What happened to theme songs?

Quick: start humming the Indiana Jones theme song!

Or, the Star Wars theme song. Or the theme from Rocky. (duh duh dududduh dududuh dududuh).

Are you older than 40? Then start singing the theme from the Greatest American Hero ("Look at what's happened to me. . ." Can you hum the theme from the A-Team? I know I can still sing the MacGyver song. And then there's the classic theme from Cheers.

Too old for you? Maybe you can join in the chorus of the Friends song?

And yes, I know it got way too much airplay, but I'd bet most of you could start singing along with that Titanic song.

So where did they all go? Are there any movies or TV shows with sing-alongable theme songs? Theme songs that dig deeply into the American conscious? Can you sing the theme song from Avatar? How many people sit around at parties and start singing the theme song from Lost (you'd do better with the Land of the Lost)? It's not like you can really hum the theme tune to The Office. I suppose the theme to Dr. Who is pretty epic, but really, how many times does it pop into your head at random moments? Do you hear people "do-do-dodod"ing to the 30 Rock theme?

So what happened to transcendent, memorable theme songs? Are producers purposely choosing to avoid them? Or are today's composers and musicians just lame?

I'm a fan

I've been working through David Gibbons The Monkey and the Fish, which will be the topic of a future blog post. But his essential point is that the day of monolithic culture is gone. America, as with the rest of world, is becoming a mystical, magical blend of cultures - ethnic, socio-economic, generational - and the best churches (or any institutions, really) will find ways to navigate this new world, seeking out the best in cultures, learning to be fluid as change and blending becomes the norm.

It's a little tough to put words around, but, like with so many things, art proves the way.

I went with some friends and family to the Olalla blugrass festival last Saturday. Now there's culture: banjos, mandolins, western twangs, fiddles, and blueberry pie. Yum.

The final band was the Canadian group The Paperboys. Have you heard of them? Have you heard them? Count me as a fan.

No, they're not truly bluegrass. No self-respecting bluegrass band would include a drummer, a saxophonist and a trumpeter. Or an electric guitar.

But what they are is marvelous. Take some Scotch-Irish pennywhistle, throw in French-Canadian fiddle reels, add in ska brass, Mexican rhythm section, and bluegrass guitar, and you have the Paperboys. In an instant, I had Gibbons "Third Culture" defined by one band, a group that could begin with an old Irish folk tune, morph into indigenous Mexican music, and end with a fiddle dance tune. A group that could pull off a Bob Marley-John Denver mashup. A group that turned "Rollin' in My Sweet Baby's Arms" into the most rockin' dance tune ever. Really. It was a veritable mixture of all sorts of worldwide cultures, and it was one of the most enjoyable sounds I've ever heard. And the crowd agreed. This American Bluegrass crowd was on its feet, dancing and do-si-doing and clapping and shouting and generally experiencing a great time.

If you want to hear what I'm talking about, go to their music page, and listen to La Primavera. Listen how it switches back and forth from Mexican rhythm to Irish fiddle tune. In fact, listen to how the fiddle tune plays over top of the Mexican rhythm. Neither gives way to the other, both carry on simultaneously, a mashup of cultures complementing each other, each existing in its own cultural form, but both coming together to create something beautiful and unique.

I couldn't help but think this is what the kingdom of God is supposed to look like: all sorts of cultures blending together in a joyful, spontaneous celebration of creativity and community and laughter. And fun.

Go check out their website, listen to their music there. If you ever get a chance, go see them. Be amazed, and see the future coming to us now; thankfully, it seems to be in good hands.

(oh, on another note, I also became a fan of Northern Departure. A bunch of kids, but they know how to pick. Plus they hail from my old stomping grounds.)

Television commercials are evil

Some of you know that we've gone four years now without being connected to any television source. We have a TV, but it's only connected to the PS2, which is really only used as a DVD player. And yes, in the spirit of confession, sometimes Karina and I watch a show or two via Hulu. Or, like recently, we've been catching up on Dr. Who via Netflix live streaming. So we're not complete Luddites. But still, we're pretty careful to filter what comes into the home.

Which is, I guess, why I'm always shocked when I sit down in front of a TV and spend a few minutes watching. And no, I'm not really talking about the Super Bowl; I knew what to expect there. Although it was odd to notice the theme of emasculated males working itself out in at least four different commercials. What was that all about?

I'm really referring to a night a few weeks ago when Doug and I were sitting in the hotel room in Denver, and I was trying to find something to wile away a few minutes before going to sleep. As usual, nothing was on that was worth watching.

