Best Drugstore/Do-It-Yourself Beauty Finds

I Love me some Dior DiorShow Mascara. But at $25 a tube... it's an indulgence for my makeup-loving self. With the amount I wear every day for my job, I constantly need to replenish my supply. And that adds up. So instead, I buy Maybelline Great Lash Mascara for $5 and under. The iconic pink and green favorite is just a great every day mascara. The wand grabs and separates hard-to-reach hairs, fattening up every lash without lightening my wallet.

Which got me thinking... about my favorite drugstore and do-it-yourself beauty finds over the course of my makeup-wearing adult life. There are plenty of products out there that get the job done just as well, if not better than their department store and salon counterparts.

1. Eyeliner: I have long used MAC's liquid eyeliner in boot black for $18.50. I love the firm, tapered tip of the applicator. But recently I found a much cheaper alternative that I LOVE! L'Oreal's Telescopic Precision Liquid Eyeliner ranging from $5-$9.50. It has the same kind of precision felt tip for less.

2. Primer: Smashbox's Photo Finish Primer is by far the best on the market, a makeup artist's dream. But it's $36. Ouch. My fellow TV News girlfriends introduced me to L'Oreal Studio Secrets Professional Magic Pefecting Base, for $8-$13. It really improves skin texture and makeup just glides on. It's a silky, lightweight formula that leaves your face velvety soft to the touch.

3. Eyelashes: Ardell Duralash Naturals, $4.
Just a few of these well-placed natural fibers will make you appear genetically blessed in the lash department. Thanks to their knot-free base, these lashes fit right between your own.

4. Nails: Sally Hansen 5 Minute French Manicure Kit, $8.50-$12. The French manicure pen is simple to use and gives you an instant tip. Get this kit and you don't need to go to a salon any more to get your nails done. Also to try... my favorite nail color of all time is Revlon Vixen. Almost identical to Chanel's Vamp ($35) but a mere $5.

I also love getting gel manicures. But I can't afford to spend an hour of my time and $30-$40 every time I want a new color. I invested $60 in an at-home kit made by Red Carpet Manicure. Use it twice, and I've already recouped my costs. There's a UV light so you can cure the nail color, and everything you need for a perfect-looking salon manicure that lasts weeks.

5. Skincare: The Oil of Olay Regenerist Line. Consumer Reports rated it higher than the fanciest, expensive brands for effectiveness.

6. Foundation: With HD television, my foundation is vital for a smooth, flawless look. Imagine my surprise when our makeup consultant recommended Maybelline Dream Smooth Mousse, $8-$15. It's a cream-whipped foundation, great hydrating coverage for my dry skin, as well as a nice not too matte, not too shiny finish.

7. Lipstick: Maybelline has created a superstar lip color in its Color Sensational line. Long-lasting, crisp color and a creamy feel. Red revival is a top seller... a sexy, true red. $1-$13.

8. Makeup Wipes: Costco used to carry these Kirkland Facial Towelettes right next to the baby wipes and diapers. There's a reason for that. Moms with young babies are often too tired to wash their face and deal with makeup removers. These are a godsend. $20-$30 for 300 count.

9. Hairspray: Many of the girls in our newsroom use Tresemme Tres Two Extra Hold. $3.50-$5. It keeps things in place, but doesn't really flake when you brush it out. Anchor hair that can weather any storm!


10. Friction blocker: This is a little magic in a stick. Whether you're going dancing or chasing down interviews, Band Aid's Friction Blocker ($4-$8) prevents all those painful blisters and soreness from rubbing from those uncomfortable (yet cute) shoes.

There are tons more... would love your feedback on any you've tried and loved/hated or want to add to this list!

I'm back! (Bad blogger!!! Bad!!!)

Every blog I've ever read on blogging says one of the keys to a successful blog is to be consistent. Well, judging from the fact that my last entry was FIVE MONTHS AGO... I'd say I failed.

In my defense, the holidays came along, and so did Pinterest and Instagram... two highly addictive social networks. So my time online was spent lusting after beautiful photos of places and recipes and things, instead of investing in this project I had once started with so much excitement and expectations.

But 2012 is a new year. And so TV News Mom has returned. Just like any resolution, I don't want to promise anything I can't deliver. So I won't make any grand promises, but I do have a renewed desire to write again, and I will do my best to keep it informative and interesting.

