Monday, October 31, 2005

It's a small world

Has anyone seen my extra digital camera battery? I’m that desperate.

I am not adapting well to this world where valuable electronics are growing smaller every year. Everything about my camera is precarious.

Instead of a closet full of bulky photo albums which are difficult to lose (or in my case, stacks of photos stuffed in shoe boxes), the visual montage of my life over the last five years is sitting on a perfectly fallible hard disk on my laptop. None of the backup options work for me.

I was thinking about backing up all my photos on CDs, but with CDs strewn randomly around the house and in the car, I’m worried that my irreplaceable pictures from Penang and Santo Domingo will be discarded along with pile of AOL trial disks or misplaced in some Los Lobos CD case forever.

Those memory sticks are trouble too. Anything smaller than a pack of gum is bound to end up lost beneath the sofa cushions.

And, I’m constantly looking for that sleek little cord I need to transfer photos from the camera. I need a camera cord that’s 30-feet long and Day-Glo orange so I can hang it from a hook in the garage.

I usually find the cord in a little zippered pouch where I also keep a spare memory card that’s about the size of a Cheez-It. But, I feel the need to put the pouch into a larger pouch so I don’t lose it. So, what’s the point of being compact, if I have to store these gizmos in something large to keep track of them?

I’m not used to having tiny, valuable things. If I lose a Tic-Tac package, I can cope, but my new MP3 player of the same size is worth a hundred bucks. People with expensive jewelry are used to keeping track of small things, so maybe I need a jewelry case to keep all my electronics.

Anything that is small enough for my pants pocket is living on borrowed time. I learned that several years ago when a $90 pair of sunglasses went through the washer’s spin cycle—unsuccessfully. Since then, I consider sunglasses a disposable product and never spend more than $12 a pair.

That’s why I’ve been clinging to my clunky old mobile phone, a five-year-old Nokia, the size of a kosher dill. I’ve been rebuffing Cingular’s offers for a “free” upgrade phone until they offer one that can survive a few washings.

I even misplace my laptop sometimes. This was not a problem 40 years ago. I hearken back to a time when computers, though slow and feeble, couldn’t be misplaced without the aid of a forklift.

So seriously, if you see a Canon camera battery lying around, it’s mine.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

What not to name your baby

If I were in charge of ordering personalized magnets and bicycle license plates at a souvenir shop, I’d go ahead and cut back on the inventory of “Scooter” and “Harriet” items. “Karl” with a “K” is sure to be on the outs soon too. Expecting parents considering these names should go back the drawing board. “Ashley” sounds nice. “Joshua” is a safe bet.

The Social Security Administration keeps a list of the 1000 most popular baby names for every year since 1879. In 1945, the year Harriet Miers was born, “Harriet” ranked 175th. Since 1971, “Harriet” hasn’t made it to the top 1000, so the Disney store is surely out of “Harriet” mouse ears. It’s been decades since anyone has uttered, “Harriet, we don’t put Legos up our nose.”

It’s beyond me how an adult man never outgrew the nickname “Scooter.” But then, for a president who likes to give the people around him infantile pet names, Mr. Libby fit right in. But if you’re calling your kid “Scooter,” now would be a good time to stop, for his sake.

I heard a news report of girls named “Katrina” getting a lot of flack on the playground. “Katrina” is in the top 200 for 2004, but in a few years, we may need to find new landfills to accommodate all the unsold “Katrina” key chains and mugs.

“Monica” was the 43rd most popular girl’s name in 1973, the year that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, was born. Its popularity, not surprisingly, began dropping in 1998, but still sits at 226.

While notorious figures can ruin a perfectly good name—don’t bother looking for any “Adolfs” in the phone book these days—an admired figure can boost the popularity of a name. The biggest year in the 20th century for my given name, “Martin,” was 1963, the year of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the March on Washington.

It’s a mystery why some names fall out of favor. Once trendy names now just sound old. “Mildred” was a top 10 name in 1925. That name dropped out of the top 1000 in the mid-80s.

Other names are so common, one jerk can’t ruin it, no matter what he does. While I’d consider a surname change if I was a “Fuhrman,” no one has shied away from naming a baby “Mark.” In the 1970s, “Richard” hardly took a hit, Nixon notwithstanding.

For the record, “Osama” has never been in the top 1000 and “Paris” dropped off the top 1000 list five years ago.

Friday, October 28, 2005

Mr. Sulu is gay!

So, George Takei has come out. He has been with his male partner for 18 years. I guess that means the gay community is blessed with another role model, another public figure that demonstrates that we are everywhere, and we are no different than everyone else. Another figure for our “Famous LGBT Americans” list. Another keynoter for the LGBT speaker circuit.

Takei says the current social and political climate inspired him to speak out. Good for you, George Takei! Join the struggle. Stand up for your brothers and sisters.

But wait. Is Takei really a desirable role model? Should we immediately count him among the brave LGBT people who have furthered the cause of equality? Should GLAAD bestow an award on him? How brave was this act?

Where was he 20 years ago? AIDS attacked, and he sat in the closet. The struggle to end discrimination in the military erupted, and he sat in the closet. Anti-gay measures were passed all over the country, and he sat in the closet. Clinton signed marriage discrimination into law, and he sat in the closet. Matthew Shepard and hundreds of others were murdered here and around the world, and he sat in the closet.

Meanwhile, generations of brave LGBT individuals did come out, paving the way for a 68-year-old has-been actor to finally disclose his sexual orientation without fear that he will be fired, or his dad will kick the stuffing out of him, or his neighbor would vandalize his house, or a band of thugs would attack him walking down the sidewalk.

I am losing patience with public figures that only come out after they have made it or in the midst of some tawdry scandal. Having peaked as an actor in the mid-1960s, Takei could hardly argue that coming out would threaten his appeal in Hollywood. If he had come out in the 70s or 80s, he could have really made a difference.

The true role models are those who come out of their own volition, even when they might suffer negative consequences. In today’s United States, the way has already been paved by those far braver than George Takei. Amanda Bearse and Sandra Bernhard came out long before the words “lesbian” and “chic” ever made it into the same sentence. Comedian/actor Scott Thompson gets my respect. Rupert Everett, too. Portia de Rossi is on a hit show right now and just came out. Alec Mapa has always been out—I don’t think hiding it ever occurred to him.

Everyone has the right to come out or not come out on their own timeline and in their own way. But, let’s not put every Johnny-come-lately on a pedestal.

Welcome, Mr. Sulu. It's about friggin' time.