But I did see this one commercial, which I shall henceforth refer to as "The Most Evil Commercial Ever." It was so ludicrous as to be almost unbelievable. Seriously. At least advertisers used to try to hide how evil they are; now they just come right out and admit it.

Here's the commercial:



Do you see why it's so evil?

Note how the kids playing outside look so somber and sad. Yes, kids, fresh air and playing in the park is so 1930s. It's so boring!

Note how the kids playing outside look with such envy on the happy kids inside the van.

Note the implication that being stuffed inside a van with free television is better than being outside on a sunny day.

Note that there are no adults interacting with these children. They're lost, lonely, depressed until the great god Television blesses them with Its presence.

Note the poor local children being blessed by the Shiny Blessed People, waving at these unfortunate souls like so many Rockefellers gazing down upon the huddled masses yearning to be free.

This is evil.

Let us renounce this evil by reminding ourselves that:
- play is better than television
- personal interaction is better than television
- outside in the fresh air is better than inside with television
- a slide is better than television
- a swingset is better than television
- a bike is way better than television

And, should you find yourselves in a vehicle with your family and friends, it's a wonderful opportunity to actually get to know them, create some fun and some memories. Do the human thing and interact.

If you really want my opinion, televisions built into vehicles are evil.

bikini coffee stands

It was reported in the most recent online edition of the KP News that the Key Peninsula area now has not one, not two, but three new coffee stands, all in the 'bikini barista' tradition.

Considering we had none of those just a few short months ago, the change is dramatic. (note: one of these stands, Bare Espresso, had a brief opening run and now appears to be closed again. I heard through the grapevine it has something to do with a lawsuit against the former owner, but have no personal knowledge to corroborate that story).

It would be easy to become offended at this point; in fact, most might expect we Christians to get our noses out of joint, to become righteously indignant about the decay in morals in our society. It would be all too easy to go Church-Lady on these new establishments. But, no, I'm not going to be offended. I'm not going to thump my Bible over anybody's head.

Instead I'm going to simply be honest, and say that I am utterly disgusted at the thought of these places doing business, here on the KP or anywhere else.

"Why are you so disgusted?" you ask.

There are primarily two reasons:

1) I respect women. I'm glad I live in a day when women are rising to some of the highest areas of leadership in our country. I'm glad to serve in a church that believes in full equal leadership rights and responsibilities for women. I believe women, like men, are created in the image of God, and are worthy of full respect. But even there, quite often 'respect' carries the wrong connotations. It can sound borderline patronizing. To put it simply, in God's eyes, women are the equal of men. And I'm glad I live in a world that is finally recognizing that.

To carry it a step further, believing that women are created in the image of God is also to believe they have enormous, immeasurable intrinsic worth. God's image is shown in their intellect, in their wisdom, in their leadership skills. Both women and men come to the table carrying around the image of God. We do well when we show each other respect and honor as humans created by, cherished by, loved by, and honored by our God.

All rhetoric aside, bikini coffee stands take us back to an uglier world, where a woman's primary worth is her attractiveness to men. Now, two of the managers of these new stands either lied or are just clueless, because they tried to deflect this view. "Don't be judgmental because of the bikinis,” [one] said. “The girls are nice, but our business is coffee." Sure. Go with that.

At least one of the owners was honest. "The girls will be our big draw," said Matthew, the owner. "And we aren't going to hide them. We'll have a four-foot by four-foot window to put them on display." 

It is obvious to anybody paying attention that there is a backlash, a dumbing-down, if you will, against many of the gains made by women in the last 50 years. For every Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton who have risen to Secretary of State, there is a Paris Hilton or Britney Spears, plummeting right back to the world where sex appeal and 'dumb blonde' is a badge of honor. For every serious female actor, working hard at garnering respect for her craft, there are hundreds of girls getting their 15 minutes of fame in a Girls Gone Wild video. For every image calling my daughters to find their worth in their mind, in their creativity, in their skills, there are too many more reminding them it's all worthless unless they look and act hot and available.

And lest you think I would promote a world devoid of physical attraction and admiration, I would add in the many marvelous examples of female athletes. WNBA stars, track and field champions, swimmers and gymnasts, tennis players and soccer players can all be admired for "their bodies." Not as primarily sexual creatures, but as powerful athletes who have created wondrous athletic machines with the bodies God has given them.

