Frustrated to near tears the other night I rang Verizon Wireless and asked if I could upgrade three weeks early. The nice southern belle on the phone got manager approval to do so and recommended, after I asked about size, the 16GB iPhone. I was thinking even if it wasn’t big enough, I’d have a lot of music stored not locally, but on the cloud. The next day I had buyer’s remorse. I’m American, I want more. I’m a Babson student, I want to consume more data!

The next day I went to the Verizon Wireless store hoping that delivering an unopened Fedex box would result in them waiving the “restocking” fee. No such luck. I asked when the 32GB would ship. In about two weeks he said. I’m leaving in one week for a two-week holiday. “What about the 64GB,” chimes mom. “Any day now.” OK, I’ll do that. He starts processing. Then he asks me why I want so much space. “Apart from being American,” I ask. Well, am I just going to put my music library on the mysterious Cloud? Is it unlimited because we all know Apple and Amazon are getting us hooked on Web-based storage only to charge us later?

No, he responds, they give you 5GB now and after that you are charged a fee. Well, I respond, I have 15GB in my iTunes library so ask me again why I want 64GB! But that’s not the real reason. Right now our phones are 1) a phone, 2) an MP3 player 3) a camera/videocamera, 4) a social networking device, and 5) an email tool. We also use our smartphones to 6) shop, 7) pay bills, and yes 8 ) online date, perhaps even while in the bathroom at work. Sexy I know but it’s true. If we do all of that with one device, it’s not a smartphone, it’s a mini computer. And that’s just in 2011. What about 2012? 2013? 2014? By then our phone will be our 9) WALLET too.

So, Mr. Verizon, why do I want more space? Because I want excess capacity because I’ve had no idea what tools I’ll be using on Monday, let alone 18 months from now. But when those tools surface I don’t want to have to buy more space to use them.

This post was taken from my prior personal site, originally posted in August 2008.

Food or sex? Most of us would like both but according to a recent study from Atkins, many women think about food more than sex. The diet company conducted a survey of 1,290 women in the United Kingdom and 54% responded saying they think about food more than they think about sex. Additionally, 37% of respondents said they think about food and dieting more than they think about their romantic partner.

Even more surprising was data that showed about 25% of those surveyed said they think dieting is more important than their relationship. Those same women admitted they put more effort into trying to lose weight than they did to maintain their romantic relationship(s).

Atkins Chief Nutritionist Linda O’Byrne told Australian Food News that a sensible diet should “become part of your everyday diet and not something your are constantly thinking about. Dieting should never become an obsession; this is not healthy as it can be counter-productive.”

When it comes to choosing food over sex, here’s an opinion: food always tastes good, but for women, sex can be bad. The difference between men and women is that for men, even bad sex usually results in an orgasm. For women, bad sex usually means 1) no orgasm and 2) time lost. This is not all the fault of the woman’s partner. Part of it is on the woman for not determining what works for her sexually, which is partially to blame for women’s sexual pleasure remaining a taboo topic. Here’s to changing society’s perception of the path to the female O and in turn possibly encouraging less comfort eating!

I used to be afraid I was part of the throwaway generation for with every move some China-made home product found a new home on the curb. We are a generation with no Bob Dylan, no Pete Seeger, no Simon & Garfunkel. Instead we have Coldplay, poptarts and Bono,  the latter of which who has been known to simultaneously lobby for African aid while also searching for lower tax options outside of Ireland. But does that make us a soulless generation of spoiled searchers, or were we just babied too much?

Recently I’ve been thinking a lot about this concept of happiness. The media touts this idea of happiness like the luxury cars and McMansions they hope we’ll all covet. But, really, I agree with Denis Leary when it comes to happiness-it’s fleeting and to be appreciated for as long as it lasts. Contentment, is possible, for the long term.

Here’s the problem: most people aren’t content most of their lives, much less happy. But, with each generation, parents do more and more for their kids–organic food, multiple classes at age three, bilingual educations, etc. Sure, they are under more pressure, but they, we, are fed the message that if we try hard, we should succeed-ie get everything we want. This leads to outrage when the desired end result is not achieved, whether it’s the parent or child that is disappointed. Many a teacher or sports coach has come home to vent to their roommate or partner about the parent(s) that don’t understand why their child did NOT get an A or make the baseball team. Because they didn’t deserve an A or to play on the team. Everyone doesn’t “succeed” in life the way they want to but some do just fine. As the Rolling Stones said, “you can’t always get what you want, but if you try, you might find, you get what you need.”

