" to make a smile, they were exhorted to say "prism" or "prune" to make the appropriately sober expression. And they didn't just look serious in photographs, of course, but also in sketches and paintings and so on - and while we might say that of course, posing for a painting is also a taxing job that requires a neutral expression, the artist can improvise a little where the camera cannot.

https://time.com/4568032/smile-serious-old-photos/

https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/the-serious-and-the-smirk-the-smile-in-portraiture

[chez_jae]

Poor Moonpie!