My first topic will be my favorite do-it-yourself at-home beauty/spa products and treatments that save you time and money.

Complete Without Kids?

Does a life without children give your marriage a better chance of surviving? This author, Ellen Walker in "Complete Without Kids," touts the benefits of living life as an adult, not a parent, enjoying the financial, health and personal benefits associated with childfree living. Could I even imagine a life without my kids? How would it be different? At the risk of sounding like a terrible, ungrateful mother... would you indulge me, just for the sake of exploring this author's argument?

What a whirlwind month September has been for me and my family. We've undergone a major schedule change, for the first time in six years, I am working normal hours. It's taken some adjustment... for my kids' entire lives, I've been waking at 2:30am and leaving my sleeping family behind. Mommy's never been there to wash the sleep from their eyes, comb their bed hair, tickle the the grumpiness away, take them to school. The schedule wasn't easy. In fact, it was brutal. I justified it by telling myself and anyone that asked that it was the most family friendly arrangement. As if I only worked part time, because half my shift they were sleeping anyway. So I wasn't missing out as much even as a full-time working mom. Every morning, whether battling my own morning sickness or sheer exhaustion after a night up with a sick child, I told myself: afternoons and evenings at home make everything worth it. But how good is a mother and wife who is tired, irritable, and mentally/physically unavailable? As the years on mornings took their toll, I could no longer say with confidence, that it was all for the best. In fact, I thought, there's no way I would still be doing this... IF I didn't have kids.

So... if I didn't have kids, I would have moved to another job or changed shifts years ago. Pursued my dream to reach network news. Gene and I would have moved to a bigger city... SF? LA? San Diego? We would have traveled more. Spain...Cancun... Tahiti... places we talk about wistfully now... someday... maybe for our ten-year anniversary. Imagine all the disposable income! Instead of spending $2,000 month on childcare, we would have developed time consuming expensive hobbies. Golf? Tennis? For sure more shopping. Wine and dined our way through our favorite Top Chefs' restaurants across the country. EVERY night could be date night.

But we do have kids. And so we sucked it up and did the best we could. We stayed in Fresno because my parents are in town and could help care for the kids. So when the opportunity arose for a shift change, I didn't hesitate. Normality! Sleep! Nights with my husband! Time to watch our favorite TV shows like Glee and Modern Family live, not on Tivo. Maybe I should have paused. Maybe I should have really considered how much less time I would have with my children. Three hours a night max. Rushing to pick them up, rushed dinners, and rushing to shuttle them to dance class or to the gym before bed time. But this was a decision I had to make for me and my husband. A combination of the two munchkins and the crazy schedule was not conducive to a strong marital relationship. We were becoming strangers who never spent quality time together... which is a dangerous road for a marriage to head down. In that respect, the author's argument rings true. Kids can challenge and change a relationship to the point where you can lose yourselves to being parents first, a couple second. But at no point, did we blame them for any of our grownup problems.

Would life have been different without kids? ABSOLUTELY. More spontaneous. More fun. More adventurous. More about ourselves. But more complete? I would argue otherwise. See, that's the thing about having children. They come with a life-changing lesson on selflessness and responsibility you can't learn any other way. And it's a damn hard lesson to learn. They bring out the best and worst in you, challenge you, test you, and make life about so much more than self-fulfillment. They have shaped me, molded me, made me into the woman, wife, friend, sister, daughter, and coworker that I am today. A stronger yet gentler, smarter yet humbler, happier and more grateful version of myself. In a word, I am complete... with kids.

Are Working Moms Less Depressed Than Stay-At-Home Moms?

It's us versus them. It shouldn't be this way. But even among my friends, there's a sort of competition and mistrust between working moms and the ones that stay home.

Working moms try to assuage the guilt they feel over someone else raising their children by emphasizing the fulfillment from their career, the example they're setting for their children. Stay at home moms try to hide their envy of their working friends by raving about the quality time they get to spend with their children and the milestones they get to witness along the way.

