The Great Moments

In thinking about relationships I have one view, they're all about great moments. People talk about compatibility and things like that, but in reality relationships are either of convenience or, as the best ones are, about making great moments. The end of solid relationships comes from the perceived notion that no more great moments can be made. This can be due to changes in either person or their situation. Some might argue against this, but think about this, breakup sex.

Why would you have sex with someone you were leaving or had already left or vice versa? Because it's a great moment. Because it's what you want out of a relationship. And sex is by far the greatest of great moments. It's close and intimate contact, it's the deepest (PUN CITY USA!) level of human desire that is societal, biological and evolutionary. And relationships are about having these great moments. 

You meet your partner (girlfriend, boyfriend, wife, husband, side piece) and you go do something nice. Dinner, walk on the beach, drinks. Maybe not the side piece. She might get a can of Schlitz and cold pizza. In any event, you try to make a great moment out of it, you try something new at the restaurant, you kiss in the moonlight of the beach, you both get plastered and fondle each other in the cab home. Then sex. Great moment to great moment. That's what relationships are founded on. So often you sit in your underwear waiting for that next moment to happen. 

Vacations, concerts, all sorts of activities are all predicated on great moments for relationships. Because you can do so many things alone. But you do them with a partner to create more great moments.

It's silly to think of relationships as a series of bridges between events, but it makes sense. People do things they hate for people that they care for to get to more great moments. Or they do it to give their other half a great moment. Archery class, country music, parent's house for dinner, all things people suffer through for their partner in the hopes of a reciprocated great moment. Which almost invariably should be sex. And lots of it. Because it's sex. Which we all should love and enjoy. 

Personally, as much as I hate relationships to end, I always have those great moments that I can go back to. And that's how we should view it. Especially the sex. 

Who Cares About History?

Don't let the title fool you. I love history. There are amazing stories. I devoured a collected work of essays about Britain's Special Operation Executive recently. But the concept of history is something I have applied to my own life. I hear a lot of people get up in arms about their heritage or where they're from. Which is fine. I hear people pine on and on about their families. Which is also fine. Me? I only really give a shit about what I did and what I've seen. 

History is not a series of facts. Facts are not written down. They're just facts. Fact: We need air to breathe so we can live. History was created because of the invention of writing. That's what separates pre-history from history. So facts have really nothing to do with the foundation of history, they just had a method of being recorded. But lies can be recorded too. They can be written or kept orally and treated as facts with no real evidence of them. Then they're part of history. Jesus wasn't born December 25th Year Zero AD. He was born, because he existed. We know he existed because there's several accounts of him. This isn't my idea or quote, but history is a series of conflicting accounts. Think of Rashomon. And if you don't know what that is watch it now. But everybody has a different view point and therefore that produces a different history. Once that nonsense is sifted then basic facts come out. 

Which is why, I don't care about my history. Not my life mind you, my history. I love my parents and I respect who they are, but beyond them in following my origin? Who cares? I'm me with my own facts and I don't have times for every set of facts and truths and histories from the males and females in my genetic line who formed me. 

Think about it like this. Two people break up. One says he's a dick, the other says she's a bitch. Each have their own facts, but from an outside perspective those facts are null and void. They're dependent on your relationship with either one. 

So at the end of the day I keep my facts and discard the others. Because I don't care and I don't have time to worry about every individual's history.

Jumping the Shark Isn't a Bad Thing

At this weekend's Comic-Con, the next Avengers and Superman films were announced. It was as sure as a blackout drunk at a bachelor party but this was the official word. Yet, Disney/Marvel and Warner Brothers/DC dropped megatons of awesome all over the kingdom of comics. 

Avengers 2 is subtitled "Age of Ultron". For the uninformed, Age of Ultron was a recent story arc written by Brian Michael Bendis and features robot extraordinaire Ultron tear-assing up the world. So what? Some might say. I'd say they should shut their faces and get ready for what could potentially be the greatest thing ever (in comic book films, not the world, because that'd be silly to say). Aside from the excellent source material, one of the biggest players in the story arc is Wolverine. Hugh Jackman said he would like it if the old Canucklehead showed up in an Avengers film. Does that mean we'll see claws pop next to Mjolnir and Cap's Shield and Scarlett Johannson's leathery leathery leather leather? Probably not. But until then a boy can dream. And undoubtably this movie will be well made and hugely successful. Even without Hank "Wife-Slapper" Pym in it. But dropping such a huge piece of information about the series and for a movie two years away will tickle the fancies of so many fanboys. 