The problem with this, is of course, telling a generation and a half of now adults, myself included, that the dreams their parents and society sold them on will never come true. No, you won’t love your job, but you might like it. No, you probably won’t make millions, but you might make enough to rent or own a nice home, have one or two decent cars, support a family if you choose to have one, and a take a trip or two a year. And is that so bad? Many of us that actually tried to pursue these “dreams” were fearful of giving up lest we lead a “mediocre, average existence,” horror that it would be. Even worse outside NYC. But it seems, we might survive on less, and in – GASP- America.

Blogger and serial mompreneur Penelope Trunk self published a book recently. I gladly forked over $25 for the untitled tome by the risk-taking Midwest resident who is open about her current marriage to a Wisconsin farmer, her second union, and having Asberger’s. In her book, Chapter 4 is entitled Don’t Dodge Real Life With Grad School. Though I’m attending an evening MBA program in the fall, I respect her advice. But here’s the real wisdom: “Most jobs are better than they seem: You can learn from any job…You don’t need to be learning the perfect thing in your job. You just need to be learning. Don’t tell yourself you need a job that gives your life meaning. Jobs don’t do that; doesn’t that make you feel better? Suddenly being in the workplace doesn’t seem so bad.”

Like most people with a strong opinion, she is oversimplifying, but she has a point. So does Lori Gottlieb, an honest culture writer and single mother whose last book touched on single women, marriage and babies. Lately, Gottlieb is getting attention due to a recent Atlantic Monthly cover story entitled How to Land Your Kid in Therapy where she quotes Swarthmore College Social Theory Professor Barry Schwartz, among others. He adds: “Happiness as a byproduct of living your life is a great thing. But happiness as a goal is a recipe for disaster.”

Many second this sentiment and the idea is that if parents do too much for their children, it ends up backfiring because the kids cannot handle even the slightest bit of anxiety or disappointment as adults. Trunk seems to agree. In her book, she says “So, how do you get to that point where you’re great at something? It’s hard. It’s all about risk, honesty, and frankly, shattered dreams. Your parents tell you that you can be anything, but you know what? You can’t…So one of the most important things you can do is come to terms with what you are uniquely suited to do, and what you’re not and to understand which is which.”

Of course there is a flip side. With all the options and technology that time affords us, we are also given more to handle. Our parents had the Vietnam War, the feminist fight, fewer career options, and solid, less flexible gender roles. The newer generations seem to have both more luxuries and more responsibilities, from multiple wars to less valuable currency, higher inflation rates, lower GDP, and more diseases, such as HIV. If we women decide to have “careers,” but we want kids too, we have to juggle both. We may have automated breast pumps but we might not have anywhere to pump in the office because the workplace is still catching up to contemporary practices. National growth is slowing amid what feels like a neverending recovery from a crisis caused by securities trading that is still going on down on Wall Street. Meanwhile, inflation and consumer spending are contributing to the two-parent working household because credit card interest rates keep rising, as do daycare, gas prices, and food staples, but incomes don’t seem to be rising at the same rates. We have the benefit and burden of the aftermath of the feminist revolution and men today have to help cook and clean and rear children. But, both members of the household often have to work outside the home too. We are taxed on savings, education prices keep rising, and the insurance costs never seem to change. All the while, we’re wondering if we’re happy in our career path.

The solution is there’s no real solution, not a uniform one. It might make some of us happy to have less debt or more savings, plan more for retirement, or have a feasible career path mapped out, but we also can’t play it so safe that we are depraved of the exploration we sought out. Still it seems there is this underlying message that we should do what we love rather than do what we love as a hobby, and work in a field we like and value. How much does it mean to you that your job, though not ideal, allows you to take two one-week vacations a year that involve a plane ride, visit Starbucks thrice a week, and buy new shoes every season?

It turns out this means quite a bit to me. Since I’ve moved back to Boston I’ve gone on vacation twice: once to New Mexico and once to San Francisco. I’ve also updated my shoe collection, been accepted to four Evening MBA programs, and learned more about sponsored research in eight months than I did in three years during my 20s. It also means a lot to me that I can see my niece and nephew every week and sleep more than five hours a night. And live without roaches. Sure, it would be nice to get an apartment now, this very moment, but if I have to wait another four to six weeks, I think I’ll survive. It’d be nice to not have to date anymore, but it’s better than being in a bad marriage. Perhaps adulthood is accepting that reality isn’t as bad as we make it out to be, or that maybe we have control over just how bad we perceive it to be. I decided my sulking had to end. What about you?

It’s entirely unlike me to promote an energy drink with more unpronounceable ingredients than I care to mention, but desperate times led me to the official drink of UFC. I suppose it isn’t so surprising given that at one time I watched and enjoyed Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and Bodog, despite my disdain for any type of violence.

