Court rules the government is short sighted
Filed under: Other issues, Rants and raves, Next big thing, Headline news
On Tuesday an appeals Court ruled paper money discriminates against the blind. Since I'm quite sure paper money cannot take a position on the subject, clearly it was the U.S. Treasury that was at fault for its short sightedness. Having given the case a good look the appeals court refused to overturn a lower court ruling.
It would appear to me that the court system should have recused itself entirely based on the conflict of interest in the case since there is a long standing tradition of blind justice making impartiality most difficult.
Nevertheless the court did rule 2 to1 that it is entirely possible for the government to design paper currency so that the blind will be able to easily discriminate between different denominations.
While the court took issue with the government's lack of sensitivity on the subject they felt that sensitivity could easily be added to the paper currency by the use of a textured surface or varying the size of the notes as is commonly done in other countries that are more sensitive than our own.
The American Council for the Blind sued for such changes but the Treasury Department has been fighting the case for about six years. "I don't think we should have to rely on people to tell us what our money is," said Mitch Pomerantz, the council's president.
Unfortunately for all of us what our money 'is' only deals with a small aspect of our currency problem. The more pressing issue has to do with what it's worth!
Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. He writes the columns Chasing Value and Serious Money. Disclosure: sometimes I can be silly.
I was fantasizing about how I might spend my economic stimulus check. If I lived in New York or Miami, I'd be tempted to splurge on a lifelong fantasy, to spend a day behind the wheel of a Lamborghini.
Working parents all over the country lament that fact that they don't get to spend enough time with their kids. Then they spend an average of more than $500 a month on daycare. So the obvious question rises: "Might an entrepreneurial parent be able to spend more time with their kids and still earn a decent income by operating a daycare center out of the home?"
The house my wife and I have shared for many years has been repeatedly attacked by termites, and we've burned through several companies, each of which has promised to solve the problem but failed to do so. I've been taking bids to treat the house with Dow's
According to 
Last night, I overheard my six-year-old daughter make a comment to my wife, that got me thinking. Just what I can conclude from this, I'm still working out.
I'm a clean guy. I shower daily, shave every other day, change my sheets regularly, and am careful to straighten up the house before it becomes a breeding ground for disease and vermin. In other words, while I'm not Howard Hughes, I take personal hygiene very seriously. Consequently, when I began noticing little bumps on my legs a few months ago, I was pretty alarmed. The fact that my wife and daughter had them as well made me feel simultaneously relieved and disturbed; on the bright side, I realized that my bumps weren't a symptom of herpes or some debilitating infection that I caught off a toilet seat (I used to watch way too many medical dramas). The downside came with the realization that my wife, daughter, and I were now sharing our house with some unwanted visitors that my wife subsequently identified as bedbugs.
This post is part of our series ranking the 