Simply put, Batman is going to be in the next Superman film. No synopsis or casting info has been announced. Warner Brothers pulled a Tony Stark against the Avengers.

 "You have an Ultron? We have a Batman." 

This was done as intentionally as the Age of Ultron subtitle announcement. They want people talking and reading and debating over who will play Batman, whether or not the universes are connected and who will play Batman. These questions can be answered with one piece of casting info that hinges on JGL himself. If he's casted, then the universes are the same. Anyone else, it's new new new. Which is the better path. 

Now, in case you don't see it, this is a Cold War. They're busting out the big guns to get mouths and eyes moving. The difference between these companies is that Marvel has a full slate of films coming out to tease and tide their fans. DC has Batman. Having Batman teased at this stage is like have a world ending bomb but the enemy having a full stockade of deadly, but smaller weapons. It's almost like saying "all or nothing bitches, two men enter, one man leaves."

While these companies do this, the fans win. They both wanna win the superhero franchise crown and are pulling out the stops. What storylines will DC use to sell their films? What mystery actor will fill the role of a beloved Marvel character in a film? It's an orgy of rumor and perfect for the comic community, which lives on the forums and dies by the comment section. 

American Princesses and the Inherited Nonsense

There's an unhealthy obsession with princesses in our culture. I'm not talking squarely about Disney ones either. Because I don't think a girl's love of those characters translates into the attention that the British Royal family receives. I love(d) superheroes and I think the real world buffoons who dress up and "fight crime", get featured in a tongue and cheek news report are dopes. So I choose not to believe that's the case. And while most people in this county (read: all) choose not to believe things, mine is innocuous and doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. I think the obsession comes straight from an internal naturalistic urge to be a princess.

In all honesty, I wouldn't be shocked if 60% of women, not girls, wanted to be Kate Middleton right now. Some might say that figure is too high, those people should realize there's no end to the variability in human thought. We live in a country where the reaction to disasters, crimes and sporting events is vandalism, theft and violence. But that's beside the point. Unless you're about to suffer the wraith of an unruly mob. Then my points are irrelevant to you in your hour of need. But, back to the point. There's a quotient of people who are considered "famous". These people end up on tabloids, newspapers (which are often one in the same), websites and the news. The fact that a foreign princess is there is astounding. The fact that she doesn't get shit talked is flabbergasting. Doesn't matter who it is, presidents, actresses, musicians, they all have bogus headlines and unflattering pictures on these media outlets. Except for the princess. Even the Royal family gets a ration of garbage. "Queen's Lesbian Love Affair" with the Queen in a picture with a lady who looks like my 9th grade gym coach. But the princess is fashionable and fun and ever so charming. Make sure you say that last sentence in your head with a whimsical story book voice. 

And the question is why. I think it's because ideally, it's not a bad gig. And it hits on all the tropes of traditional society. Girl meets prince, falls in love, gets married, has offspring, waited on by servants who used to be kitchenware and house hold appliances. Or crabs. There's love, there's marriage, children and a title. Titles are important. You can be a princess, which has tasks and responsibilities, but don't really have to work. Like I said, not a bad gig. 

However, this appreciation/obsession with princesses follows some into their adult lives. Which is sad. They're never going to be a princess. Though, if I said I still dreamt of being a Ghostbuster, I'd be called foolish and silly. Why aren't these princess obsessed ladies chastised in the same way? Well, aside from being ladies. 

I suspect the secondary part of this equation is that most men want princesses. And I know what you're thinking, "not all men want subservient women". While true (barely) there's all kinds of princesses, ones who kick ass and ones from the ocean. Plenty of flavors to choose from. And I think men in general like being the prince, they like having the ability to swoop in and scoop up a beautiful lass and give her a castle and servants and a big fucking tiger. 

The last component is probably just the archetype of princes and princesses. Idealized relationships that people want. Faithful and strong bonds that come with a weight beyond each other. Like Romeo & Juliet, Bonnie & Clyde and Jack & Diane, princes and princesses represent a type of relationship that presents itself in broad terms. 

At the end of the day I suppose it doesn't matter. I just don't know why foreign royalty gets so much press.

