iPopCulture.NET

If you happen to be one of the brave who journeys out Thanksgiving night and into Friday morning to buy Gigli on Blu-Ray for $7.99 or a Coby DVD player for $39.99, chances are you will hear a store employee utter those two little infamous words: “Happy Holidays.”

Some see this as a polite greeting and meet it with a smile and return the gesture with a similar expression. However, when some hear those two little words their blood begins to boil and the evolution of Bruce Banner into the Incredible Hulk takes place right in the checkout line at Macy’s. Why do those words cause so much anger? Maybe because we think “Happy Holidays” has become a substitute for “Merry Christmas.”

While some may disagree with me entirely, the phrase “Happy Holidays” does not bother me. Here are 3 reasons why:

1. We’re in the middle of 3 “holidays”
The 5 weeks between November 24 and January 1 give us 3 different holidays. November 24 is Thanksgiving. December 25 is Christmas. And January 1 is New Year’s Day. When someone tells you “Happy Holidays” it doesn’t necessarily mean he or she is saying “I’m being politically correct and taking Christ out of Christmas.” Maybe he or she is just saying an abbreviated version of “I hope you had a great Thanksgiving, have a great Christmas, and have a great New Year.” After all, holidays is plural, so it’s inferring more than one. Think about the song, “We Wish You a Merry Christmas.” We don’t cut off the last line and say, “We wish you a Merry Christmas and…yeah, that’s it.” So before you get too upset, consider that the phrase “Happy Holidays” may not be an attack on your spiritual beliefs; maybe it’s just a way to incorporate all 3 holidays into 1.

2. “Happy Holidays” is a friendly greeting
I doubt there are many people in this world who utter “Happy Holidays” just to stir up trouble. Sure, groups like the ACLU may try to do it, but for most people saying “Happy Holidays” is a friendly gesture. And let’s be honest, I’ve said it, you’ve said it, and many others have said it without even thinking. When I say it to a friend or a store employee I don’t think, “I don’t want to offend him so I’ll go neutral with my greeting.” No, my actual intent is to genuinely wish someone happiness. So whether you like the phrase or not, remember that the person saying it is likely doing it out of goodwill, not ill-intent.

3. The phrase may have been authorized by a “higher-up”
I hate political correctness as much as anyone, and I honestly don’t like it when I hear people say their managers have warned them against mentioning “Christmas” and have even threatened their jobs. Yes, that bugs me. But it’s important for us to remember that the “higher-ups” may be the ones making that call, not necessarily the employees. Believe it or not, there are retail employees who say “Happy Holidays” who also celebrate Christmas. Before you jump all over the high school kid who is working a seasonal job to pay for college, consider that he or she may only be doing what was asked. If you’re upset, your fight is with management, not the worker.

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and my opinion is that “Happy Holidays” really doesn’t bother me. However, what does bother me is seeing people jump down the throats of the workers who utter that phrase. When you talk back to the 17 year old who works at Best Buy or go off on the 25 year old working at Walmart, you’re doing everything BUT showing the spirit of Christmas…and THAT bothers me!

[Photo source: http://bit.ly/sQNAkk]

pla·gia·rism: the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work, as by not crediting the author (from Dictionary.com).

A frustrating thing happened to me not so long ago. I posted an original tweet and Facebook status and within minutes saw it copied by another person. However, there was no “RT” leading the tweet, no “Share” that led to the posting, no quotation marks around the words, nor credit within the post. This person had copied my exact original words and posted them as his/her own. When I asked this person why he/she did so, I received an, “It’s no big deal” type of response void of any apology and void of any effort to give proper credit.

While that incident bothered me, soon I saw it happen again and again and again, not just with me, but with many others as well.

When I think about those incidents, they still bother me because someone was willing to take my original words and claim them as their own.

But should it bother me?

With the advancement of social media, we’ve made it easy to post our thoughts, quotes, and happenings with the click of a mouse and push of a button. This also allows us to take the words of others and do anything with them that we wish.

So is this plagiarism or just social sharing?

According to its definition, it definitely seems like stealing i.e. plagiarism (or “poaching” as Joe Strauss of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch would call it). When we take someone’s exact words and thoughts and claim them as our own, we become part of this unethical landslide. It probably won’t land anyone in jail, but the severity of the consequences should never be our motivation for doing what is right.

