Homeward bound

[danaeris]

Five days with myself. Five days alone, no socialness, nothing.

Well. There was socialness at the receptions, but it was all networking. Nice people, but you get tired of telling the story of your work background over and over and over again, or listening to wiser heads gossip. The gossip is fascinating, the networking is valuable, but it isn't a real connection.

Most of that time, I didn't miss socializing. I relished being alone, being independent. I wasn't even sure I'd go to S&P when I got back.

Now I think I might after all. I'm starting to get to the point where the thought of S&P is appealing rather than feeling like something I'm doing because I ought to.

Anyway. I fly in tomorrow on United Airlines Flight #631, arriving at 9:15. I expect I'll be home by 10:30, looking at the BART schedules.

---

Today I bought some presents. Besides some discounted godiva chocolates for myself, I also bought a giant black and white skull and cross bones tapestry for a certain special someone (with a caveat). And I got a discounted book on Cosmology and Philosophy with essays/articles by some physics and philosophy greats for myself, and (!) got a copy of the textbook I did the cover for for only TWENTY DOLLARS! That thing sells normally for over 100. Now, I know I have the preprint version in binder rings, but having a glossy, published book with my work in it, and my name in the credits (even if it is my married name) is worth $20. It's for my vanity shelf. *bounce*

---

Last thoughts on the damned marriage thing:
I don't know why this bothers me so much. When I'm centered in myself I'm such an irritable bitch. But anyway...

IFF it is possible to objectively genetically screen new children (for diseases only) and to objectively judge the stability of a parental unit, I think whatever tax incentives are aimed to aid in child rearing should only be given to those who meet those standards, and only while they are rearing the child.
OTHERWISE, I believe that tax incentives aimed to aid in child rearing should be given to all those raising children, but they should only be given while those children are still being reared; they should evaporate afterwards and go into effect only once the child is born/adopted.

The point, I guess, is that tax incentives for child rearing should be linked to child rearing. Legal rights for partners should be linked to partners, not to child rearing and not to religious rights, etc. And I'm running low on battery, so I'll post this and bid you all adieu.

I suck at this arguing thing. I get too emotionally invested in it, for some reason.

Comments

[kaidevis.livejournal.com]

>>> Anyway. I fly in tomorrow on United Airlines Flight #631, arriving at 9:15. I expect I'll be home by 10:30, looking at the BART schedules. <<<

Would you prefer a ride? The only thing I have tomorrow is in the afternoon, I've still got that unemployment game going on, and I haven't been out of the city in almost two weeks (so I'm starting to crave a short expeditio). You've got my cell number, or you can text message me through LJ if you don't have it with you, if the idea sounds appealing to you.

[auros]

I recently got slammed as advocating eugenics for suggesting that governments should provide incentives for people to go to genetic counselors, and to either not breed or use screening techniques (yay Gattaca!) if they are likely to produce children who will have costly genetic disorders which will end up subsidized by the rest of society. (Once people are born with a condition, we still do need to take care of them -- it's not their fault their parents inflicted the problem on them -- but it'd be nice to do so in a way that provides as little extra benefit to the parents as possible; I don't want to reward bad decisions.) Medical cost expectations seem like a reasonably objective standard. I get a bit nervous when you get into psychological profiles.

(The topic where this came up was that a woman whose kid has a potentially fatal peanut allergy is suing her public school system for not spending enough money on her kid -- she wanted them to basically hire a dedicated staff member to tag along after him in case he went into anaphylactic shock. I think it's insane for a parent to expect such hugely disproportionate spending on a single pupil.)

I still think it's important to note that there are (justified) tax incentives for marriage in general, as well as a separate child credit.

Re:

[tikva.livejournal.com]

Ooooh my.

Don't even get me started. *heh*

Re:

[auros]

The thing is, I recognize that it's a morally gray area, and I'd want to set the limits way, way out at the fringes... But surely you can recognize that given that as a society we don't have infinite resources, we can't seriously commit ourselves to spending "whatever it takes" to take care of a few individuals. I'm willing to spend a lot to save one individual, and I'm strongly in favor of making accomodations in public facilities for those who need them. But if we want to have universal healthcare, public education, and so on, there have to be limits on how much we spend on any one person, so as to ensure that the entire budget doesn't get eaten up by a few people, leaving the "normal" people with nothing. Human life is not priceless, from the PoV of society as a whole.

The peanut allergy thing was particularly egregious, in that the school had already had the kid's teachers, and several random aides, trained in how to administer his shots, and had done its best to ensure that he'd be with one of those people at all times. But the parent wanted the school to take up an entire staff salary on hiring, basically, a personal nurse.

Given that examples like this exist, we need to draw a line somewhere. It's an ugly problem, and no decision is going to be satisfying, but there it is. :-(