Characters Have Character

The current live action Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield, has come out and thinks that Spider-Man would be a good homosexual character. This of course has started people chiming in with their thoughts. And much like when the Ultimate version of Spider-Man was killed and replaced by Miles Morales, I will say this. Peter Parker is Spider-Man.

There are plenty of superheroes who have been portrayed by different people. There are several Green Lanterns and Flashes. However, looking at the origin of those characters it is seen that they are not defined by who they are, but by what they make use of. The Green Lantern of Sector 2814, be he Hal Jordan, John Stewart, Kyle Rayner or whomever has slipped on the ring is filing a role. They did not create the Green Lantern, they became Green Lanterns. The Flash, Wally West or Barry Allen, is utilizing the Speed Force. These men assume roles. However, there are characters that are defined by who they become as heroes. Bruce Wayne becomes Batman because his parents were killed in front of him. James "Logan" Howlett (or whatever other names he has) is the Wolverine because he is a mutant and therefore looks a certain way and does certain things because of who he is. Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man, not because of being bitten by a radioactive spider, but because his uncle was killed. Peter Parker has a genius level intellect. He would have found another way to fight crime without have his super powers. And his awkwardness around girls, his relationships with Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane Watson are all apart of who he is.

Don't get me wrong, it's not that there shouldn't be homosexual superheroes. Batgirl is a lesbian and a fantastic character who uses the inspiration from Batman and her father James Gordon to fight crime. The Captain, an oft-forgotten character from the exceptional "To Hell and Back" Sin City story arc, was a homosexual Navy SEAL who helped save the main character Wallace. The point being, you don't have to change characters to make them role models or whatever. There are alternate universe versions of characters that exist (Batman is goddamn pirate in one!), but the main continuity exists as it does for a reason. And that reason is characters need to be maintained.

The entire comic book industry is about maintaining. Why do you think Batman doesn't kill? Hint, hint, it has nothing to do with morals or ethics or a code. The Joker was killed in his first appearance, by Batman, and the fans loved the characters so much that they made up some nonsense to bring him back. He doesn't kill because they need to maintain the characters that they have.

Punisher kills. Except for the really good characters. They always come back. Jigsaw, Bushwhacker, these characters are interesting and that is why they survive the rampaging death that is Frank Castle. For Pete's sake, he decapitates the Russian. The Russian becomes wildly popular, so they bring him back as a cyborg thing...with boobs. Comics are about maintaining for the most. Now, I know this isn't true with the Walking Dead or other fantastic comics or "graphic novels", but for the heroes and villains of comics they need to be maintained.

Some might say, what's the big deal? Well, for starters, changing something deeply routed in a character changes their entire outlook. Gender, race, sexual orientation and economic standing are some of the biggest defining factors in all of our lives. Changing one, changes huge pieces of the character. And in doing that they compromise the integrity of the character. With that having been said, Samuel L. Jackson is tremendous as Nick Fury. The version of Nick Fury he bases his character on is the Nick Fury that is based on him. It's meta as fuck. But, the Nick Fury he is based on is the Ultimate version of character. The other Nick Fury still exists. The one who fought in World War 2 and yet is still able to move in 2013. What I'm trying to say here is, don't change a character, make a new one, in a new universe and let that character live out their lives and develop as one would in real life. The two Furys are different characters in a lot of ways. They both fill their role, but they both develop differently into new entities that reflect the inner workings of their characters.

Think about this, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies might be made into a movie. They're not making Pride and Prejudice the novel into a zombie movie. Big difference. The characters themselves are not being changed, but instead new characters are being crafted to fill a role. For instance, there's Spider-Man 2099 where a man named Miguel O'Hara learns about Spider-Man and takes up the mantle to fight injustice. I enjoy this version of the character. Is he Spider-Man, yes? Is he The Spider-Man? No. They aren't changing the character to suit their needs and they're not bumping off the character to change him. Instead, he's being used properly and co-habituating the universe.

In short, Peter Parker/Spider-Man isn't going to become homosexual. Though they did kill him in one universe and replace him, they had Otto Octavious take over his brain and they had him literally turn into a spider...several times. The reason being is the public in this country wouldn't want that, nor would they want any homosexual superheroes. Which is a shame, because there are terrific characters who developed their superhero identities while developing their sexual identities, which is a fascinating story-telling device.