So why am I disgusted by bikini coffee stands? Because they stand as one more reminder to women that their worth is in their cleavage and their flat stomach, and (I'm assuming here), their ability to flirt with the men who drive through. And because they once again reinforce to the men who drive by the thought that women exist for their pleasure; that women are to be admired because of their sexuality, their bodies, and the way (I'm assuming here) these women flirt with them as they drive through.

Because, in the end, I highly doubt any guy's going to drive away from Smoking Hot Espresso thinking, "Wow, I admire her for her understanding of the geo-political situation in Central America." I even doubt most will drive away thinking "Wow, I admire the way she brews a cup of coffee."

2) I like sex. But I also happen to have a very high view of sex. To do the briefest of theological sketches, humanity (male and female) were (are) created in the image of God, and that image finds fulfillment in the sexual union. Genesis says the sexual union creates "one flesh." Paul use the sexual union of husband and wife as the model for Christ's union with the Church. He also goes so far as to say even fleeting dalliances with a prostitute creates a spiritual union between the partners. The church's aversion to sexual immorality and the cheapening of sex is not borne out of overly-sensitive sensibilities or old-fashioned, victorian aversions to anything tawdry, but instead out of a grander, more incredible vision of sexuality than anything the world can imagine. There is an incredible spiritual component to sexuality.

(btw - if I had more time and space I'd work that out to include all male-female relationships, not just the sexual act itself. This is not just the plane of the sexually-active; I think there is a component of healthy male-female friendship that exists even when there isn't sexual activity. But that's for another time and place).

Thus, any cheapening of sexuality is a cheapening of the deepest part of our very selves. Any divorcing of sexuality from true, abiding friendship and relationship does damage to who we are as humans.

And any usage of sexuality as an advertising ploy does great harm to our souls. And, no, it's not just bikini espresso stands. It's also Burger King and their "Paris Hilton washes a car" ads. It's the beer ads promising instant sexual satisfaction from hot girls (or guys) for all who drink their product. It's any and all advertisement that use sex as a gimmick. In fact, it's anytime anywhere in our culture when the sexual act is removed from a committed relationship, be it movie, music, or television. When we take what is perhaps the highest, most intimate connection between human beings, an act that goes back to the highest point in pre-fall creation, and turn it into "just sex," we deny ourselves as Human and move down the ladder to pure animal.

In other words, if you use sex, especially 'hot female sexuality" to sell your coffee, you are cheapening sex, and damaging your employees and customers by denying their humanity, their worth, and their ability to truly stand as whole, healthy human beings, knowing and being known by others in respect and true love.

That's why I'm disgusted with these bikini espresso stands. Not because I'm offended by sex, not because I'm frightened of female sexuality. Instead, it's because these places at their core cheapen women, turning them into one-dimensional caricatures for the enjoyment of so many men, and because they cheapen sex, the very thing they play on to draw the customers in.

One final thought: At this point, some would say "live and let live. If you don't like it, don't shop there. Don't judge others, don't foist your morality on others." Fair enough. Except for this: what these stands do cheapens all of us, it cheapens our community, it cheapens the lives of everybody out here. If I lived on the beach, and a mile or so down the beach a company was dumping raw sewage into the water, I wouldn't settle with "live and let live." What they do "up there" affects the environment down here. Any, be it bikini espresso stand owners or TV producers who use sex as advertisement, as ratings-producer, ultimately affect the larger culture. Even if I choose to ignore it, to turn off the TV, to drive by the espresso stand without stopping, those things still end up altering the world in which I, and my friends and family, live. So while I don't plan on standing outside with protest signs, I certainly do hope others will take all this to heart, and, eventually, these places either shut down or change their business practices. After all, we've got plenty of other coffee stands that are doing just fine without putting their girls in bikinis, tassels, and pasties.

Maybe it's just me. . .

but I find myself losing all respect for a news anchor when, in the midst of an interview or a story, they say "Let me read some tweets that have been coming in. . ."

Of course I know what they mean; and yes, I get that they're trying to remain "hip" and "uber-cool" in order to reach and maintain a younger audience.

But still. Can you imagine Walter Cronkite saying "Wow - what a great picture of Neil Armstrong on the moon. And sexydude456 just tweeted 'An amazing day for America!'"

No. Listener comments, sure. Audience feedback - absolutely. But can we cut with the 'tweet' language when dealing with solid news stories?

A brief word on discipleship vs. legalism

In further reflection on the Super Bowl, outreach, and popular culture.

