Blue Marble

The Betty Boop Eyelash Drug vs. the Recession

| Fri Jan. 16, 2009 10:40 AM EST

It wasn't nearly as jarring as it should have been to see these two headlines 'above the fold' in the NYTimes earlier this week: "Banks in Need of Even More Bailout Money" and "Love the Long Eyelashes. Who's Your Doctor?"

Yup. As America crumbles, we're performing plastic surgery on the dead and gearing up to pay $120 a month for stupid eyelashes. First it was frozen foreheads. Now it's Betty Boop eyelashes.

Allergan, the company that turned an obscure muscle paralyzer for eyelid spasms, Botox, into a blockbuster wrinkle smoother, hopes to perform cosmetic alchemy yet again. At the end of the month, the company plans to introduce Latisse, the first federally approved prescription drug for growing longer, lusher lashes.

So what if an already overburdened doctor will have to make time for the hordes of Barbie-obsessed women who'll need a prescription? So what if the medication (cuz that's what it is; it's intended for glaucoma patients) has nasty side effects like changing your eye color, darkening your eye lids,and causing red eye and eye itch? Isn't that worth a possible 25 percent increase in your lashes?

So what, when this nirvana awaits you:

"People would say to me 'Are you wearing false eyelashes?'—even my own mother asked," said Cindy Ross, vice president for sales at Young Pharmaceuticals in Wethersfield, Conn., who participated in the Latisse clinical trial.

Ms. Ross said she liked the effect so much that she had a doctor prescribe the glaucoma drug to use on her lashes until Latisse becomes commercially available. "I wouldn't stop," Ms. Ross said. "I found a way to get it."

So what if it makes you a criminal?

So what, as long as you look marvelous?

Hopefully, there's a way to cross reference patient numbers (and I think there'll be more than a few metrosexuals slavering this stuff on their eyes) with bankruptcy filings, or numbers of people demanding help with the mortgages they could never afford.

Am I living in the same America as everyone else? The one where we need to resume the frugality of our grandparents?

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Is Google Destroying the Environment?

| Wed Jan. 14, 2009 8:06 PM EST

google.jpg

An article published Sunday in The Times of London made the dramatic claim that two Google searches emit the same amount of CO2 as boiling a kettle of tea. But flaws in the widely-cited story have put the paper in, er, hot water.

The Harvard physicist quoted in the article said he never singled out Google. And the search giant countered by saying the figure was many times too high, with the techie explanation:

Together with other work performed before your search even starts (a typical search) amounts to 0.0003 kWh of energy per search, or 1 kJ. For comparison, the average adult needs about 8000 kJ a day of energy from food, so a Google search uses just about the same amount of energy that your body burns in ten seconds.

If the rebuttals are right, it's comforting news for search junkies the world over. My Google Web History revealed 90 searches yesterday alone, or—if the article was correct—45 kettles of tea.

Still, it would be good to know exactly how much carbon dixide people burn daily googling Britney Spears or Bristol Palin's baby name. Then again, it might just be depressing.

—Nikki Gloudeman

Obama Keeps Bush's White House Chef

| Wed Jan. 14, 2009 12:40 PM EST

comerford.gif
Remember the hubub over whether Obama would plant a White House garden and pick a chef who serves sustainably-grown foods? Well, nevermind. It turns out that Bush's chef, Cris Comerford, sources much of her food from local farmers and some of it from a White House roof garden. And, according to previous Bush chef Walter Scheid, Laura Bush "was adamant that in ALL CASES (his emphasis) if an organic product was available it was to be used in place of a non-organic product." Who knew? Obama, I guess, who's decided to keep Comerford on. Let's just hope he applies her philosophy to the nation's food system, because that, at least, would be a first.

