Court says money discriminates against blind people?

[Ptah]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080520/ap_on_bi_ge/blind_money_7



WASHINGTON - The U.S. discriminates against blind people by printing paper money that makes it impossible for them to distinguish among the bills' varying values, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.


WTF!?

I don't even know where to begin with this. Nor can I say -- if this kind of idiotic ruling continues -- where it will end.

I ask you -- do you agree with the premise: that U.S. paper money as-it-is is discriminatory against blind people? Why or why not? What should we do about it?

[Sally]

That's awesome. I hope they start printing differently sized money TODAY.

If I were blind I'd be laughing with malicious glee. Actually I'm sighted, and I'm still laughing with malicious glee.

I mean what the hell? Why not?

[Anonymous]

Er, what's wrong with making money that blind people can read? If it's the word "discriminate" that is making you upset, sure, maybe no one is actively being discriminated against, but that's pretty irrelevant. What's relevant is that blind people had to rely on others to tell them how much money they had (which must really suck), and now they won't have to anymore.

[Ptah]

Nothing is wrong with the idea or practice of printing money that blind people would be able to (more easily, or whatsoever) read -- so long as it does not come at the expense of everyone else.

Yes, the word "discriminate" is what sets me off here (and causes my mind to spiral into the philosophical quandary of objectively defining and sorting out the implications of "discrimination" -- the term/concept itself).

Anyhow, the notion of instituting any kind of reform under the framing of "discrimination" in this particular case is sheer absurdity, if you ask me. Moreover, it invites inappropriate actions to be taken based on a corrupt interpretation of the matter; if the why is corrupt, so too will be the what, if you ask me.

Saying that paper money as-is is discriminatory against blind people is to suggest that someone somewhere undertakes the action of "discrimination", where in this context the term means something like:

a) to regard and/or treat one class of people differently than another, by choice ...
b) so as to favor one and/or disfavor the other, on an ethically questionable basis.

Do you really think the designers of paper money, originally and ongoing, chose on questionable ethics to favor non-blinds and/or disfavor blinds?

Print money that facilitates blind intepretation of it, fine. But don't do so under threat of a stick hoisted up by false moral premises.

I wager someone just failed to consider making money suitable for the blind. To fail to consider is not the same as to choose to consider, and turn down. This distincition is important, ethically, and should be clarified prior to any action being taken to address the matter, for the sake of those actions and their effect on society at large.

[Sally]

It seems like it's not an ethical issue but rather a legal issue - I'd wager that calling it "discrimination" means that action must be taken. Whereas ethics.... As if ethics would have any place in the legal/governmental system.... :}

[outmywindow]

While I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that having regularly sized bills is discriminatory (to me, that word has a shade of intention to it, which I don't see here), I can understand that it does pose an extra challenge for some people. Many countries already print bills which have varying sizes depending on denomination, which seems to work fine. Having lived with it while in Germany back when they were still on the DM, I can say that though it's a bit strange at first, you quickly get used to it.

Having bills of different sizes may also help prevent successful counterfeiting, which is something the Mint is very concerned with right now anyway, to the point of near desperation (see the gigantic cartoonish purple 5 on the back of the new bills for an example).

[Ptah]

While I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that having regularly sized bills is discriminatory (to me, that word has a shade of intention to it, which I don't see here), I can understand that it does pose an extra challenge for some people.

As do a great many things. Shall we "rectify" them as well under banners of "discrimination" -- or whatsoever? We may as well be consistent while we're at it, right? Where would it end? So it goes as with any other ethical absurdity.


Many countries already print bills which have varying sizes depending on denomination...

Cool. But here's the problem I see with that, in this context. Say we start printing varying-sized bills as you outline in response to this court ruling (and begin to enjoy the tangential benefits, etc). What's the message being sent? The legal precedent being established? Paper money as it was was discriminatory against blind-people, and that's why we changed it. Am I the only one who sees the problems lurking here?

[Limey]

Sign language discriminates against non-sign language speakers and is isolationist.
Don't get me started on AMERICAN sign language.

[outmywindow]

As do a great many things. Shall we "rectify" them as well under banners of "discrimination" -- or whatsoever? We may as well be consistent while we're at it, right? Where would it end? So it goes as with any other ethical absurdity.

Cool. But here's the problem I see with that, in this context. Say we start printing varying-sized bills as you outline in response to this court ruling (and begin to enjoy the tangential benefits, etc). What's the message being sent? The legal precedent being established? Paper money as it was was discriminatory against blind-people, and that's why we changed it. Am I the only one who sees the problems lurking here?
I already stated that I agreed with you that the word 'discrimination' is too strong and is poorly chosen in this context. However, since it's not up to me how the federal court system choose to word their rulings, I decided to answer to the rest of the implications present. Also, I never said I thought paper money should be altered to suit the needs of a specific group of people, simply that if it were to be, I wouldn't run around complaining about it. In other words, with regards to the What, I'm fine. With regards to the Why, I see -- and agree with -- your point.

