A lovely evening of exotic alcohol, pussies, and food. Pussies? No, no, I mean cats — like, nine of them. Clearly, I didn’t drink enough as I am typing coherently. I’m sleeping in the guest-room tonight here in the great state of Maryland, Junior, but will be returning by noon tomorrow with two things on my list: 1. Get thyself to thy pet store for litter and pet food, and 2. Write one presentation and four or five papers. Plus, y’know, the whole “FOR ONCE I’M NOT WORKING ON SUNDAY PRAISE THE LORD!”

Except, again, the “athiest” thing I’ve got going …

If there’s one good thing to be said about having printed currency the same size, it is that it allows for a very neat and well organized wallet. I wouldn’t actually know, because I’m a guy, so my wallet is actually busting at the seams and overflowing with paycheck stubs and a lot of things that aren’t driver’s licenses, student IDs, or insurance cards. Since I am a student, I also usually don’t have much cash on me (because, uh, I’m “teh poor”).

Anyway, in theory at least, same sized currency provides for the vague possibility of a neat and organized wallet. Of course, if you’re blind …

The government discriminates against blind people by printing money that all looks and feels the same, a federal judge said Tuesday in a ruling that could change the face of American currency.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson ordered the Treasury Department to come up with ways for the blind to tell bills apart. He said he wouldn’t tell officials how to fix the problem, but he ordered them to begin working on it.

The American Council of the Blind has proposed several options, including printing bills of differing sizes, adding embossed dots or foil to the paper or using raised ink.

“Of the more than 180 countries that issue paper currency, only the United States prints bills that are identical in size and color in all their denominations,” Robertson wrote. “More than 100 of the other issuers vary their bills in size according to denomination, and every other issuer includes at least some features that help the visually impaired.”

“If additional savings could be gained by incorporating the new feature into a larger redesign, such as those that took place in 1996 or 2004, the total burden of adding such a feature would be even smaller,” Robertson wrote.

This seems perfectly reasonable to me, but there’s always someone willing to scream “judicial activism”, in this case a guy named Nicholas Stix who writes “How many … nations … do you see going broke, changing their currency to accommodate the blind?” Well, none, Nicholas, seeing as how, even the FOX article on the matter reports this quote from Judge Robertson: “Of the more than 180 countries that issue paper currency, only the United States prints bills that are identical in size and color in all their denominations.”

Of course, if you’re Dafydd at Big Lizards, you come damn close to suggesting that it’s your own damn fault for being handicapped (and, y’know, I agree with him if you took a hot knife and jammed it into both of your eyeballs), but he does make, at the very least, an actual argument against Robertson’s ruling — of course, a library doesn’t actually need to have braille copies of every book in its library, a reader-equipped computer would suffice.

I am reminded of a similar news story. A few years ago, two police officers saw a man with what appeared to be a weapon in his pocket. The officers prudently decided to restrain him before giving him a chance to draw the weapon. Of course, the problem was this: the man was blind and had a collapsable white-cane in his pocket. Now, many police badges feature braille writing so that blind individuals can identify a police officer. I mean, you’ve all heard the warning, “When someone identifies themselves as a police officer, ask for photo identification.” If you’re blind, how are you supposed to see that?

This isn’t judicial activism. This is common sense. This is empowering disabled Americans, what, explain to me that, is so wrong and awful about that? And why is it so many people see simple steps taken to accomodate handicapped folks is somehow evil incarnate? I don’t get it. This is about allowing people to participate fully in society.

Isn’t that a good thing … ?

So, yesterday’s little double-innuendo answer was, as some of you might’ve guessed, “last name”, not, uh, any of the following: penis, schlong, dick, cock, wang, etcetra.

Here’s the final one, but no clues, and no cheating. Since this is the final one, I’ll answer it in the comments tomorrow.

As I went over London Bridge
I met my sister
Jenny
I broke her neck and drank her blood
And left her standing empty.
Answer me if you can.

Answer if you can, bizatches.