kimmy

This response to a question seems to indicate that OHIP may pay for surgery to balance this woman's asymmetrical breasts: http://www.canadaba.ca/askasurgeon/ask21.html Would Canadian forces consider doing this? http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/928 Is "gender reassignment surgery" so different? Surely they're not considering altering this guy's sausage because it's a medical necessity. It sounds like a decision based on alleged psychological or (dare I say it?) "holistic" reasons. Hardly. The limit is "compelling psychological needs". I hardly think that everybody who wishes they were a cup-size larger has a "compelling psychological need". I would suspect that that decision would be made by competent army psychologists. Western militaries have more involvement in the psychological health of its employees that most organizations. Probably more than any other major employer, in fact. Don't you think they're fit to judge a "compelling psychological need"? I would think that the manner in which the military cares for its employees is its own business. out of curiosity, what was your motivation for posting this item in the first place? Were you seriously hoping to discuss whether this is a policy Canada should have too? Or just hoping to get some cheap laughs from some (uh, let's just say) "lowbrow" types... -k {...if you know what I mean.}

Even if the resultant benefits in terms of employee wellness make it easily justified? Something else to consider: as BC2004 pointed out, armed forces in many countries are facing challenges in recruiting and maintaining personnel. If that's the case, then perhaps better medical benefits are one of the tools they could use. Related to that point is that the military has very different insurance needs from what the average group benefits plan, or even the average government group benefits plan, would provide. I don't view this as being paid for by the taxpayer or by general insurance, I view it as paid for by a group insurance plan that happens to be run by a group that has different health insurance needs from the general populace. Thanks for that, at least. Do you feel it's fair or appropriate that this receive extra scrutiny because of peoples' prurient interest in BOOBZ? I don't believe I ever said all cosmetic surgery should be covered. I think I said "Depending on the circumstances, sure." What I'm arguing is this presumption by yourself and American Woman to assess the "compelling psychological needs" of these cases without knowing the details, and I am disputing the idea that cosmetic surgery could not be part of, as you put it, "an overall health strategy". -k {off to work; will address AW's messages later.}

So you disagree that in the scenario I described, removing Fred's mole would be part of an "overall health strategy"? Do you disagree that it's "preventive care" in the sense that it will reduce Fred's emotional stress and social anxiety and therefore result in higher productivity and less absenteeism? Don't you think it's (as the British might say) "Penny wise, pound foolish" to ignore the long-term benefits when assessing the cost of dealing with the mole? As Fred's employer, shouldn't the navy look at the potential boost to his productivity and absenteeism as an investment in its human capital, much the same as they'd look at paying for a team-building trip or skills training or an informational seminar? And, do you think that if it were a mole removal instead of breast augmentation that were paid for, do you think it would have even made the local paper, let alone news on the opposite side of the planet? -k {literally begging for somebody to claim this would have made the news if it were something other than breasts.}

Hilarious, Jennie. This new MNN "article" differs rather dramatically from claims that you yourself had made earlier. So... Joe wasn't even at the site... but he watched Sam getting beaten? Or how about hmm. Add those two inconsistencies to the believability of a couple of teenagers beating up 5 armed men, and this just doesn't sound very believable, does it. -k

I'm sorry, that wasn't directed specifically at you. I had meant to go back and expand on that section of my post, but forgot to do so before I hit "Add reply." I don't think you're ridiculing them. I just think you're being judgmental. You've decided that these women need mental help, not cosmetic surgery. I know that many women who seek cosmetic surgery really do need mental help. But I'd never be so presumptuous as to make that assumption about everybody who gets the procedure. I don't know if these programs are available in the US, but I have seen programs that interview people who get plastic surgery, talk about their decision, and document their experience. It turns out it's not just for would-be porn-stars or wannabe strippers, or women with self-esteem problems and body dismorphia disorder. I see that nobody wanted to take on the 5 hypothetical people I introduced earlier. Why is that? Was it a difficult exercise? Or were people just afraid of admitting their own biases? And yes, I'm quite sure there is a bias here. If the Australian Navy had paid for a cosmetic procedure to remove a horrific mole off of somebody's face, or straighten a mangled set of teeth, or electrolyze a scary uni-brow, I don't think it would even make the local news, let alone be a topic of discussion on the other side of the planet. Can anybody here tell me otherwise while keeping a straight face? -k