Twitter provides ways to retweet (RT) someone. Facebook allows you to “Share” things or even tag others. And there’s always the good ‘ole quotation marks as well.

There is no reason to steal (or “borrow” or “copy and paste”) someone’s status/tweet and claim it as your own, no matter if that person is a celebrity with 24 million followers or a friend from high school who has 347 friends. It’s unethical and in very poor taste.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

[Photo source: http://bit.ly/v38JpC]

I have a problem with being “politically correct.” It seems like being “politically correct” isn’t so much about being politically correct, but using opportunities to advance a certain agenda or lean a certain way.

Case and point:

During an NBA game in August, Kobe Bryant was upset at a referee and called him the “f” word. By “f” word I don’t mean the “f-bomb” (although he did use that word as an adjective), but rather “f**got.” Bryant was fined $100,000 for making an “anti-gay” slur. The story hit the front pages of every major newspaper and website and was a major story for days. Kobe and the Lakers even had to make a video that discouraged people from making similar comments.

Last month, Joakim Noah of the Chicago Bulls became so outraged at a fan that he yelled that same word at a fan. Unfortunately for Noah, this was caught on tape. Noah was fined $50,000 for his “homophobic” slur. This story was also covered by most media outlets and talked about for days.

Last night, A.J Burnett, pitcher for the New York Yankees, grew frustrated during an interview with reporters. During the course of the interview, Burnett responded to a question by saying, “That’s just retarded.” If you hadn’t heard about that story yet, chances are you won’t. Although it was briefly discussed on Mike & Mike in the Morning, by 3:00 PM today the story wasn’t even a major headline on ESPN.com or even the MLB section on ESPN.com.

One could argue that when Burnett said, “That’s just retarded” he wasn’t implying the quetsion was “mentally challenged.” He may have just been saying, “That’s ridiculous.” However, one might also be able to argue that when someone makes a statement like, “That’s so gay” their intention is somewhere along the lines of, “That’s ridiculous” as well.

While I am firmly against slurs of any kind, it bothers me that we have a double standard when it comes to these things. When an inappropriate comment is made that has homosexual overtones, chaos ensues. Players are fined, national media runs the story, and activists are on TV and in print demanding a public apology. However, when someone throws around a term like “retard” or “retarded,” there’s a slight slap on the wrist if anything. There’s no doubt that comments like that upset organizations that work with the mentally handicapped, but chances are good that spokespeople for their organizations won’t get much airtime or publicity to voice their complaints.

If our culture is going to be so intent on being politically correct, maybe it’s time we stand up for those who truly can’t help themselves. Our culture will stand up for anything and everything if it offends us personally, but maybe we should put aside the double-standard and stand up for those who truly can’t defend themselves.

[Photo source: http://bit.ly/lK0EbA]

The issue of pay for church workers has always been a sticky one. If you get paid a lot, people (who probably make more than you) may argue that people shouldn’t be getting “rich” from doing ministry. If you get paid too little, you may find it difficult for your family to survive.

I’ve never really known the appropriate time to discuss pay when dealing with a church ministry position. It’s very different from other job positions. With other job openings, the salary/hourly pay is usually listed on a web site, job description, or even a store window.

That’s usually not the case with ministry positions. In fact, in my experience, payment is usually not even discussed until at least the third conversation/interview with the pastor and other church leaders. In fact, I’ve heard of some who have been offered full time ministry positions without hearing a word about pay. They didn’t even know what they would be paid until they received their first paycheck.

What makes this such a sticky issue is the concept of money itself. As an interviewee, you don’t want to bring up money right away and appear as though you’re looking for the highest paying ministry job available. Churches also want to know you’re in it because you feel called into ministry, and you’re relying on God to take care of your needs.

However, some churches and pastors use that argument as justification to underpay their staff. Even though the church members and pastor may be making quite a bit of money, they will pay someone in a full time position no more than a handful of beans and tell that person and his/her family to be “humble and rely on God.”

So when someone is interviewing for a ministry position in the church, when should the issue of pay be brought to the table? Initial contact? First phone conversation? During a face to face interview? When meeting with the Board? Never?

I’m curious to hear your thoughts and experiences.

