I know I’m not a young man anymore, but I thought I had a few more years of peak brain power before my synapses get all short-circuity and I can’t remember my Facebook password without writing it down somewhere. But according to scientists, my cognitive faculties peaked at age 27. So much for my plans to develop that unifying theory of time and space. Little did I know I was already in decline when I started this blog and it’s been downhill ever since. My apologies to my readers. Now, where’s the button that delivers these words to my…oh, what do you call it…computer diary thing? Ah, here it is.

First, the standard disclaimer: the following is not written in my capacity as a Department of Human Services staffer.

States have a lot of freedom to administer public benefits programs like Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). This extends to the application and eligibility determination process. Some states make applying for benefits a bureaucratic hassle, but other states, like Georgia, serve up a heaping pile of humiliation to anyone seeking assistance. Applicants are forced to answer questions about their personal lives, falsely informed that they don’t qualify for benefits, and generally made to feel like they’re committing a crime just by showing up at the door.

Not that we’re any more inclined to be any more enlightened up here in Yankee territory. One bill making the rounds at the state legislature would prevent anyone who had ever been convicted of a violent crime from receiving certain types of state-funded assistance, including health care. So if you have a mental illness and ended up with a battery conviction, you might not be able get the meds that might help you stay out of jail in the future.

It’s funny. One can be considered middle-class for making $30,000 or $300,000. The gap between $30,000 and nothing is much less substantial in terms of math, but it’s a yawning chasm in terms of our own prejudices.

Happy Pi Day to everyone. Pi Day is the holiday on which you bake a pie for your favorite geek/nerd.

Don’t tell me you forgot. I totally left a reminder on your Facebook wall.

It doesn’t have to be made from scratch. I’m cool with the store-bought variety. I’ll just watch the new Star Trek trailer a few dozen more times until you can get here. Don’t forget the whipped cream.

I still get a lot of use out of my aging iPod, but it’s always bothered me that I can’t control it without someone else’s assistance. That may change if a new type of interface that measures facial movements gains widespread acceptance. According to the designers, the device–which looks like a pair of earbuds–can translate a raised eyebrow or a nose into specific commands for the attached device. For example, a smile could turn up the volume; a frown would lower the volume.

This would work great for me, as I can contort my face like a champ. But I imagine it could lead to some awkward moments:

“Uh, no, ma’am, I was not winking at you. I was just trying to find that great M.I.A. remix I downloaded to my iPod last night.”

You might recall that I recently praised the NY Times for its great blogs. I need to qualify that praise after reading an entry in today’s Freakonomics blog taking issue with the “unintended consequences” of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Stephen Dubner writes about a verdict in a recent ADA lawsuit where a physician had to pay damages to a deaf patient for failing to provide a sign language interpreter. Dubner quotes details of the case from an obviously biased website that advocates for physicians. Dubner’s source bemoans the fact that interpreters are expensive and defends the physician for communicating with the patient via written notes. Fortunately, a little Googling unearths a more impartial recounting of the facts behind the case.

Dubner goes on to say that physicians will be less likely to serve patients with disabilities because of trial verdicts like this one, “[i]n which case a law designed to prevent discrimination will, yes, encourage discrimination.” It’s an argument I’ve heard before and it’s a cop-out; a weak excuse for softening laws like the ADA. The ADA is unique among federal civil rights laws in that it places affirmative duties on businesses both large and small. It’s not enough to simply be well-meaning; the business owner sometimes has to make reasonable accommodations for a customer or client. But this obligation is not without limit. Businesses don’t have to provide accommodations that would place an undue hardship on the business. What constitutes an undue hardship? That’s why we have juries.

Dubner wants to frame big jury verdicts as exacting an unintended “price of disability law”. But in the cases he cites, the law worked as it was supposed to. Civil rights laws without enforcement mechanisms are only so much happy talk. Physicians who refuse to see patients with disabilities are only creating more business for other physicians who rightly see accommodations as just another cost of doing business.

The only thing more troubling than Dubner’s post were the reader comments, which are illustrative of why we need laws like the ADA.