What if a cosmetic procedure were part of an overall health strategy? There are certainly people who have emotional problems, perhaps depression, which is linked to some cosmetic issue. Leaving aside breasts for a moment, suppose we were talking about a giant grotesque mole in the middle of someone's face (think Fred Savage in Austin Powers...) People wince when they see him, and he's undoubtedbly aware of peoples' revulsive reaction to his appearance. It probably causes him self esteem issues. It might be an impediment to his social life, it quite likely makes him quite unhappy at least once a day every day. Now, while American Woman would probably suggest therapy (and perhaps it's a good idea) ...wouldn't it also be a good idea to address the root of this unhappiness? Should Fred Savage undergo countless hours of therapy to learn to deal with peoples' horrified reaction to his grotesque mole, or would it be perhaps worthwhile to, you know, just remove the mole? To me, that seems like an example of a situation where a purely cosmetic procedure-- removing a gruesome mole-- would be an integral part of an "overall health strategy." To me, it seems like the overall benefits to Fred's self confidence, his happiness, his self esteem, would be highly worthwhile. It would probably pay for itself later on through savings in therapy or reduced absenteeism. (would that mole cause absenteeism? When you consider the amount of stress, anxiety, and depression it undoubtedly causes its owner, the answer is obviously yes.) So I think it would make perfect sense for the navy to perform a purely cosmetic operation, at the taxpayers' expense, because the cost of the procedure is likely well worth it in terms of future medical costs, productivity, and the net benefit to the navy of having Midshipman Fred being a healthier and happier individual. Don't you agree? If not, why not? So why did I choose to talk about a grotesque mole, instead of undeveloped breasts? Because I feel that there's a big double-standard when it comes to the topic of breast augmentation. If a woman has treatments to remove bushy eyebrows, people don't think anything of it. If a woman has dental intervention to fix messed up teeth, people don't think anything of it. Liposuction? Gastric bypass? Some people might question why she can't lose the weight through Willpower and Exercise, but they don't get all judgmental about her choice. If a woman has dermatological treatments to get rid of acne scarring, people don't think anything of it. If a woman has a mole removed, people don't think anything of it. But a woman decides to get breast augmentation, and a bunch of Naomi Wolfe wannabes cast judgment on her character, her mental health, and launch into long rambling tirades about the evils of Cosmo magazine and the ridiculous standards that The Patriarchal Media has forced upon women. And I think it's such a bunch of crap. Women who get implants are generally speaking not planning on making a career in porn or stripping. Generally they just want to be happy. They would like the same social opportunities that are available to women who were born with physical attributes that society values. In short, they are really not very different from women who get their uni-brows electrolyzed, except that women who get their uni-brows taken care of don't get pelted with copies of The Beauty Myth by self-righteous feminazis. -k

And an American one as well. Despite the popularity of such procedures, there are no shortage of critics on either side of the border. Your countrywoman's earlier comment is typical: Women who get implants are often ridiculed. To be clear, I haven't got much sympathy for a woman who's a natural "B" and wishes she was a "C" or a "D". However, I don't think that's who the navy is talking about when they say "compelling psychological reasons", although it's certainly who people immediately think of when they hear of this sort of story. Let's meet 5 hypothetical people: -a girl who's been teased and bullied since adolescence because her breasts didn't develop -a boy who's been teased and bullied since adolescence because he's obese -a girl who's been teased and bullied since adolescence because her teeth grew in a crooked and unappealing manner -a boy who's been teased and bullied since adolescence because he's got some sort of startling but benign growth on his face -a girl who's been teased and bullied since adolescence because she's got horrible acne and resulting scars All 5 of them are now adults, and all 5 are considering having cosmetic surgery to correct these issues. Which ones do you guys support, and which ones need to tough it out or "get psychological help"? Come on, guys, here's your chance to judge 'em! -k

Well, I'm not sure that they should either. The Oz navy, however, insists that it's not being done for cosmetic purposes. Anyway, you didn't actually answer what I asked. I am hoping that somebody might want to talk about why breast augmentation has such a negative perception. -k

When was the phrase "breast implant surgery" used, specifically? They did say "breast implants", but no specific explanation of the circumstances, other than that it's not being done for cosmetic purposes: Breast reconstruction frequently (usually, I suspect) involves an implant. However, I recognize that you guys want to talk about the kind of plastic surgery that makes people mad. So let's cut to the chase. What makes breast augmentation differently from some other cosmetic surgery? Say somebody who had severe acne as a child and opts to have cosmetic surgery to reduce the scarring when they're an adult. Do you begrudge them that? -k