[Photo source: http://bit.ly/kJzuaB]

As church people, we like to tell others that God doesn’t weigh sin and all sin is the same in His eyes. If we could actually translate the intentions behind those statements, I wonder if it would be translated as, “Your sins are WAY worse than mine! But…God can still save you. But seriously…they’re way worse than mine! But I’m not judging you…actually I am.”

Unfortunately, I think our church culture has taken that judgment one step further. Not only do we weigh and cast judgment on the sins of others, but I think we also weigh and cast judgment on the temptations of others.

In fact, I think we view some temptations as worse than some sins.

Sound crazy? Just consider it for a moment.

There are certain sins we’re semi-comfortable admitting. If I’m dealing with sinful pride, I can admit it to others. If I’m bitter and jealous, I may be able to let others know about that too. If I have battles with anger and rage, I may have no problem telling people.

But there are some temptations that we just shouldn’t talk about. At least, that’s what we’ve been told. They could almost be labeled as the “Forbidden Temptations.” They’re very real, and they’re very prevalent, but we’ve been conditioned not talk about them. Since they make others uncomfortable, we’ve been told not to mention them, admit the struggle, or even seek out help.

We are all tempted by things. I firmly believe that temptation in itself is not a sin. It is when we give in to that temptation that we sin.

However, many of us still view some temptations as worse than sins.

Until we get past that, we’ll continue to struggle with authenticity and transparency, and we’ll have no problem weighing and judging anything we see.

I’m a chronic radio scanner. I hate commercials, static, and bad music. Since so much of the radio has turned to junk anyway, I usually find myself listening to sports talk radio. However, occasionally something I hear will cause me to stop my scanning and listen.

Many times, I don’t even have a clue who I’m listening to, but if I hear a creative melodic line and interesting (or absurd) lyrics, I’ll listen.

What has surprised me is that the music that has caused me to stop and listen recently is from artists like Pink, Katy Perry, and even Usher. My intention wasn’t to listen to their music. (In fact, when I first came across it, I didn’t even know it was their music.) But something about their sound caught my ear and caused me to stop and listen.

This has caused me to wrestle with some different ideas. Artists like Pink, Katy Perry, and Usher live very public lives, and because of that I know there are aspects of their lifestyles with which I wholeheartedly disagree. They stand for things that I’m against. I stand for things that they’re again. There’s a major incompatibility.

In addition, they also have lyrics in some of their music that go against my personal beliefs. While I won’t listen to songs that use profanity and promote sinful lifestyles, many of today’s artists are a mixed bag when it comes to lyrical content. For example, “Firework” by Katy Perry may seem to be a clean, safe song that is great for radio play, but some of her other songs, like “I Kissed a Girl” for example, promote a lifestyle and worldview to which I am opposed.

There are several ways I could go with this. I could argue that if I accept some of the music, then I should accept it all. On the other hand, I could say that if some of it is not fit to listen to, then I should reject it all. Or maybe there’s a middle ground. Maybe I should just listen to the clean music from an artist and disregard his or her explicit music. iTunes and Amazon allow you to download individual tracks, so in some ways that is possible.

I wish I could give a black and white answer on how to deal with this situation. However, this is still something I’m wrestling with.

I would love to get your feedback on how you handle situations like these, or how you think I should handle situations like these. Do you think an artist’s lifestyle should dictate our listening/purchasing habits?

[Photo source: http://bit.ly/mOHoQl]

When discussing the controversial topics in the church today, it seems that “dress” is near the top of the list with worship style, Bible translation, and color of the carpet. Some churches feature people in suits and dresses, while others consist of people in jeans, pants, and even shorts. If you fly to the islands of Hawaii, you may even find people who have come straight from the beach, carrying sand and the smell of the ocean into their local meeting place. While many factors play into the decision of what to wear–such as age, location, average age of the congregation, church leadership, etc.–there is no doubt this is an issue that is often talked about, or at least thought about, among church people.

While I would love to say I’ve found a definitive answer on what every male and female should wear to church, the truth is the Bible doesn’t tell us exactly what to wear. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a command to wear a suit, and nowhere in Scripture do we see that Crocs are forbidden in our local congregations (although we might want to give that some serious consideration).