But "stay-at-home mom" is a total misnomer. The ones who do it, will tell you, it ought to be called "go everywhere mom"... because you're running errands, shuttling your children around, doing everything for everyone but yourself. And therein may lie the reason a recent University of Washington study found stay-at-home moms are more likely to become depressed than their working counterparts. This was, in some part, because these moms received little feedback or appreciation for their daily "work," high expectations and no compensation, and minimal interaction with peers. The study's authors concluded employment is ultimately beneficial for women's mental health, provided the woman maintain a work-life balance. If employment is not an option or desired, she recommends stay at home moms find opportunities to create happiness for themselves, whether that includes hobbies or alone time.

But the study also found, working moms who try to be supermoms put themselves at an even greater risk of depression. Accepting that they can't do it all, and making tradeoffs (i.e. leaving work early to pick up the kids), were key to the moms' overall well being. The reality is, most workplaces are designed still for employees without childcare responsibilities. So reject the myth of the supermom. She's not happy... or she doesn't exist. Chances are, underneath the polished, successful, she's-got-it-all facade, is guilt, frustration, or a feeling of a lack of control... all factors that could lead to depression.

So even without this latest study, countless moms could have told you... being a mom, whether you work or don't, is the hardest job in the world. Whether you enjoy it, is up to you.

Boy or Girl at Just Seven Weeks

Reposting this fascinating article. Would you take a test like this? Is it worth knowing what you're having as early as possible? What about the ethical concerns?

By LINDSEY TANNER - AP Medical Writer | AP – 4 hrs ago

CHICAGO (AP) — Boy or girl? A simple blood test in mothers-to-be can answer that question with surprising accuracy at about seven weeks, a research analysis has found.

Though not widely offered by U.S. doctors, gender-detecting blood tests have been sold online to consumers for the past few years. Their promises of early and accurate results prompted genetics researchers to take a closer look.

They analyzed 57 published studies of gender testing done in rigorous research or academic settings — though not necessarily the same methods or conditions used by direct-to-consumer firms.

The authors say the results suggest blood tests like those studied could be a breakthrough for women at risk of having babies with certain diseases, who could avoid invasive procedures if they learned their fetus was a gender not affected by those illnesses. But the study raises concerns about couples using such tests for gender selection and abortion.

Couples who buy tests from marketers should be questioned about how they plan to use the results, the study authors said.

The analyzed test can detect fetal DNA in mothers' blood. It's about 95 percent accurate at identifying gender when women are at least seven weeks' pregnant — more than one month before conventional methods. Accuracy of the testing increases as pregnancy advances, the researchers concluded.

Conventional procedures, typically done for medical reasons, can detect gender starting at about 10 weeks.

The new analysis, published in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, involved more than 6,000 pregnancies. The testing used a lab procedure called PCR that detects genetic material — in this case, the male Y chromosome. If present in the mother's blood, she's carrying a boy, but if absent, it's a girl.

Tests that companies sell directly to consumers were not examined in the analysis. Sex-detection tests using mothers' urine or blood before seven weeks of pregnancy were not accurate, the researchers said.

Senior author Dr. Diana Bianchi, a reproductive geneticist and executive director of the Mother Infant Research Institute at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, called the results impressive. She noted that doctors in Great Britain are already using such testing for couples at risk of having children with hemophilia or other sex-linked diseases, partly to help guide treatment decisions.

The research indicates that many laboratories have had success with the test, but the results can't be generalized to all labs because testing conditions can vary substantially, said Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson, a genetics professor at Florida International University. He was not involved in the study.

Simpson noted that using gender-detection blood testing for medical or other reasons has not been endorsed by guideline-setting medical groups and some experts consider it experimental.

Dr. Lee Shulman, chief of clinical genetics at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, said the testing "isn't ready for prime time."

He said his hospital doesn't provide the blood tests, and doesn't offer more conventional techniques, including amniocentesis, to women who have no medical reason for wanting to know their baby's gender.

"I would have a lot of difficulties offering such a test just for gender identification. Gender is not an abnormality," Shulman said. "My concern is this is ultimately going to be available in malls or shopping centers," similar to companies offering "cute" prenatal ultrasound images.

Recent research found that increasing numbers of women in India who already have daughters are having abortions when prenatal tests show another girl, suggesting that an Indian ban on such gender testing has been ineffective. The expense of marrying off girls has contributed to a cultural preference there for boys.