They were in the house to provide security! They beat Mr Gaultieri so badly that his brain is swollen and he might not be able to speak properly, because they were securing the premises! Preventing vandalism! For some reason this reminds me of the "Tammany Hall Fire Brigade" scene in Gangs of New York. While some people are paying lip service to the idea that they're sorry for what happened to Mr Gaultieri, the lengths to which they're going to make excuses for these thugs or rationalize what they did makes one doubtful of the sincerity. -k {If the natives were truly sorry for what happened, they'd use their magic powers to heal Mr Gaultieri.}

Depending on the circumstances, sure. What if we were talking about a soldier who'd undergone a mastectomy? Is that still big laffs? Is that still a ridiculous use of taxpayer money? I realize that news articles about breast implants or plastic surgery are guaranteed (and, often, designed) to generate these sort of responses. Plastic surgery is a ridiculous waste of a medical degree, a frivolous and superficial waste of resources, an indictment of our society's unrealistic standards, an exploitation of people's vanities, etc etc. Wag your fingers, turn up your noses, say "tsk tsk". And just forget that if you're so unfortunate as to be burned in a fire or mangled in a car crash or stricken with breast cancer or your child is born with a cleft palate, you're going to be bloody well grateful that some surgeon is wasting his medical degree in this frivolous manner. -k

Ok, are they Canadians, not quite Canadians, or people from some other sovereign nation who just happen to live amongst us? As Dancer asks, if they're not Canadians, why do they get to vote in our elections? If they're Canadians, can you cite specific instances in which they do not have "equal rights for all Canadians"? well, you keep saying they're not "extra" rights and that everybody has them, but I don't think other Canadians have carte-blanche rights to natural resources, or a virtual veto over government projects, or so-on. You keep saying the government has to consult with the natives before doing anything on land that's under dispute... well? The entire province of BC is claimed by some band or another, and often overlapping. So the province of BC should cease building any road or anything else? -k

Waitwaitwait, the entirety of the City of Ottawa is enclosed within this landclaim? That's hilarious! I hope it succeeds. I look forward to seeing what comes of this. The RCMP being kicked off of Parliament Hill and replaced with Band police, MPs flashing fake treaty cards so they can buy cheap gas, Senators games being rescheduled to unrestricted ceremonial ice-fishing at center ice, the band council declaring the entire National Capital Region to be a Dry community... the potential for zany hijinks is utterly limitless. I am writing a "treatment" for a CBC sit-com based on the idea at this very moment! -k

But according to Jennie, Chief McNaughton already said that the protesters who were at the site were the "rogues": -k

I guess it all depends how "indigenous" is defined. I have a suspicion that the definition of "indigenous" probably boils down to (more or less) "whoever was here before Whitey showed up," which would create an obvious quandary in Europe. If it's not the "whoever was here before Whitey" definition, then how long must a group occupy a piece of land to for it to be considered their traditional home, and what characteristics define such a group? -k {wondering how many different ways supporters of this can find to explain away the racial distinction being made.}

What in the Declaration is not already guaranteed to Canadian aboriginal people? What changes to our laws will aboriginal people be pressuring for as a result of the Declaration? -k

I just don't think it's a project for "the sisterhood". It's like, a lot of Jews believe in freedom of speech, but you probably won't find many of them lining up to support KKK rallies. Anyway, freedom of religion isn't absolute. That's been demonstrated again and again as religious practices have been adapted to resolve conflict with society at large. (for example, Sikhs have balanced their practice of carrying a Kirpan with society's need for security: in situations where carrying a functional dagger is inappropriate, they carry a small, blunt one that is bolted into its sheath.) Likewise, authentication of personal identity is a legitimate need of society. Not just at polling stations, but in a variety other situations as well. If one is determined to wear a bag over her head for religious reasons, then she must find some alternative means of authenticating herself. -k

