Money is ugly

Specifically, our money. Other countries have perfectly attractive currency. Why can’t we have cool looking money? I mean, sure, people might quibble about Obama and FDR (though it’s not hard, I imagine, for even a die-hard Teabagger to admit the historical significance of Obama), but putting a cool graphic of American accomplishments in the 20th Century on the $20 bill is genius. Not to mention way cooler looking than what we have.

Here’s another thing: In common circulation, our currency honors no one and no concepts any younger than FDR, who graces the dime. Common paper money honors nobody more recent than Lincoln. Sure, Grant’s on the $50, but ATM culture ensures we mostly never see anything but twenties and hundreds — and Grant’s only marginally more recent than Honest Abe. (Yes, currency nerds will note that McKinley, Cleveland, and Wilson used to be on bills, but not in recent memory.)

Not to take anything away from these seminal and significant 19th century figures, but shouldn’t we stretch a bit and think about the incredible contributions of 20th century Americans? Who not extend the honor to our scientific or literary or artistic heritage, even? Who wouldn’t want to pay for dinner with a Faulkner, an Armstrong, and a couple of Jimis?

I’d try this, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t do any good

Werner Herzog leaves a note for his cleaning lady.

Rosalina. Woman.

You constantly revile me with your singular lack of vision. Be aware, there is an essential truth and beauty in all things. From the death throes of a speared gazelle to the damaged smile of a freeway homeless. But that does not mean that the invisibility of something implies its lack of being. Though simpleton babies foolishly believe the person before them vanishes when they cover their eyes during a hateful game of peek-a-boo, this is a fallacy. And so it is that the unseen dusty build up that accumulates behind the DVD shelves in the rumpus room exists also. This is unacceptable.

There’s more. Go read the whole thing.