On a tangential note, I've found the phrase 'Hate Crime' to be somewhat of an odd misnomer, since many violent crimes are the result of 'hate'/dislike/disagreement, etc., regardless of any difference -- present or not -- in the perpetrator and attacker's sexual orientation, gender, religion, or race. Presumably, if I chose to torture and murder a white, straight, atheist female, it would not be a "Hate" crime, no matter how strongly my passionate hate for the person manifested itself. Conversely, if I killed a black, gay, Christian male because I was on a mission to shoot the first person I saw, no matter who they were, would it be classified as a "hate" crime, though no real hate of the victim as an individual would be present. In fact, it would be a completely dispassionate crime -- no real hate involved at all. Does not compute.

[lowtech redneck]

Cool. But here's the problem I see with that, in this context. Say we start printing varying-sized bills as you outline in response to this court ruling (and begin to enjoy the tangential benefits, etc). What's the message being sent? The legal precedent being established? Paper money as it was was discriminatory against blind-people, and that's why we changed it. Am I the only one who sees the problems lurking here?

I agree with you, and this is exactly why I don't take judicial intervention lightly (that's a reference to the gay marriage thread); it inevitably leads to bullshit like this, which in turn results in significant loss of freedom and self-determination (not to mention increased inconvenience and added expense) for the vast majority of people due to the legal/constitutional consequences of such rulings. Hopefully, a higher court will overturn this ruling...here's an idea, invent something that blind people can use to add brail to paper money, instead of adopting differently-sized currencies that are more easily lost and less convenient for most people to store in their wallets! :banghead:

[colormegone]

It also discriminates against poor people.

[outmywindow]

It also discriminates against poor people.
:lol:

That caught me from out of left field. Good work!

[Chaselation]

Canadian money (perhaps not all, old notes) is embossed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_currency_tactile_feature) to denote value, wouldn't this be a much cheaper/simpler solution.

[stopharian]

Screw the blind.........but what the hell is wrong with differently sized(and colored) monies? How would it cost any more for us to make dollars half the size that they are now?


I often encounter foreigners who complain that when they are drunk all US bills look the same.

[A Schnitzel]

Canadian money (perhaps not all, old notes) is embossed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_currency_tactile_feature) to denote value, wouldn't this be a much cheaper/simpler solution.

NO! Don't lissen to teh canucks!

Teh ar toopid :whyi:

[Ferrus]

Having been recently, I'd say the first priority of the US treasury should be to make their notes look less like tattered relics from the 1920s that could forged by a child with a good working knowledge of Paintshop Pro.

[outmywindow]

Having been recently, I'd say the first priority of the US treasury should be to make their notes look less like tattered relics from the 1920s that could forged by a child with a good working knowledge of Paintshop Pro.
http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/20/new_5_bill.jpeg

Eh, they're working on it. Please excuse the hideous, gigantic 5 in the corner. It's the best they can do with the old copy of MS Paint they've got at their disposal. Apparently, 'Giant Purple 5" = Real Money! The important question is, though, if I can still build hotels on Park Place with it.

[Ferrus]

Ah, but no security foil. ;)

[outmywindow]

Ah, but no security foil. ;)
True, but there are embedded security strips and watermarks. And also, if you look closely at some of the numbers, you'll see that they're made of little numbers! Woah!

Actually, 100s, 50s, 20s, and 10s do have a shiny foil (or reflective in some way -- maybe it's just metallic ink) printing of their number on the front of the bill.

[puzzled-observer]

I wouldn't mind having a bunch of different sized bills. It'd be easier to organize/find what i want quickly. Just reach in and grab the small or big ones. Convenient for me.

[dubbeltop]

Court says money discriminates against blind people?

Viva the blind people , +5 <-----:P

[garak]

Different sized bills would drive the OCD in me mad due to the difficulty of getting a wad of bills all folded down their middle.

[demagogic_schizoid]

well the title of the OP is designed to make the ruling sound different to what it was. The ruling in fact said that the Fed discriminates against blind people in the way it prints notes, and that it could take a specific measure to stop doing so by simply printing different kinds of notes - sheesh, madness, the diea of using a different kind of arbitrary signifier to denote an amount of debt!! whatever next?!? - the ruling didn't say that the concept of money as a means of exchange discriminates against blind people (which it probably does, but that's another issue). this is actually quite different.

it's as if some "anti-political correctness" people go around looking for outrage on every corner these days.

[slacker]

the solution is obviously vibrating money