But beyond Spider-Man (cause I don't want to seem like a dick for shooting down an idea that people love and I will acknowledge a potential hypocrisy on my part) characters don't get changed. As much as we would like them to. The Walking Dead TV show has driven a many fanboy straight to their computer to write something angry about something that was done with a character. Some people lost their shit when Superman killed General Zod in Man of Steel. Oh wait, SPOILERS!!! To be honest, I like these respective changes. And they carry emotional weight. Now, you might ask me why I'm kosher with killing or killing off a character but not the aforementioned Spider-Man related issue. Simply because, it strikes me as different. Superman is still Superman when he breaks General Zod's neck. And who he is becomes tested as Zod is threatening the lives of people. Superman must make a choice to save by taking a life. Being homosexual is just something people are born as. You don't get a choice. Some of the most important and dramatic moments in any form of fiction is when characters have to make a choice. And by taking them out of their normal realms and making them make a different choice changes the complexities of an existing character and not the character themselves.

But "what about Shakespeare?" asks no one. Every time there is a production of a Shakespearean play there are changes to the time, to the clothing, to how the characters are played. Yet! The character themselves do not change. Hamlet's father still died and he had a quasi-girlfriend. King Lear is still a crazy coot with three daughters. The changes that are made are cosmetic and not the choices that affect the perspective and values of the characters.

When I heard that there was going to be an Evil Dead remake, I was skeptical as hell. When I found out there was no Ash (Bruce Campbell's deadite killing, strong chinned, slapstick ass kicker from the original trilogy) I was even more against it. Then I saw it. And it was good. Nothing to rewrite the book of horror for like Cabin in the Woods, but it was good. No Ash, the original story is intact, everybody wins. However, the Total Recall remake, well that really just screwed the pooch, didn't it? Characters were changed to the point that there wasn't even a reason to remake it.

At the end of day, characters should stay the way that they are. If you want a character to exemplify other qualities...make a new one. Don't change an existing character because their name has so much power to it. That's cheap and unnecessary.  

The Illusion of Freewill

In seeing the many events of the past year, murders, tragedies and all that other piddling crap that sags under the dire importance of preventing tragedies and murders, the question I keep coming back to is freewill. In short, I don't believe it exists. Of course, you have to have a malleable definition of freewill. Like if you say, "I have freewill, I'm going to stop reading this blog" well then your definition may be too small and narrow for me to make any headway. However, we should all take the time to examine our choices in life and see where they bring us and most importantly why we made them to begin with. 

Let us say that there's a married couple. Happily married. For about six years. They love each other and worked hard to get where they are. One night, one of them meets someone interesting and provocative. Before you know it there's a used rubber and a hotel bill. They keep the affair a secret and build up their cash back points until the other partner finds out. Tearfully they argue with each other and the unfaithful one professes her love and apologizes. The scorned partner is still upset but forgives and they reconcile. Then the unfaithful one meets another interesting and provocative person. The question here would be why? The answer could be anything. Yet, let us assume that the unfaithful partner really does love their significant other. Why would that happen then? I submit that because there's no such thing as freewill. The unfaithful partner was bound to be unfaithful and the forgiving one was bound to forgive. If not, then they wouldn't have done what they had done. At least in my opinion. 

But I don't think freewill is based on the stars guiding us or some otherworldly force. I believe it's entirely genetic. Why do people have types? Why is it that some people are all around intelligent? Or athletic for that matter? Because we're all born with a skill set and capacities for those skill sets. 

Think about this, where does arousal come from? Whether you like tall, short, skinny, fat, handsome, ugly, tone, bulky, smart or dumb, there are things about people that are arousing. Whether you like to be kissed, caressed, fondled, grabbed, forced, guided, shown or just plain fucked, there are physical touches that you like. So thinking in this manner, all arousal and stimuli are based in the brain. You might say "no shit". But I submit that your arousal by a tall, skinny, ugly, tone and dumb person who kisses, and fondles you is ingrained in your DNA. So at the end of the day, the choices we actually can make are predicated on built in preferences. 

Back to the couple. Maybe before they met the unfaithful spouse was seeing someone. Then the spouse met their partner and despite being with someone, they chose another. Maybe every choice you've ever made is linked to something hardwired in. 