So picture it, I’m driving through New Mexico and I’m hungry, lost and frustrated by the dry climate. This state is many things but the powers that be are not good at posting signs for highways. One is lucky if he/she happens to spot the sign for a highway. Miles and miles of plains and small towns and nothing in sight is how I’d describe New Mexico, once one exits the three major cities: Taos, Santa Fe, and Albequerque. This is how I found Xenergy.

Xenergy is sugar- and calorie-free drink thanks to sucralose and vegetable juice, reportedly added for color. The added vitamins include a bit of vitamins B3, B6, B5, and B12. It also includes a bit of potassium and sodium (160 mg per serving) but it is the proprietary blend that offers the real energy.

The company claims it offers a jolt-free burst of energy, which comes from a blend of caffeine, guarana, and panax ginseng. The drink also features taurine and L-Carnitine. The proprietary blend included per serving is 1340 mg, which means each 16 oz can has about 2600 mg of the proprietary blend. Translation: a lasting burst of energy that will enable one to handle any number of challenges, from driving three hours on narrow mountain roads to writing MBA application essays. Thank you Xyience for getting me hooked on a new form of caffeine. Now I have to start a Xenergy savings fund.

Xenergy comes in Cherry Lime, Cran Razz, Mango Guava, and Blu Pom. It is sold at grocery and convenience stores, as well as at gas station shops and usually retails for $2-2.50.

There is a god and he started tinywatchproductions. If you haven’t seen any of these videos, you are missing out on a real laugh. My cousin first sent me the iPhone video. Then I added them to my YouTube favorites. Now I’m a total junkie. From explaining “the Quantitative Easing” while slamming “the Goldman Sachs,” to making fun of Steve Jobs , this Midwestern production house is genius and fearless. Here is the latest video. What makes these especially funny is that they are honest and reflect everyday happenings and issues.

Is it wrong and disrespectful for me to say that this video reminds me of my mother? Too bad, I’ll make it up to her later. This reminds me of many a conversation between me and my parents. Mom yells, I run. She has margin issues that are apparently causing some apocalyptic moment. I fuss around. They panic. My father yells. I tell him not to open any email that makes him think twice. I then give him a pop quiz by forcing him to place his cursor over every advertisement on the page. He passes. And so here goes.  If this sounds familiar to you, you might just wet your pants watching this video. Enjoy.

There are few celebrity fragrances that are not trendy, flashy, or playful. While those are all fine auras, most celebrity scents seem predictable and fleeting. The first is a labor of love, but the rest seem hasty follow-ups, the beauty world’s counterpart to a great article rendered old, simply because of the spirit of the times and the genre it belongs to. But perhaps it’s possible to create something that stands alone, and hence, earns a longer space in the underground spotlight. This may be the case with the curious Like This by Tilda Swinton. I’m the first to admit that I’d love for the talented Swinton to employ a stylist. Maybe not Rachel Zoe, but perhaps someone like my favorite fashion stylist, Isabel Dupre. But style aside, her creativity might be the ticket to a scent that appears to be simultaneously exotic and familiar.

Courtesy of Image.net

From Paris’  Etat Libre D’Orange, Like This blends these notes: yellow tangerine, ginger, pumpkin, neroli, rose, vetiver, heliotrope, and musks. Many scents for men contain vetiver, but few for women can claim the same. This may be one differential. Also, while this has a floral note, its composition is unlike like most perfumes. Perhaps that’s why the comments on Luckyscent.com are so mixed. The LA-based retailer of hard-to-find scents also sells Like This on its website. This is apparently a love-hate fragrance, which makes me want to try it even more.

No, I haven’t had a whiff of this yet. It’s only available in the U.S. at Henri Bendel, Lucky Scent, and one spot in Miami, but I plan to order a sample. Why? Because Swinton’s description of her inspiration is poetic. She mentions being inspired by kitchens, greenhouses, and gardens. She mentions a “place and state of mind, even a state of grace.” But beyond those words, she seems to have created a scent that would enable her to transport the spirit of home. Perhaps a candle should be the next move. Further, the change of seasons is also an inspiration, as are random elements, including gingerbread, rain, smoke and again, the greenhouse. This all sounds too exotic-country-chic for us not to try. Veer away from the usual citrus, floral and musk scents this season and embrace something few will be able to place.

Like This is available from Etat Libre D’orange and LuckyScent.com, as well as at Henri Bendel in NYC.

It seems no matter how big Apple grows, it always maintains underdog status. The U.S. government’s supposed antitrust investigations (WSJ) are insanely arbitrary and their regulation of food, media and technology equally random. In recent months, anyone that reads a major metropolitan newspaper would have learned that GMO alfalfa is OK, but Apple taking a hefty cut of e-subscriptions is not. True, they are ballsy in charging a 30% fee for subscriptions, but who is the U.S. government to judge when the company single handedly created a new genre for the struggling publishing business? True, I admit, I’m an Apple junkie. I’m also a shareholder. And yet I still tote my slow BlackBerry around because I’m not ready for the learning curve that is the CrackBerry to iPhone transition and I fear the loss of a physical qwerty.