This is one of the areas to which I've put a lot of thought over the last 10 years. As followers of Christ, we are called into a lifetime of discipleship, of walking in the way with Jesus, seeking righteousness, holiness, christ-likeness throughout our lifetime. We are to seek the things of God, the things of Life, the fruit of the Spirit, the attitude of Christ. The way of Christ is the way of Life, and thus we are to pursue the things that lead to life - holy living, confession when we sin, kindness and gentleness, hospitality, extravagant giving, treating others with respect and dignity; in short, loving God and loving our neighbor, or behaving justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God.

All too often, however, the Church takes these concepts and turns them into legalism. What begins as a proper discipleship question - for instance, is it appropriate for a follower of Christ to consume alcoholic beverages when these same beverages are the downfall and destruction of so many - turns into Law: Christians shouldn't drink beer. Or, is it appropriate for Christians to listen to rock music, when the culture of rock music is destructive and rebellious - turns into Law: Any music with a backbeat is necessarily satanic in origin. And soon, rather than pursuing righteousness, we're all back to living under the Law, building hedges and hiding from perceived sinfulness rather than pursuing Christ-likeness in our love of God and neighbor.

So I don't want the question about the Super Bowl to turn into a question of Law: should we pronounce it a sin to watch the Super Bowl in Church - but instead to frame it as a question of discipleship, a question of Christian ethic:

A) If we are called to pursue righteousness in all areas of life; and
B) If we are called to think on whatever is good, right, holy, etc.; and
C) If we are called to flee the evil desires of youth; and
D) If the greater culture surrounding the Super Bowl is one that leads to death, insomuch as it:
1) Promotes the image that women are objects to be enjoyed by virile young men
2) Is a bastion of wasteful spending when people around the world are starving to death
3) Promotes a culture of drinking, partying, spending, consuming, violence, gambling, etc.

Then. . .

E) Is it in the best interest of followers of Christ to spend the better part of an afternoon supporting this event? (One could also point out that it's a Sunday afternoon - iow, a Sabbath day. . .)

And even more so,

F) Is it harmful for the Church, the Body of Christ, to give approval to this event by publicly showing it and inviting the community in to watch it together?

And, finally,

G) If we sit with the young men and women of our community to share in this event together, in what ways are we forming their spirituality for good or bad? Are we causing our youth to stumble by essentially saying, "It's ok if it's sexualized and violent and if it is a massive waste of money that could be better spent on Kingdom work, just so long as it's entertaining, or if it gets your friends in the door"?

So the answer to the quesiont ought not to be "It's a sin to watch the Super Bowl." That's legalism at its finest. But could it be said "of the many options available to us, engaging in this activity is probably not the wisest choice for those who seek to honor Christ with their lives?"

And, just so you know, if our church decides to hold a Super Bowl party next year, I'm not going to go all judgmental on them. I'll probably show up and enjoy some pizza and soda and carrots and fellowship. I'm not trying to make any command decisions via this blog. Just trying to have a healthy conversation.

Two final thoughts:

- As was pointed out in the comments below, we had a group of young ladies take the afternoon of Super Bowl Sunday to travel to Seattle and hand out sandwiches to homeless people there. They chose to minister, to be counter-cultural and ignore the game in order to be the hands and feet of Jesus. Maybe we could learn something from them.

- Erin asked the question about going to the beach - Essentially, there's lots of girls in bikinis at the beach, so if we're going to avoid the Super Bowl, shouldn't we also avoid the beach? The pool? The world?

I'd respond that those are different issues. The commercials shown during the game made it obvious that flesh and sexuality went hand in hand. Wearing swimsuits at the beach is a different matter. Yes, some are there on the hunt, but others are there because they want a tan. There are a lot of different reasons for going to the beach, and most are good. To get some sunshine, to swim in the ocean, to enjoy being with friends, to enjoy the beauty of creation, to play frisbee or nerf football in the waves, to surf, to get out and have fun. One could make the argument that going to the beach has much to offer the follower of Christ - to rejoice in the wonders of this planet, to have long , uninterrupted conversations with friends, to clear the mind, to find health in all the sunshine and clean air, to minister to others we may run into, to relax, to get exercise.

Yes, I know for some it's a struggle to keep their mind in appropriate places when surrounded by young men and women in various states of undress, but that undress is natural in the location. You wear a swimsuit to the beach; it goes with the territory, and it isn't necessarily intended to be sexual. But I would argue it's not the same with something like the Super Bowl. Whereas the beach can be a positive experience but also has at its core the potential to be, shall we say, distracting?, I'm not so sure that there are many positives left about the Super Bowl. Does the good that can happen there outweigh all the harm it can and does do? I'm beginning to think the answer is no.