Now, I know what you're thinking, what about people with maternal or paternal issues, people who find partners like their parents and often parents they have issues with. Well, those people are subservient. The parent merely fills the void that their inner desires want and then they project that on prospective mates. 

Even though I talk primarily about sex here, this line of thinking can be applied universally. Though, sex makes the most sense. It's our underlying and primal driving force. It also gets us in the most trouble. Which you may now blame on your genes if you so choose. 

The Massachusetts Music Conundrum

There's a surprisingly large contingent of "country" music fans in Massachusetts. Jason Aldean is playing Fenway Park and there's other "artists" playing shows throughout the state to nearly sold out crowds. I put country in quotes because what they play is not country. What they play is party music, something people get drunk to. Country, as it was, was played by men like Waylon Jennings, Hank Williams and Merle "Most Country Name in the World" Haggard, as well as ladies like Patsy Cline. And while some may hear the pang of steel guitars and the country twang in the vocals, the current incarnation of country is not the same. Those men and women sang about heartache and loss. Their drinking was to mourn and not to celebrate. They came from hard places and had hard lives and it manifested itself in the music. Their message was life sucks backwater dog balls so do what you can. Current country's message is get drunk and be an ass. This is a problem. But the question is why such songs are popular in such a non-country area such as Massachusetts? 

To understand the success of country, try and understand that Boston is a large cosmopolitan city. Fifth largest metro area in the nation. And therefore, things that are chic and popular will eventually find its way into the collective consciousness of the city and therefor state. Also, Massachusetts has a lot of people who enjoy drinking a lot. And good for them, get smashed when you like. Combining these two concepts produces the appreciation for new country. Drunk plus cool equals country success. Which also equals not cool. 

But why doesn't traditional country resonate? There's plenty of residents who live by the old country message. Life sucks, lets get drunk and forget. Instead, the people who make new country popular are by and large a crowd that's had things relatively easy. And the message of woohoo let's get drunk takes prominence. 

What about the other genres with songs that say woohoo let's get drunk? What about the prevalence of southern stereotypes that a good deal of new country lovers in Massachusetts believe? When did Massachusetts start loving foreign bodies over their homespun success? The answer to all of these questions is simple. The world is a whole hell of a lot smaller and socially people are more apt to choose fitting in. 

I'm typing this on my phone. I hit one button and it belongs to the world. A girl can take a picture of herself in daisy dukes, boots and a Stetson and have it all over the world with the caption "GOING 2 C CHESNEY LOL" before you can blink twice. So guys see it, they wanna make sexys with girls like that (read, any girl who will) and they buy tickets. Their buddies want to go to hang and get drunk and before you know it, that's a sold out in an arena or amphitheater. And how did the girl get into country? The patient zero if you will. She heard it at bar drunk, used an app on her phone to find out who it was and then she downloaded it and listened to it ad nauseam.   

There's nothing wrong with rocking out to country. I just don't like it myself. However, I'm continually stymied by its popularity considering the lyrics are about fried chicken and moonshine and I live in a land where the fried chicken sucks and moonshine is sold in stores. 

The Lone Ranger and the Death of the American Legend

I have not seen The Lone Ranger. But I did see that it bombed in a way that is going to stain Johnny Depp's illustrious track record over the past decade and change. I suppose the question is going to be why? And unlike Dredd, a fantastically made actioner that bombed, I actually have an answer. Kids don't know who the flying fuck the Lone Ranger is. Batman, Superman, Iron Man, Captain America and all the Avengers have been active in comics, cartoons and video games since the 70s. Generations have grown up pretending to be The Dark Knight and Big Blue. Not many kids since the 60s have donned domino masks and six shooters foiling robberies. There are a few reasons for this and putting them all together forms the plan for a box office bomb.

I think the fact that the movie starred Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer is very telling. And that is how the movie came across. It was Johnny Depp, Tanto, the sidekick of the story, who takes top billing and Armie Hammer, the Lone Ranger, the hero of the story who comes in second place. While it makes sense that Depp gets pushed to pull in people, it doesn't make sense why these two men were even in this movie. Well actually it does, because there was no one else. There's no western stars anymore. There's no more macho tough American actors. Johny Wayne, Lee Marvin, Lee Van Cleef and a whole host of tough guy cowboy/soldier/boxer/Mongolian emperor (John Wayne is the only one in this category) types anymore. Everybody does something. Chris Evans is Captain America, but also the guy from Not Another Teen Movie as well as awful romantic comedies. Granted he was also Johnny Storm (which we'll all pretend didn't happen), but actors go all over the ballfield. There's no template for movie cowboys anymore, there's nothing to compare these men to and there is no precedent for children to see what a cowboy movie is.