Back to the matter at hand–the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission are supposedly considering double teaming Apple for the fee structure of the subscription offerings, according to The Murdochracy The Wall Street Journal. While the music industry is justified in once again worrying about margins, they should also acknowledge that iTunes and its competitors are the legal versions of Napster, and hence their existence alone keeps music executives in Gucci suits and Mercedes. Anyone that knows the publishing world and the tendencies of the American consumer knows a new platform on which to fill content and place ads is a lifeline for the media world. Further, those with magazine industry knowledge know that little money is made through subscriptions as advertisements come first, followed by newstand sales, and these days, online auctions and shopping tie-ups and events. I just paid $11 for two magazines. The average American is not pining for the Fashion Week copy of New York Magazine and the latest Mother Jones enough to spend what would buy them breakfast and lunch. And yet they might be willing to spend a few hundred dollars they don’t have on a product they don’t need. If they do buy a tablet, they might click a few more times and win the publishers a few more subscriptions, which will increase the rag’s base rate and allow the magazines to sell more ads. Said ads will appear on tablets, including those made by, yes Apple, as well as Motorola, HP, Samsung and Dell. Will the subscribers be a bit mad when their credit cards get charged for another year’s fee? Yes, but should they have read the fine print? Yes. Will they take the time to call the company and bitch for a $9 credit? Probably not, because they’ll be too busy watching American Idol and Jersey Shore. And so I’d guess that as print prematurely began its hasty death during the recession of 2008-09, Steve Jobs and team likely sat in a room and smiled. They had an answer. With every death comes birth; as print dies, tablets bud.

So, what does this have to do with antitrust? This inquiry seems a bit harsh and spotlights the government’s random aim regarding antitrust investigations. I’m not sure if government agencies came down on Microsoft years ago for creating Microsoft Office, the software suite that has basically monopolized the spreadsheet and word processing market. That seems like a bit of a monopoly. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe droves of worker bees are slaving away over Lotus Notes and Google Docs but I think not.

I’m also a bit puzzled by the U.S. government’s approval for Comcast to swallow NBC Universal. There seems to be more focus on the Internet and technology than on TV. While most of the developing world has access to mobile phones and possibly the Internet via those phones but not TV, most Americans are equally blinded by TV and Internet. Americans sit in front of reality television and stay tuned to mindless entertainment news to hear the same stories regurgitated over and over again, with little new information and fleeting objectivity. Should our leaders be worrying about the fees a technology company charges publishers more than they do the control a few companies have over our media network?

We have become a democratic nation that enables oligopolies because the most powerful people in America are not politicians or celebrities, but lobbyists. Does Apple have nerve charging 30% for subscriptions and barring media companies’ applications from linking to other stores? Yes, of course. But the laziness of shoppers and the company’s ability to become first to market within many media sectors is not for the government to judge. But, Google’s release of a similiar service that offers publishers a fee of 10% or less and more control over subscriber data fuels the government’s supposed case. Further, many iTunes users buy singles, files that can also be purchased on Amazon, Pandora, Walmart and eMusic, among others. Yes, Apple controls more than two-thirds of the market, but there are competitors.

The media, oil, defense and agricultural sectors are each controlled by a handful of companies but I don’t see the Justice Department and the FTC pounding on their doors. If you’re still not convinced your tax dollars are being wasted, and not just on war, pop the top to find out what other company is under the FTC microscope. Apparently this company’s yogurt will not make you take a giant dump everyday. Shit, now I really feel used.

I believe Valentine’s Day is a holiday created to benefit companies selling greeting cards, flowers and candy. And yet I am a softie at heart. Or maybe I’m looking for any chance to create a new YouTube playlist. So here’s a blend of old and new, about romance and lust, love and hope. If you’re going through a dry spell, ponder your standards, as well as the fine line between settling and compromising.

David Gray This Year’s Love … Because maybe the others are right, sometimes you just know…

James Laid …For all of you that know what it’s like to give in to the wrong kind of love, or was it lust?–over and over again.

Crosby, Stills, Nash Love the One You’re With… For we all know, sometimes you just need someone to…

Dave Matthews Band Stay or Leave Nostalgia tells us that no matter how hard it is, we can always survive heartache. Single isn’t a four letter word.

Yazoo Only You Take it back to the 80s because sometimes one needs to reminisce to acknowledge and appreciate progress–and good lip synching.