While this issue may not be as black and white as some would want us to believe, I do believe there are 4 important factors to keep in mind when deciding how to dress for church:

1.) Mind your heart
The heart dictates our motivation for doing the things that we do. This even pervades into the area of what we wear to church. I’ve known far too many people who have taken the issue of dress in church and used it to facilitate a rebellious attitude. While it may not be a sin to wear jeans to church, some choose to do so only because they want to make a statement or know others may disapprove. It’s not about comfort; it’s about rebellion. On the flip side, if our heart is not in the right place, we may allow our suit and tie to create a sense of pride. While there is nothing wrong with looking nice, if our main intention is to dress to impress and look down on others, we’ve made things about much more than clothing. Pride can be a very dangerous and sinful thing. Whether it’s rooted in rebellion or elevation of self, if we don’t mind our heart, the issue is no longer about clothing, but more about our sinfulness.

2.) Mind your attitude
Sometimes our attitudes are very difficult to control, especially if we’re involved in something about which we’re very passionate. Walk into any Buffalo Wild Wings during the NCAA Tournament or a UFC PPV and you’ll see what I mean. Attitudes can also be difficult to control in the area of “church dress” because…well…some of us are very passionate about it. While a sense of passion can lead to many positive things, it can also turn our attitudes sour. It pains me to think of how many people I’ve seen come into the church dressed in something other than the norm and openly say, “I’m wearing this, and I don’t care what people think!” Sadly, no one had even said a thing. I’m not sure if anyone had noticed. Yet the “wearer” walked into the church building as though he/she were storming into a back alley looking for a fight. In the same respect, I’ve also heard people cast judgment on those that wear suits to church. Several years ago I heard someone in the church argue that our church would never be able to attract outsiders because too many people wore suits. This person then went on to criticize the character of those that wore suits to church. Here’s my inclination: the lack of growth in the church had nothing to do with people wearing suits; the lack of growth had to do with the attitudes of those doing the judgment.

3.) Mind your elders
Some may disagree with me on this point, and I’m okay with that. You’re allowed to be wrong (I probably need to read #2 again). I’m a firm believer in remembering where you came from and who helped you get there. I spent the first 23 years of my life at Calvary Fellowship Church in Fenton, Missouri. When I go home to visit, the first people to always greet me and hug me are the senior citizens in the church. During my 23 years at the church, they were always the first to pray for me, support me financially, and offer encouragement when I needed it most. They were and are the foundation and bedrock of the church. We may not always agree on everything, and we don’t have to. But I do love and respect them enough to listen to any concerns or hesitations they may have. They issue of church dress never came up with this group of people, but other things did, such as service style, music style, etc. At no point did they ever try to tell me my preferences were sinful; they simple told me that my preferences weren’t their preferences. I think there’s something very important in this when it comes to how we dress at church. I’m not saying that the elders in the church should dictate how we dress every Sunday. But I am saying that we should be mindful and respectful of their wishes and preferences. If I’m offending them in how I dress, maybe I need to step back and re-evaluate some things. It may not be an issue of sin, but it may be an issue of what is wise and beneficial. Let’s be honest…wearing khaki pants instead of jeans isn’t a very big deal to me. But it may be a big deal to someone else, and that simple change in clothing could be the difference in building a relationship.

4.) Mind your fellow churchgoers
This may sound like a no-brainer, but it’s still an issue in the church. As much as we talk about it and preach about it, the issue of modesty hasn’t hit home with everyone who steps into a church on Sunday mornings. The phrases “stumbling block” and “Sunday morning dress” don’t seem like they should go hand-in-hand, but sadly, sometimes they do. It’s important to put a high priority on modesty and purity when approaching what to wear to church. No one wants to be distracted by a low-cut blouse when trying to worship on a Sunday morning. What you’re wearing may be completely appropriate for your workplace or home, but it’s important to remember you can wear what’s appropriate by society’s standards and still not be appropriate.

[Photo source: http://bit.ly/mLKOrS]

This past weekend I had the opportunity to hear Francis Chan speak at the Youth Pastor’s Summit in Orlando, FL. For those who don’t know, Chan is the author of Crazy Love and Forgotten God and the former pastor of Cornerstone Community Church in California. I say “former” because recently Chan stepped down as pastor of the church. As he explained at YPS, he began to get concerned when he heard the name “Francis Chan” more than he heard the words “Holy Spirit.” So with only God to lead the way, Chan, one of the most known pastors in the country, stepped down.