Evidence also suggests that China's limits on one child per couple and traditional preference for male heirs has contributed to abortions and an increasingly large gender imbalance.

There's very little data on reasons for U.S. abortions or whether gender preferences or gender-detection methods play a role, said Susannah Baruch, a policy consultant for the Generations Ahead, an advocacy group that studies genetic techniques and gender issues.

Consumer Genetics Inc. a Santa Clara, Calif.-based company sells an "early gender" blood test called "Pink or Blue" online for $25 plus $265 or more for laboratory testing. It boasts of 95 percent accuracy, using a lab technique its scientists developed from the type of testing evaluated in the new analysis, said Terry Carmichael, the company's executive vice president.

Carmichael said the company sells more than 1,000 kits a year. He said the company won't test blood samples unless women sign a consent form agreeing not to use the results for gender selection.

The company also won't sell kits to customers in China or India because of fears of gender selection, he said.

Medical techniques that can detect gender include amniocentesis, usually done at around 16 weeks, using a needle to withdraw fluid surrounding the fetus to identify abnormalities; chorionic villus sampling, done at around the 10th week to detect abnormalities by examining placenta tissue; and ultrasound, most accurate at around 13 weeks. The first two methods can slightly increase risks for miscarriages.

Chore Wars

Have you seen the cover of the newest TIME magazine? Husband and wife, armed with a mop and a baby, ready to do battle. The tagline reads, "Let it go. Make peace. Men and women, it turns out, work the same amount."

First of all, let me just tell you how I came across this article. I had just spent two vacation days living the single life without husband and kids, visiting my best friend in San Francisco. I was feeling a little guilty about neglecting my family and home, when this mag greeted me not-so-subtly on the kitchen counter. Did Gene strategically place it there, to remind me of all the kid-watching he'd done while I was gone? How much I owed him? He denied placing it there. But I dutifully proceeded to read. The article's basic premise was that more men are now pulling their weight at home, so why do women still think they're slacking off? 69% of women interviewed felt they did most of the work around the house, while 53% of the men disagreed, feeling they worked just as hard as the women when it came to cleaning up.

Countless conversations with my married female friends confirms this thinking, whether these women work or not. One told me her husband has never cleaned up after a single meal. Another tells me hers refuses to change any poopy diapers. Yet another husband let the dirty dishes sit in the sink for a week (she left them there to try to make a point.) Mine drives me crazy by watching TV in his pajamas when I'm rushing around trying to get myself and my kids ready for church on time.

Still, when I hear my friends' complaints, I consider myself lucky. My husband contributes quite a bit, despite being raised in a traditional Korean household where his father did NONE of the household chores. I've never thought about quantifying each of our shares but it breaks down something like this... I grocery shop, cook, dress and pack for the kids, do playdates and appointments. He does the bills, the dishes after we eat, takes out the trash, cleans the toilets. We both do laundry, vacuum, bedtime. He drops our daughter off at school, I pick her up.

We've had plenty of arguments, or chore wars, and we've gone through a lot of trial and error in our eight years of marriage, but what we've learned can be boiled down to a few simple points:

• Watching your own children is NOT work. It's called parenting.
  
• Marriage is a partnership... that means ALL give or ALL take never works.
  
• A chore divider like upsees.com can be a lifesaver because it keeps track of whose turn it is to do shared chores.
• A hard day at work doesn't excuse you from responsibilities at home.
• Nagging doesn't work.
  

Obviously there are days when we cut each other slack. I'm on vacation today, so I spent the day going to brunch and doing yoga while my husband was up at 6am and worked until 5pm. So I gave the kids baths and put them to bed while he decompressed in front of the TV. When I'm running on empty after a week's worth of only 4-5 hours of sleep a night, he lets me crash and he takes over kid duty. We are not above bargaining or trading chores either, like baseball cards. "If you put the laundry away so I can take a bath, I will clean up the play room later while you watch Top Chef." The study concludes that men and women who share household burdens evenly are happier. Makes sense. Less resentment and inequality=less fighting.

Also, in my working mom life, I realized it's easier for me to let some things go. Bed not made, I bite my lip. Full laundry basket, I look the other way. Or I just do it myself. I can't complain about my husband's lack of initiative if I don't show any myself. And in the meantime, I'm training the children to start helping with chores. Is a 4-year-old too young to clean toilets? (That's both my and my husband's least favorite task.)