Book Review: A Faith And Culture Devotional

Kelly Munroe Kullberg and Lael Arrington want to stretch your brain. They want you to think broadly about the intersection between faith and the world in which we live. To that end, they've delivered the Faith and Culture Devotional: Daily Readings in Art, Science, and Life.

The premise is simple enough. Kelly and Lael have searched the archives of Christian thinking , and have pulled out writings of note, organizing them into seven different categories: Bible and Theology, History, Philosophy, Science, Literature, Arts, and Contemporary culture. These are then presented in the devotional, complete with questions for reflection and discussion, and biblical references to shed further light on the topic.

The devotional is set up up to last 15 weeks, with readings from a different category for each day of the week. Thus, on Monday you'll have a reading from Bible and Theology, on Tuesday a reading from History, on Wednesday you get Philosophy, etc.

The authors whose works are used rum the gamut of popular writers, scientists, theologians, pastors, professors, researchers, and musicians. Some are familiar, others are relatively obscure outside of their fields. You get best-selling author John Eldridge, you get Walter Kaiser, Professor of Old Testament at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, you get Hugh Ross, astronomer and astrophysicist, you get Guillermo Gonzalez, professor of physics at Grove City College, you get J.P. Moreland, professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, you get John Stott and Lee Strobel and Randy Alcorn and R.C. Sproul and Michael Card. You even get Covenanter Scot McKnight. And, just to be honest, you get a healthy dose of Kelly Kullberg and Lael Arrington, the editors of the devotional.

The topics range across a wide spectrum. Some of the daily titles include:
- Sex, intimacy, and worship
- The Bible and its Influence of Literary Arts
- DNA: The Beauty and Intelligence of the Designer
- The Strange Small World of Quantum Mechanics
- Jesus' Resurrection: When Truth Confronts our Worst Suffering
- The Secret Gospels
- The Small and the Big Gospel
- The Council of Nicaea: The Voice Beneath the Altar
- Ziegenbalg: India's First Missionary
- Belief, Knowledge, and Truth
- Moral and Ethical Relativism
- Theodicy
- The Periodic Table of the Elements
- Vincent Van Gogh and Seeing
- The Impressionists
- Postmodern Architecture
- U2
- Bob Dylan: Slow Train Coming
- Burning Man
- AIDS

Get the idea? There's something in here to stretch everybody.

The strength of this devotional is in that breadth - every day, you ought to be challenged with something new. Yet each topic is confined to a mere few pages, thus the reader isn't overwhelmed with reams of information on the topic - just enough to get you thinking. The editors have helpfully suggested scriptures that speak to the topic, thus tying everything back to the Word. The questions at the end of each day would be suitible for mulling over on your commute, or sitting in a small group and discussing into the night.

As to weaknesses? Some might point out that "devotional" usually means The Word - beginning with the Bible and moving outward, rather than beginning "out there" and then eventually getting around to scripture. If this book is meant to be primary material for time spent with God, I would have hoped the Scriptures led the discussion, rather than coming in at the very last moment. And, of course, in a book with as many sources as this, there are bound to be authors who the reader isn't going to enjoy. Scanning the list, I quickly found a few on who've been taken off my "people I want to read" list. The premise of this book is "Deep thinking by great minds." Quite often, I don't equate "best-selling Christian author" with "Great Mind." Perhaps the editors relied just a little too much on the shelves of the Christian bookstore for their ideas.

But. . .I plan on continuing to work my way through this book, and would gladly recommend it to anybody and everybody looking for some new spice to throw into the stew. If your reading list has become a little one-dimensional, if your intellectual life has grown stagnant, then please, do pick up A Faith and Culture Devotional and allow your mind and soul to be stretched anew.

Studying near a fast food place? Watch Out!

A professor from Azusa Pacific just released a study showing that students who go to schools near fast food outlets are much more likely to be obese than students at other schools.

"They also found that students whose schools were located near-fast food restaurants eat fewer servings of vegetables and fruits, and drink far more soda than students at schools not located near fast-food restaurants."

One more thing to consider if you have a choice between schools.

Foiled again

Just when I've successfully spent most of my life avoiding doing what all the popular people are doing, the AKC had to go name Yorkshire Terriers the 2nd-most popular dog breed in America. Or, maybe I could just believe we're trend-setters. After all, it's only after we got Pepe that these dogs are now so popular, right? At least that's what I'll keep telling myself.

