Thursday, February 12, 2009

21st Century Living

these are the lyrics to the song 21 century living by matthew good:

Y’know, today I was only asked one question,
and that one question all day,
you know what it was?
“Do you want that supersized?”
Y’know, come to think of it,
I’d like the whole ----ing world supersized.
(Supersized guns!)
Supersized planes,
supersized satellites.
Think about how many more channels you could get with a supersized satellite.
(Supersized sales)
How do you supersize a sale?
How about we supersize third world debt relief?
(Supersize love)
(Supersize honesty)
Supersize government.
Come to think of it…Actually, nah, let’s not supersize the government.
I’d like to supersize death.
Can I have a supersize of death?
I’d like a supersize of death, with a Coke.
Y’know, we need some backup singers;
we’ll have, like, a little jingle.
(It’s alright, sooner or later)
Kinda like that, y’know?
We’ll supersize your song;
really, that’s the goal, isn’t it?
We can supersize the record;
we’ll sell more records!
It’s a supersized record!
That is, after all, our ambition.

Fake lightning flashes over the skyline
A deer in your headlights
So gun it
We’re singing songs about 21st century living
If hate’s in your heart, man
You’ll take what you’re given

Ambition,
ambition is a tricky thing.
It’s like riding a unicycle over a dental floss tightrope over a wilderness of razor blades.
Ambition can backfire.
Ambition means more,
ambition means faster,
ambition means better.
What if you could supersize – can you supersize ambition?
Does that make you ambitious to supersize ambition?
Around here, our ambition hurts more than it helps.
See, around here, our ambition throws a non-perishable item into the donation box at Christmas
and pats itself on the ----ing back because it thinks it’s done something decent.
Yeah, we’re supersizing ambition.
Make no mistake about it.
(It’s alright, sooner or later)
Ambition will televise the revolution,
and it will sell more ----ing commercial spots than the Super Bowl,
the Olympics,
the World Series,
and the tragedY DU JOUR combined.
We’re supersizing,
we’re supersizing the record,
because we’re ambitious.
interesting, huh? i like that, to me, it doesn't sound preachy at all (i really don't like when books, movies, and music sound preachy. if i wanted preachy, i'd download a sermon.) he's just talking about ambition and obliquely getting his brazen, in-your-face opinion-message across. i like that he kind of tries to shock the listener into paying attention. this is my kind of ... whatever it is.

4 comments:

  1. I'm not trying to dispute just for the sake of disputing, However, Christians should allow CHRIST to dictate their actions. This makes "not allowing ambitious greed to dictate them" a moot point. I am so tired of things that tell me what is "good", when God wants me to know what is BEST. If I have died to self, and am in submission to Christ, I have no need to think about such things. If I have not submitted to Christ in all things, then that is all I need!! Any other teaching is a side-issue and will never lead me in the way everlasting.

    As far as the use of the f-word, I must disagree with you. The word itself has immoral and crude implications. It means a particular action and it is a vulgar word to describe it. I realize it is used in a variety of ways, not necessarily referring to its original meaning, but that does not take away that meaning - thus the crudity and shock value.

    Remember, I love you, and therefore I go to the trouble of disagreeing with you. (it is trouble for me, who hates conflict :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bravo Joanne! I agree with you 100%
    The trouble with me is that I cannot put into words what I mean to say or what I want to express.
    I'm so thankful for your wonderful family because you do just that! Say it like I wanna say it!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, I have to throw my $.02 in here, too - not to turn this into a circus, but because it's interesting and I have thought about it. Language is something that is very interesting to me, partly because it is so powerful.

    Patrick, I know you are not advocating the use of "the F word". I hope you won't think I'm misunderstanding your point if I disagree with this one little side-statement, but I do vehemently disagree that this word is amoral.

    The problem with it is not that it describes merely something that is deeply personal or historically a social taboo. The main problem is the element of violence contained in the "F-word". It tells us not about something shared, but about something taken. Moreover, it goes beyond describing an action and connotes irreverence and a flagrant lack of concern about that violence in the attitude of the speaker.

    For example, if I call my father "the old guy", I am not simply communicating that he is a guy (which he is) and that he is old (which he may also be, comparatively speaking). I am also communicating an attitude of disrespect for him.

    Language is never merely a sum of its parts. Words draw meaning from the ways and situations in which they are most often used, and from the attitudes of those who most often use them.

    Patrick, you might really enjoy reading the work of Jacques Ellul. He is a French philosopher who has taught the world a lot about truth, propaganda, and communication.

    Thanks for raising the issue. We too often accept things without questioning them, and then end up tossing the baby out with the bathwater in the end when we realize that we've canonized them without critique.

    ReplyDelete
  4. jennypo, thank you for your comment.

    let me reverse your example. if you called your father "the old guy," i believe that he would be right in feeling offended, hurt, disrespected, and possibly personally violated. however, the words "the," "old," and "guy" could not be classified as offensive, hurtful, or disrespectful words. they are simply words. even the whole expression, "the old guy" is not an immoral expression. on the other hand, those words aren't 'good' words either, and the expression isn't a 'good' expression. the words and the expression are amoral. it's the way you used them that's offensive, hurtful, and disrespectful. the words themselves are amoral, you are immoral ... or, at the very least, you have committed an immoral act by using the words disrespectfully towards your father, even if you aren't an immoral person, relatively speaking.

    so, i maintain my point, words by themselves are not moral or immoral, it is the way we use them that is immoral or moral.

    the existence of the 'f-word,' the fact that it is listed as a word in most dictionaries, offends no one. it is when the words is used offensively that people are hurt or violated.

    if i used the word at you, you wouldn't be upset at the WORD, "oh that horrible word!" you would be upset at ME that I used the word at you, "oh that horrible brother-in-law of mine!" so it is ME that's immoral not the word.

    if i used the expression 'Jesus Christ' deprecatingly, that would be immoral and offensive. however, the words themselves, and even the whole expression, is neither immoral or offensive. BUT, the words aren't moral either. we often say that the words are beautiful and good, but it is not the words that are beautiful or good, it is our feelings towards the words. if the words were beautiful or good in themselves, then everyone, hearing them would have the same, good reaction.

    ReplyDelete