What Chan explained next blew me away. He sold his house in California, and him and his pregnant wife and four kids journeyed to Asia to meet with believers. Chan mentioned that he wanted to meet with believers in the underground church who were experiencing persecution because of their faith in Christ. He also said that at each stop, they prayed and asked God if that’s where He wanted them to be long-term.

One of the stories that Chan shared hit me at the core. He had to the opportunity to visit with believers in China. While talking with these believers, he asked some of the teenagers to tell about some of the persecution they had faced. He said that as each teen shared their stories of physical violence and mockery, they laughed and smiled. These teens didn’t have a “woe as me” attitude. Instead, they were joyful. They rejoiced in the opportunity to endure persecution for the cause of Christ. They told stories of their friends being imprisoned. They told stories of being shot at by government officials. And they rejoiced together! In fact, they thought it was normal for Christians everywhere to experience this same level of persecution.

Chan explained to these believers that in America we have many churches in one city. If you don’t like the pastor, youth pastor, children’s ministry, or color of carpet, you just move to the church down the street. And no matter what happens, you don’t experience true religious persecution. Chan remarked that the China believers laughed at him. They thought he was joking. That did not make sense to them.

As he closed, Chan said that he asked one of these persecuted believers in Asia if there were any people among them who were only “Christian” in name and didn’t truly live out the faith. The Asian believer looked at him in disbelief and said, “No. Why would anyone do that?”

Ouch.

Conviction.

My faith is so weak. I’m an “American” believer, born in a free country, and born into a family that is richer than 95% of all the world. I can pray whenever I want, read my Bible in public, meet with other believers without secrecy, and I never have to worry about being beaten or imprisoned for my faith.

My “American” faith is so weak. If the Christians who endure persecution every single day looked at my faith, I wonder if they would look at me in disbelief and wonder, “Why would anyone do that?”

[Image Source: http://bit.ly/hj0MK9]

The Super Bowl has been over for 2 days, and yet Twitter is still filled with 4 things relating to the event: Aaron Rodgers, 400 fans who missed the game because their seats were considered unsafe, Christina Aguilera’s botched version of the Star-Spangled Banner, and the Black Eyed Peas’ halftime show.

As for quick thoughts on the first three:

Aaron Rodgers: Spectacular

The NFL’s handling of the seat situation: Inexcusable

Christina Aguilera’s performance: Horrendous (Not necessarily because she messed up the words, but because she included so many runs that I almost forgot what she was singing)

That leads me to the fourth element: The Black Eyed Peas.

Despite the grand entrance, the pyro, the razzle dazzle, the cameos from Slash and Usher, the costumes from Tron, and dancers with boxes on their heads, most of the Twitter world and blogosphere felt the performance fell short of expectations and came up a bit flat.

I’ll be the first to admit that the performance was anything but spectacular. The audio was mediocre at best, the BEPs just stood in place most of the performance like a Southern Gospel quartet (you’ll never hear that comparison again), the vocals (especially Fergie) were atrocious, and the performances by Slash and Usher were forgettable.

So while the grand spectacle was not up to standard for a typical Super Bowl Halftime performance, I’ve noticed the disappointment for some has gone beyond the failed audio and flat vocals. It seems as though some have been disappointed that “nothing shocking happened.”

Ever since the infamous “wardrobe malfunction” in 2004, the NFL has tried to tame its Halftime show by bringing in artists like Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones, Prince, Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, and The Who. Although these are all reputable and notable artists, none presented the threat that became apparent when MTV controlled the Halftime show in 2004.

However, this year was different. Bridgestone went out on a limb and booked the Black Eyed Peas. Even before we knew who would play in the Super Bowl, speculation was already mounting as to what crazy and shocking acts would come from their performance. In fact, on Bodog, an online gambling site, fans could even bet on what Fergie would wear for the performance, providing options that were modest, semi-modest, and not modest at all.

After 30 minutes of watching mediocre talent, many of us were left with a thought of “That’s it?” We were expecting more, both in talent and in shock value. With the exception of Fergie’s outfit, many were pleased that the Black Eyed Peas kept things somewhat PG/PG-13 despite all the weirdness that surrounded the performance.