A long post on artists, critics, and idiots

When I was in college, I had a friend who owned a Beach Boys Anthology CD. The liner notes for the CD were written by a writer for a major music magazine. He used words such as Genius, Earth-shattering, and Groundbreaking to describe their music, and the work of Brian Wilson, composer of many of their tunes. The high point (or low point) of the introduction was this critic claiming that Brian Wilson was the 20th Century equivalent of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. He essentially made the claim that Brian Wilson was every bit the genius that Mozart ever was. That if Wilson has lived in the 18th Century, he would have written trio sonatas and requiem masses. And if Mozart lived in the 1960s, he would have written pop songs about beach life.

Of course, it is utterly ludicrous to make the comparison. There is no way you can equate Mozart's Ave Verum Corpus, his Requiem Mass, his operas, his piano concertos, with such ditties as Good Vibrations and Surfin' USA. It ought to be impossible to equate The Marriage of Figaro and The Magic Flute with lines such as "Gotta keep those lovin' good vibrations a-happenin- with her" and "If everybody had a notion across the USA, then everybody'd be surfin down in Californ-i-a. . ."

But this is the way popular music works. Watch any MTV retrospective about pop artists young and old, and you'll get the same language. "Britney's parents first noticed her genius when she was 5 years old." "Christina works the crowd in masterful fashion, the painter with her musical medium." "His drumming has been described as 'god-like,' pure artistic genius on display to adoring fans fortunate enough to be in his presence." The recent "diva" fling is an example, especially in naming of 19-year-old pop princesses as divas. I could understand using Diva to describe Kathleen Battle. Maybe Jane Monnheit. Even Sara Brigthman. But Mariah Carey? Celine Dion? Ladies who made it into the upper echelons of the music world by selling cheap trinkets to the uncritical masses don't deserve lofty titles.

Perhaps the language itself is the giveaway. Perhaps within pop culture there is a latent awareness that it is all so shallow, so pointless, to untalented, so. . .stupid. Thus, they gather around themselves writers and promoters who can use words like "genius" and "talent," and convince themselves that perhaps they actually are worthy of the accolades.

All of this is on my mind because we watched "The Devil and Daniel Johnston" Saturday night. It's a documentary about Daniel Johnston, a reclusive singer/songwriter/artist, who also happens to be mentally ill (read: completely insane) and maybe even possessed. The movie rightly focuses mostly on Mr. Johnston, but what I found fascinating was the following this man created. Because, to put it bluntly, the man is an idiot. He has no talent. At all. He can't sing, he can barely play an instrument, and his lyrics? They are about the equivalent of the prose of a high school freshman in English Class. Do you get my point? There is no talent at work here.

And yet, throughout the movie he is referred to as a genius. Multiple times. Hordes of people acclaim Mr. Johnston as the greatest musician of the 20th century. They talk about his "art." They exuberantly share their passion for his Amazing Work. Record producers. Singers in other bands. Masses of fans. Promoters. They all wax eloquently about this man and his genius.

And the whole time I wanted to shout "But the emperor has no clothes!" "The man has no talent!"

So the question becomes,
a) Have people's expectations dropped so low that this is truly considered genius?
b) Are people simply afraid to state the obvious, for fear of everybody else accusing them of 'being too commercial'?
c) is everybody else around him insane?
d) or is it just pop culture doing what it naturally does - picking the lowest-common-denominator and naming it as Great?

Interestingly enough, near the end of the movie, his parents speak of reading the biography of Brian Wilson, and taking comfort in his journey. As Wilson battled mental disease that crippled his "art," so too does their son battle infirmity of the mind. Of course, at this point they cue the critics and promoters who say "but Johnston's music is at a level above Brian Wilson's. Nothing Brian wrote can compare with Daniel Johnston." I wanted to throw something at the TV monitor.

And then last night I was reading Wendell Berry, and came across this line:

If a man finds it necessary to eat garbage, he should resist the temptation to call it a delicacy.

I think popular culture, and its consumers, would do well to heed Wendell's instruction. If you want to like Mariah Carey, who am I to judge you? If you want to listen to Hillary Duff's latest tripe, you are welcome to it. Just don't attempt to call it anything other than what it is. Cheap, quickly fading, disposable entertainment. If you think Daniel Johnston is attractive, then enjoy his stuff. Just don't try to convince anybody that it is genius or high art. You demean those words, and our world, when you do.