Banning Babies

Malaysia Airlines has banned babies from first class. The company's CEO says he's just responding to passengers' complaints. Like one of my childless friends, who recently shelled out a lot of cash (or points) to upgrade to first class for her hard-earned vacation to Puerto Rico. She ranted on Facebook about the toddler who kicked her seat and screamed for the entire 5 hour flight. I say, sometimes you have to walk through the gates of hell to get to your paradise. But she had every right to be mad.

And this is coming from me, a parent of a toddler and a preschooler who dared to fly solo with the kids across the country, from Fresno to Orlando last fall. Before the flight I agonized... drug 'em with Benadryl? Play the "I-spy" game for five hours? Feed them nonstop so their mouths were too busy to scream or cry? Strap their little feet down so they can't kick the seat in front? Luckily, the movie on the iPad was apparently hypnotic enough to keep them entertained and more importantly, silent.

That's why Joel Stein's "Baby on Board" article for Time is so hilarious and... genius. In it, he suggests airlines provide a separate seating section in the back of the plane for small children and their parents, where the seats are covered in plastic, Toy Story runs in a loop on the screen, and juice boxes are given out on demand. He also wonders, quite sensibly, why infants are allowed to ride on their parents' laps while other potentially deadly projectiles like purses must be stowed under the seat in front of you. I'm on board with this proposal. Instead of banning kids from flights, have a "families with small children" section. After all, misery loves company. And the only thing worse than sitting next to an inconsolable child, is to be the parent of that inconsolable child. So no more dirty looks from fellow passengers, because there's no way to distinguish WHOSE kid is crying when we're all lumped together. Safety in numbers.

Unfortunately, this trend of banning babies is catching on. After all, rich people make the rules. Some restaurants are now instituting no-kids policies. Just yesterday, I read about a Pittsburgh eatery that as of July 16th, will no longer allow children to dine there. The owner e-mailed customers, explaining "kids' volume cannot be controlled." Really, kids don't work like a stereo receiver? Last year, a North Carolina restaurant posted a sign reading, "Screaming Children Will Not Be Tolerated." Uh, what about screaming sports fans at the bar? Why is profanity in public okay but not Pampers and prams?

I used to be one of those people eating at a fine dining establishment (any entree costing over $15 qualifies), who would wonder why on earth the people next to me wasted money trying to have a nice meal accompanied by food-throwing toddlers. Then I became a parent, and I realized parents are people too! Sometimes mommy and daddy want someone else to do the cooking and cleaning, and when chicken nuggets don't cut it, we're gonna spring for steak. We've been pretty lucky... our kids aren't public screamers or nudists, and only half of their meals end up on the floor. So Sunday, we grabbed our gift cards and hauled them to Fleming's Steakhouse for a dinner of bone-in ribeye and bribery. The latter consists of dessert, fries, or juice or whatever convinces the kids to eat their over-priced kids meal. The meal did not start off well. My 2-year-old son was in a utensil and plate-dropping mood. Although he seemed disappointed at the muffled noise, after they hit carpet instead of hardwood. My husband quickly whisked him off to the wood-paneled restrooms for some discipline... while I tried to stop my 4-year-old daughter from stuffing her face with bread and spilling her crimson juice on the pristine white tablecloth. But the wait staff didn't blink an eye. They quickly replaced his plate and utensils (placing it out of reach), brought in covered juice cups split evenly between the kids, and comped the $15 kids meal plus dessert when they got the order wrong. Clearly, we weren't the only crazy couple that dined there with kids. In fact, enough people do so they now provide a kids menu. We never felt unwelcome, we never were asked to turn down the volume, we were never asked to pick up the food remnants on the floor (I just do it anyways, out of guilt). So kudos to you, Fleming's. You've earned repeat customers. While I still had to let my steak grow cold while I cut theirs into bite-sized pieces, it was a perfectly enjoyable meal. Or maybe it was the two martinis I downed back to back. It was happy hour, after all. (Parents with families don't like to dine out past 7pm... it interrupts the kids' bedtimes.) The best part... no dishes to do afterwards and leftovers to look forward to.