Image: Cris Comerford

One More Problem With Wind Power: Space Aliens Ramming Our Windmills

| Tue Jan. 13, 2009 5:55 PM EST

Via the New York Times comes this ITN report about a wind turbine in England that seems to have been hit by an unidentified flying object, which we can only assume was an alien spacecraft. Apparently local observers saw lights moving rapidly across the sky one night last week, and the next morning, it was discovered that a nearby wind farm's turbine had been damaged, with one blade missing and one bent. Sure, the Guardian says it could have been an ice chunk or fireworks, and the idea that intergalactic superbeings could manage to fly here across the vast reaches of space but aren't smart enough to avoid fender-benders with windmills doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense, but never mind, the spooky video report is highly entertaining. They can't find the missing blade!! Plus, there's got to be a way for Republicans to turn this news into a call for more drilling, right?

Why Some Enviros Hate Obama's EPA Pick

| Tue Jan. 13, 2009 4:53 PM EST

eastickmarr.gif Only a few of Obama's cabinet nominations have received any criticism during this transition period; most have been fuss-free. But Lisa Jackson, commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection since 2006 and Obama's pick to head the enervated Environmental Protection Agency, has been slammed by an environmental nonprofit called Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) that has blasted her in the toughest terms, calling her incompetent, weak, and unaccomplished.

Other environmental groups are cheering Jackson as she heads to the Senate for a confirmation hearing on Wednesday. But PEER has produced pages and pages of research (PDFs available here) that it claims serve as an indictment of her 31-month tenure as the Garden State's top environmental officer. The organization points out that in 2006 Jackson said publicly that "developing a new ranking system to prioritize" polluted sites due for cleanup was "the most important thing" her department was working on. Without a ranking system for the state's more than 15,000 contaminated sites — the longest such list in the nation — her department could not identify New Jersey's most dire pollution problems. But, PEER complains, Jackson never delivered a ranking system and then proposed to outsource clean-up responsibilities to private contractors. Jeff Ruch, the executive director of PEER, says, "She never developed a coherent plan. This was supposed to be her specialty, because the time she had spent previously at the EPA was spent on toxic cleanup. But she never displayed any expertise in a way that was helpful."

Is America Post-Racism?

| Mon Jan. 12, 2009 7:00 PM EST

Short answer: No.

CNN reports the latest study showing anti-black racism in action. It's one of those scenarios where a white says something horribly racist after the lone black leaves the room and none of the whites react. The beauty part of this study, though, was later asking participants who they wanted to be paired with on another exercise—the black who'd been dissed 'without his knowledge,' or the white who'd done the racist dissing. Guess who most whites chose.

It's reasonable to expect lots of folks not to speak up when hearing racist doggerel, even if they object to it. But to then choose the racist as a partner over the black he insulted pretty much settles the question.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The New Yorker on Breastfeeding

| Mon Jan. 12, 2009 3:07 PM EST

This week's New Yorker runs a natural history of breastfeeding well worth reading in its entirety, even if you've never exchanged business cards with another nursing mom while both of you were hooked up to breast pump tubing during a work conference "break."

Some fascinating trivia from the Age of Reason:

...wet nurses were not nearly as common in Colonial America as they were in eighteenth-century Europe. "Suckle your Infant your Self if you can," Cotton Mather commanded from the pulpit. Puritans found milk divine: even the Good Book gave suck. "Spiritual Milk for Boston Babes, Drawn Out of the Breasts of Both Testaments" was the title of a popular catechism. By the end of the eighteenth century, breast-feeding had come to seem an act of citizenship. Mary Wollstonecraft, in her "Vindication of the Rights of Woman" (1792), scoffed that a mother who "neither suckles nor educates her children, scarcely deserves the name of a wife, and has no right to that of a citizen." The following year, the French National Convention ruled that women who employed wet nurses could not apply for state aid; not long afterward, Prussia made breast-feeding a legal requirement.

Kate Harding over at Salon's Broadsheet found the article's takeaways a bit disturbing; you might too. I was too besotted by the bright, shiny historical details to pay close attention to the mommy war ammo.