However, while some were pleased with the tameness, others were disappointed that the BEP’s didn’t push things far enough. They wanted shock value. They wanted Monday morning water cooler material. They wanted something that would make the FCC blush. But they didn’t get it, and they were disappointed.

Our country has reached a point where very little shocks us. We’ve become so desensitized to sex, media, abuse, and a myriad of things that we no longer want normal or tame. Rather, we seek the things that push the limits and “shock” us in a new way. We want our senses to be stimulated in new ways and we want to push the envelope until the uncomfortable becomes perfectly acceptable.

And as that never ending search continues, our culture will continue to search for what is shocking, and only be disappointed when we realize it no longer is.

[Photo source: http://bit.ly/hvGMVy]

I wish I was making this up.

When I saw the commercial, I thought it couldn’t be real. It had to be some “fake” advertisement that would run on The Soup or some other show that takes shots at pop culture, right? Wrong.

The show: Bridalplasty. Its aim: A reality show where 12 engaged women compete to win a dream wedding and plastic surgery, with the emphasis being more on the plastic surgery than the actual wedding.

Here’s how the show/game is played: The winner of each week’s challenge gets one plastic surgery procedure from her wish list. The winner of the competition gets a wedding of her dreams and multiple plastic surgery from her wish list. (If this sounds similar to Fox’s 2004 show, The Swan, it should. The same doctor who performed the surgeries on The Swan is the doctor behind the surgeries on Bridalplasty.)

On the flip side, the groom does not even get to see his bride until the wedding day, where she reveals her new look.

Yes, this is real.

Engaged women are actually competing to win plastic surgery. No, not Lasik eye surgery. Not surgery to repair broken bones. Surgery to enhance features that are otherwise working properly.

And how is E! marketing this show? With this promo: “Every bride wants to look her best on her wedding day but for the women competing on E!’s new series, Bridalplasty, only perfection will do.”

It’s not a surprise that I find this disgusting, insulting, and degrading. The message it sends is vain and self-serving. Think about the end of the promo line again: “Only perfection will do.” It’s not talking about intellectual perfection. It’s not talking about personality perfection. It’s not even talking about natural physical perfection. Its definition of “perfection” is an unnatural alteration performed by a surgeon to create or enhance something.

Although ratings were low for the premiere episode, it still brought in over 900,000 viewers. Viewers were fed the lie that perfection comes in physical appearance; being who God made you to be in never “enough.”

Some writers weighed in on the show. Mark A. Perigard of the Boston Herald said:

The show feeds “the idea that a woman’s worth is based on attaining the perfect physique by any means.”

Chris Spargo of Hollywood Life commented:

Bridalplasty’s “whining blonds” are “almost all in perfect shape” yet they still feel compelled to obliterate their “minor imperfections.”

Again, I wish I was making this up.

Unfortunately, it’s all too true. We have a show featuring attractive women in near perfect shape, who already have a significant other, competing to win plastic surgery procedures.

Or maybe we should call it what it really is: A pseudo-reality show featuring women with low self-esteem, competing to win plastic surgery that will give them the false hope of attaining emotional and physical perfection.

I have to ask, why would anyone go on this show? Even more, why would someone who is engaged go on this show? The only answer I can find is that these women must be so insecure and dislike themselves so much that they’re looking to find fulfillment wherever they can. Obviously these already-attractive women haven’t found fulfillment in themselves. They obviously haven’t found it in their fiances. What they don’t see is that they won’t find it in their surgeries either. When the show is over and the cameras are turned off, these women may see a different person in the mirror, but they’ll still dislike the person they see on the inside.

If you are the parent of a teenage girl or if you are a young woman yourself, think about the message this show is sending to females everywhere. This show feeds into the lie that physical appearance is everything. It doesn’t matter who you are on the inside as long as you are beautiful on the outside.

The real reality is that what you look like on the outside pales in comparison to who you are on the inside. Unfortunately, so many people refuse to believe that. They are willing to sacrifice their character, money, and even safety in hopes of “feeling” like a new person. It saddens me that there are hundreds of thousands of women around the world who are willing to waste money on changing the exterior, because they know fixing the inside will hurt even more than the surgery.

I wish I was making this up.

Sadly, this has become a “reality.”