The western genre and the American cowboy have not been popular for children in a long, long time. There's SpongeBob and anime and no space for cowboys. Besides, the western genre has all but disappeared from main stream media. There have been some fantastic "westerns" that weren't set in the old west as of late. The Proposition showed how dynamic the genre can be when taken out of the States and dropped into Australia. If anything, the western genre is alive in mature, adult oriented entertainment (I'm not talking about porn here, though there are a good number of them set in dude ranches and saloons). Or, like The Proposition, they take the concept of the western and use it to buttress stories, such as Django Unchained or The Last Stand. Knowing full well that Quentin Tarantino looked to Spaghetti Westerns, there is still the concept of man standing up to do what's right against impossible odds. And while this is nothing new, there have been plenty of stories that use such angles, the cowboy, the old west lawman, was part of American lore that bent the truth to fulfill the purpose of storytelling. It was domestic bravery at its best, something more than the wars in Europe and Asia could be.

Most importantly, the reason the Lone Ranger was not a success was because the lynchpin of westerns is quite simply the gun. The six shooter, the Colt, sidearm, it is something that has become taboo in modern America. Heroes are not brandishing guns anymore. Due to the fervor and public perception of firearms, guns have become a negative aspect of main stream society. Rambo (from First Bloods 2&3) and the Terminator would have had a tremendous amount of trouble if they came out now. Superheroes don't use guns. You know, except when they do. Batman has vehicles that have enough fire power to level a city block, Iron Man's suit could destroy a country and Superman's dad in Man of Steel is apparently Jason Bourne. But that notion that cowboys and old west lawmen relied on their shiny pieces of .45 firing steel does not sit well with people.

In closing the fact is that the only cowboys kids really know about are playing in Dallas and have a ridiculously over the top stadium. And on 4th of July weekend what kids want, kids get. Single guys are too busy getting hammered and burning themselves by touching grills, fireworks or being under the sun for too long to go to a movie theatre. Parents will take their kids out of the heat into the artic meccas of mountains of popcorn and gallons of tonic and what the kids want to see is what the kids will get. Moreover, The Lone Ranger went up against Despicable Me 2, animated films are being made better and better each year and have jokes that parents get, so a mother and a father are more willing to chuckle at the lines that fly over their kids' heads for a few hours of peace. In any event, hopefully studios will see that the western needs to be reintroduced. Smarter, smaller and better crafted films that focus on the core values of the American Legends of the Old West.

By the way, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly might be one of the greatest films of all time if not the greatest film of all time. It's not impossible to make a movie half as good as that, which in turn would be doubly better than The Lone Ranger.

What's in a Name?

The question of names has come up several times. If you think about a name, it's something that is given, sometimes with a pre-existing meanings, that end up being defined by the recipient either intentionally or unintentionally. 

A parent might name their child "Susan Hope Smith-Johnson". Susan for the mother's grandmother, hope for a quality they'd like their child to embody and Smith-Johnson because they're pretentious dopes (to paraphrase George Carlin, pick a fucking name lady). But every interaction almost negates the intention of the name. To her parents she is a daughter, to her brother she is a sister, to friends she could be Sue, Suzie, Suze or any number of variations. Moreover, her name is defined by who she is. For her first boyfriend Susan will represent a relationship and depending on how said relationship ended there might be certain connotations associated with the name. For her child she'll be mom or ma or mum or mommy or momma and Susan will be a funny word that does not fit what Susan meant to others. 

So when I hear meanings behind names I find them extraneous. Michael Keaton's real name is Michael Douglas. If I saw him I'd think "Hey, that's Michael Keaton". Actually I'd probably just yell Batman and run towards him, but that's beside the point. We make meanings for our names, just like tonic, pop and soda can all be used for a Coca Cola. Or how biscuits here and biscuits in England have the same name yet different meanings. We all make meaning and have meaning made for us. So names are kinda just placeholders until we develop personalities and things that separate us.