Well, nothing I can say without getting banned... Your explanation of this-- some people belong to a collective that just happens to have inherited a large amount of property (and apparently maintains the right to claim further property from right under the feet of others who aren't in this collective)-- does not describe the whole story. As the membership in this fortunate group is determined strictly by race, saying that this is a collective right that everybody shares is somewhat debatable. (did anybody mention to Rosa Parks that sitting at the front of the bus was a collective right, and that she just wasn't in the right collective?) Further, much of what is under discussion is not simply an issue of usage of inherited lands. My family has a modest amount of inherited land; do we have the rights on our land that the natives have on their lands? No. Not even close. I am concerned that sloppy or ambiguous wording in these declarations might give the natives further leverage to pursue claims beyond what they're already pursuing. For example, the next time Ovide Mercredi proposes that his people should receive a royalty for each cell-phone call that travels through "their" air, he will be able to mention that Article 26 could be interpreted to say he's entitled to it. I do hope Europe signs on, though. Misery loves company, and I can't imagine what might be more miserable than the process of land claims and reparations we've signed on for. I don't know what problems Europe might experience with regard to "indigenous people", however. This issue seems to primarily affect the Americas, and it strikes me as no coincidence that the countries outside the Americas are most in favor of this while countries within the Americas seem to make up the list of countries opposing the declaration. And who knows? Maybe my mom's people, driven from their lands in Germany and the Ukraine, might be considered "indigenous". I might wake up tomorrow and discover I've "inherited" land in eastern Europe. -k

I don't know what the rules are for authenticating mail votes, but perhaps they need to be updated. (I'm guessing you wouldn't be happy if your favorite candidate loses because of a suspiciously one-sided barrage of mail-in votes?) Providing a means of authenticating your identity is a reasonable need in our society. Passports and drivers licenses will require the same. Is a passport with a photo of a person wearing a mask going to get them across any borders? I'm guessing not... 40 years ago women were burning their bras as a statement of freedom, and today... you want women to hide their faces in support of the sisterhood? We've come a long way, baby. -k

I'm not upset about it at all. I support Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. I support the original reasons we went, and I support the efforts to rebuild and stabilize the country. I smile a little inside with each Taliban fighter that's snuffed out. Canada's commitment expires in February 2009, and unless Harper is returned as Prime Minister, it will not be renewed. American policy notwithstanding. well duh.Your "Our Neighbors To The North" handbook may have informed you that Canadians vote to elect Members of Parliament, and while that's true in theory, in practice Canadians vote for a Prime Minister. -k

These are not "rights that we ALL have." Have you had special lands set aside for you? Have you received financial compensation for lands that used to belong to your ancestors but have been settled upon by others? Do you have rights to enjoy natural resources without government regulation? Do you have the right to cross international borders without restrictions? I don't know about you, but I don't think I had any of these rights last time I checked. -k

This is a remarkably stupid comment. Hope and prayer has nothing to do with Canada's getting out of Afghanistan. Canada is in Afghanistan because Canada has committed to remaining there until February 2009. Canada will leave Afghanistan no sooner than that. And unless Harper wins the next election, Canada will leave no later, either. If you people don't recognize or appreciate Canada's presence in Afghanistan, then I guess that's of little concern to you. If, by some chance, you do, then maybe you should "hope and pray" that Harper remains Prime Minister until then. -k

So, uh, what's pictured on *your* driver's license? -k

Wheelchairs do not conceal the identity of the user, as far as I can recall. Sikh RCMP officers' identities were not obscured by their turbans, as I recall. Authentication of personal identity is a legitimate need in our society. Not just at polling stations, but in other circumstances as well. Canadians are not an unreasonable people, and would probably agree to some other acceptable means of authenticating peoples' identity. If Muslim women are unwilling to show their faces for reasons of personal identification, then they should find some other means of fulfilling this need. So, what sounds good? Fingerprints? -k

Well, you wonder why I always dress in black, Why you never see bright colors on my back, And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone. Well, there's a reason for the things that I have on. I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down, Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town, I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime, But is there because he's a victim of the times. I wear the black for those who never read, Or listened to the words that Jesus said, About the road to happiness through love and charity, Why, you'd think He's talking straight to you and me. Well, we're doin' mighty fine, I do suppose, In our streak of lightnin' cars and fancy clothes, But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back, Up front there ought 'a be a Man In Black. I wear it for the sick and lonely old, For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold, I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been, Each week we lose a hundred fine young men. And, I wear it for the thousands who have died, Believen' that the Lord was on their side, I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died, Believen' that we all were on their side. Well, there's things that never will be right I know, And things need changin' everywhere you go, But 'til we start to make a move to make a few things right, You'll never see me wear a suit of white. Ah, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day, And tell the world that everything's OK, But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back, 'Till things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black -Johnny Cash.