While I have nothing but sympathy for blind people, I think the recent decision by the D.C. Court of Appeal that U.S. currency discriminates against the blind sets common sense on its head. Jonathan Adler quotes from the opinion:

The current design of paper money springs from the world of the sighted. Upon casual inspection, anyone with good vision can readily discern the value of U.S. currency; yet even the most searching tactile examination will reveal no difference between a $100 bill and a $1 bill.

Unfortunately, today's ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit likewise discriminates against the blind, who must depend on others to learn what it says. And the online version of the ruling discriminates against those without internet access.

WIthout electronic readers, blind people cannot read currency. But neither can they read anything that isn't in Braille. This includes daily newspapers, most books, packages of food in stores (as well as shelf labels, scales used to weigh produce) and even prices at the fuel pump. Nor can they read speedometers or odometers, taxi fare meters, and highway signs. Virtually everything related to shopping and driving (including all stores and highways) discriminate against the blind. For that matter, so do cars. And so do blogs, theaters, television sets, video games, and art museums. On Saturday I went to the Philadelphia Art Museum to see the Frida Kahlo exhibit, and I can assure readers (at least those of them who can read or audially scan these words), that no blind person could have seen it.

And what about pornography? To the blind, it's even more useless than currency, because unlike currency, there are no electronic readers to read it. And in view of the recent Supreme Court decision, I'm also wondering what's to put the blind on notice that they might be downloading kiddie porn (much less imaginary or virtual kiddie porn)?

How blind can naked power be?

And what about guns? In light of a very clever Op-Ed by Michael Bloomberg in today's Inquirer (attempting to link the "virtue of independence" to gun control), I'm also thinking about whether blind people are being effectively denied their Second Amendment rights by the evil gun industry. Think about it. Suppose you are a blind gun owner, and you want to engage in target practice in furtherance of your right to keep and bear arms in self defense. The way most guns are designed and the way most ranges are set up, how in the hell are you supposed to hit the target? I realize that there are probably electronic pointing and aiming systems which might emit audio signals (like a beep tone when you're on target), but how many guns have them? How many ranges are set up to accommodate them?

Does Mayor Bloomberg know that the blind are being effectively disarmed by the gun industry? And suppose a burglar breaks into your house? Even if your gun were equipped with an audio-signaled siting device, what about the burglar?

And suppose the burglar was also blind. What would put him (or any other blind person) on notice that a gun was being pointed at him? Seen this way, blind people are being discriminated against whether they're pro-gun or anti-gun. They are being effectively deprived of their Second Amendment rights by not being able to use firearms, and from an anti-gun perspective, virtually all guns are unsafe in that they cannot be seen, and give no warning to the blind that they're being pointed at.

Surely, if money discriminates against the blind, so do guns.

So why isn't Bloomberg sounding the alarm? It seems to me that he's overlooking another brilliant tactic which might be used against the firearms industry.

And a lot of activists are overlooking this tactic. If the goal is to shut things down and cripple the economy (whoops, I just said a bad word), the opportunities abound. You'd think the activists have blinders on. (Whoops again.)

Come on, get with the program! Do the blind always have to lead the visually impaired?