How hard is it to make a lip balm with an SPF rating of at least 15–and preferably 30 or higher–that has adequate UVA protection (zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, or avobenzone) and does not contain a) useless irritating crap (“soothing” mint, ginger, etc. etc. etc.) that is supposed to be a positive feature but actually does nothing but cause you to use more and more of the product because of the irritation, b) ridiculous and nauseating saccharine-based tropical, fruit, or other “flavors,” as I neither need nor wish to eat my lip balm (DO YOU HEAR ME, BLISTEX? I WILL NEVER BUY YOUR PRODUCTS AGAIN), or (and I’m really reaching now), c) parabens, phenols or other commonly allergenic/irritating ingredients? I’m not even ASKING for things like antioxidants and whatnot, or specialized solutions like a vegan option for my friend who is allergic to beeswax.
You should be able to find something like this in the drugstore for a couple of bucks with no problem whatsoever. Meanwhile I do internet searches and largely fail to find anything that is halfway suitable, if the manufacturer deigns to allow even drugstore.com to post the full ingredient list, never mind rinky-dink sites that don’t post ANY of the ingredients for otherwise-promising products. (Hint: If you say “SPF 15″ but do not tell me what is in the product, I do not believe you and will never buy your product. If you demonstrate that the product does have SPF 15 but only provide the absolute minimum of information allowed by law as regards the remaining ingredients, I get mad and will never buy your product.) Also, you really hate to pay shipping on A LIP BALM that you have to order online.
I feel like advancements in science and consumers becoming more savvy, largely due to watchdogs like Paula Begoun and knowledgeable users of internet communities such as acne.org, have greatly improved the quality of sunscreen lotions in recent years–you rarely find one anymore that doesn’t have UVA protection, many options are fragrance-free, you can get antioxidants and anti-irritants in even some inexpensive products, and therefore I have a large selection to choose from these days when trying to pick a sunscreen that works with my sensitive, acne-prone skin. Lip products, however, seem to still be in this 30-years-ago snake oil phase where they tell you something does something but don’t reveal what is in it or how it is supposed to work, and instead continue to use outdated formulations and load them up with non-functional ingredients that “tingle” (so you’ll think the product is doing something, I guess) and heavy fragrances. I hate it when consumer-products companies treat me like I’m stupid.
(Speaking of Paula, I generally love her products, but the Moisturizing Lipscreen SPF 15 is a rare total fail for me. It is super-white and therefore makes me look like a clown, and is really soft and messy. The Sheer Cream Lipstick SPF 15, on the other hand, is a great product and comes in a colorless version, but considering how much of the stuff I go through–I had some dark spots on my lips biopsied some years ago that seemed to be sun damage, so I am now paranoid about lip protection, and I spend a lot of time outside running and doing yard work–I hate to pay that kind of money for such a small amount. I guess rewarding the only company that doesn’t seem to regard me as a complete clueless sucker is probably the right thing to do, though.)
I recently read Laurie Ruettimann’s excellent post at Punk Rock HR on Deficits and Debt and found that I agreed completely with her premise. I left a super-long, hard to read comment to the post (as is my customary practice
), and Laurie very kindly suggested that I turn it into a post–so voila! Basically, I don’t think government spending is a bad thing, and here’s why:
I live in Michigan and I see important education, public works, public assistance, public health, etc. programs being cut because lawmakers want to (and know they can) score easy points with a bunch of stingy people who can well afford to pay their taxes but choose to be mad about an expensive painting in the Capitol building or something, and somehow decide that means they shouldn’t have to pay any taxes whatsoever.
Honestly, I think the services we need to pay for and any government waste that is going on are two separate issues and should be discussed separately. As it is, people use (admittedly egregious) anecdotal examples of waste to dishonestly shut down any opposition to their position, so a productive discussion never takes place, especially in scary places like newspaper comment threads. Like, we may all agree on paper that we want to pay for great schools, roads, and services that serve the state’s residents well and attract others to the state. OK, good. Then the fact that a particular bonehead assistant to the department head (or whatever) is wasting money on something (which, let’s be honest, is usually like 1/1,000,000 or less the cost of any real substantive line item) still does not mean that the prioritized programs should not be funded–properly, not with money that doesn’t really exist or with a bunch of symbolic caveats designed only to make it clear that said governmental unit is being “tough on waste.” The two are not really related in my mind. Instead, it means that particular bonehead should be fired or have his budget taken away, or if it is an endemic problem in some department, get someone better in there to clean house.
To my mind it would be better to borrow now, use the money to address some of the situations that are keeping us in this crisis for years at a time (if Michigan works only within what it can immediately pay for right now, then good luck keeping anyone in the state, much less getting anyone else to come here. Of course we have to to some extent because we have a balanced budget amendment. I do not like balanced budget amendments. Anyway). Then pay it back when the situation is better. I would also add that if you can afford to send your kids to private school if you have to, replace your vehicle when terrible roads destroy it, and live in a safe neighborhood (among other things), of course you’re going to feel your taxes are too high because you’re lucky enough not to need any help. To me this is an example of where the majority (reasonably well-off people and those who are making it one way or the other) should not get to decide for the minority (desperately poor people who NEED these services) whether they get to live or die and whether their kids ever get to escape the cycle of poverty with decent nutrition, education, etc. because realistically most do not have that option without some assistance.