I'm looking forward to reading Jill Lepore's book on the broader topic, whenever she publishes it. Write faster, Lepore!

One Way to Help the Third World: Adjustable Eyeglasses

| Mon Jan. 12, 2009 2:58 PM EST

Every time you feel so overwhelmed by the horrors of Third World underdevelopment and chaos, someone comes along with a great, oh-so-obvious solution. I came across this one via Slate:

In the United States, Britain and other wealthy nations, 60 to 70 percent of people wear corrective glasses...But in many developing countries, only about 5 percent have glasses because so many people, especially those in rural areas, have little or no access to eye-care professionals. Even if they could visit an eye doctor, the cost of glasses can be more than a month's wages. This means that many schoolchildren cannot see the blackboard, bus drivers can't see clearly and others can no longer fish, teach or do other jobs because of failing vision.

[Joshua] Silver's answer: Adjustable glasses.

OK, you have to be a science geek to have come up with this, but still. It's all about the mindset: Instead of giving up because glasses are so expensive, work on making glasses cheaper. Duh.

Check the piece for a link to the guy's site. The glasses are BCGs (think: Drew Carey) in the extreme but, when you make your living dumpster-diving in Bangladesh or wherever, ugly glasses are the least of your problems.

Airline Powers Test Flight With Pond Scum

| Thu Jan. 8, 2009 4:45 PM EST

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Nowhere is this more the case than with today's commercial aviation business, whose slow death has been accelerated of late by the twin nightmares of soaring fuel costs and global recession. The price of oil is way down from last year, but the financial breather will inevitably be short-lived as scarcity of fossil fuels grows in years to come.

What's a desperate airline to do? Charging for alcoholic beverages and checked bags won't cut it. (Don't expect these costs to vanish any time soon.) Nope, the only solution lies in experimentation with new fuel sources. Take Virgin Atlantic. Last year, Richard Branson's airline made news by powering a Boeing-747 with fuel partially derived from oils extracted from babassu nuts and coconuts.

In a piece I wrote for Mother Jones prior to the Virgin flight, I reported on widespread speculation that Branson might also choose to test algae as a biofuel. He never did so, of course, and now Continental Airlines has beaten him to the punch.

From the BBC:

The 90-minute flight by a Continental Boeing 737-800 went better than expected, a spokesperson said.
One of its engines was powered by a 50-50 blend of biofuel and normal aircraft fuel.
Wednesday's test is the latest in a series of demonstration flights by the aviation industry, which hopes to be using biofuels within five years.
The flight was the first by a US carrier to use an alternative fuel source, and the first in the world to use a twin-engine commercial aircraft (rather than a four-engine plane) to test a biofuel blend.

Scientific American Just Can't Let It Go

| Thu Jan. 8, 2009 1:12 PM EST

I'm joking, of course. The esteemed science mag runs an article in its January 2009 issue slamming John McCain and Sarah Palin, but with a serious purpose: pointing out that many of those oh-so-hilarious earmarks that the GOP ticket brought up as illustrations of congressional waste — "We spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue," said John McCain, repeatedly — were actually examples of valuable scientific projects.

The DNA work on grizzlies that McCain mentioned was actually fairly standard stuff mandated by the Endangered Species Act. Scientists have to do DNA studies to track population fluctuations, which are important when an animal is, you know, endangered. The "overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois" that McCain mocked in a debate with Obama was, in reality, a replacement for the Adler Planetarium's star-projection system in its historic Sky Theater, the first planetarium theater in the Western Hemisphere. A statement from the planetarium after the debate said pointedly that the earmark request, which was not funded, was "not an overhead projector." And finally, the "fruit-fly research in Paris, France" that Sarah Palin dumped on during the campaign was actually $211,000 in funds that helped French researchers figure out ways to protect American crops from dangerous pests.

This is just the latest phase in the Republican war on science. We have some recommendations on how Obama can bring this long, stupid saga to a close.