Concerning the recent expulsion of spade-wielding mole-men from their subterranean dwelling in Chile, I’m beginning to get quite decidedly upset at how many times the word ‘Miracle’ is used when illustrating these events throughout the media. Poor English forever upsets me regardless but when reputable newspapers are using entirely inappropriate words on their cover headline; that’s when I get really quite… Itchy.
Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding of the word ‘Miracle’ is that it’s used to describe chance happenings with a vastly unlikely, even impossible probability. Yes? For example, if a woman in her late twenties, walking her dog along a quiet suburb, suddenly finds her entire body inside out, swirling through a vast cosmic void filled only with the alien dialectic insults of an incomprehensibly vast space-goblin looming over her and her dog, itself now comprised of chicken nuggets and glue, then I would be inclined to choose the word ‘Miracle’ to describe this event. (You’re probably hoping for a drawing of that now. Tough.)
On the contrary, would you deem it ‘Miraculous’ if you ate a sausage. A WHOLE sausage. Like, one of those fat ones. Can you imagine?
Anyway, back to the point. What angers me is that this puerile word detracts from the effort of the human endeavour involved. It wasn’t an impossible task to drill down to fetch up the diggy men. It was a logistical challenge, sure, and a great achievement, but it was entirely doable. (Christ that’s an awful word.) Saying that the accomplishment of this task was a ‘Miracle’ is akin to dubbing me finishing this sentence a miracle… Holy crap, I did it!
‘Miracle’ is a word long used by ignorant people to describe events or subjects that defy simple explanation. Just ask Insane Clown Posse.
-
Another word that’s been irritating me of late is one imbued with righteous power and exceptional selfless moral fibre;
HERO!
And, inevitably, it’s another grossly inappropriately used word throughout the media.
I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your notice that some of the little people who own bits of the planet for some reason are whacking each other with bullets because they’ve got little else to achieve in their lives. Now, while I’m all for deplorable violence, war seems, to me, entirely futile and moronic. The differences people fight over are only perceived by ignorant people far too ingrained in archaic rituals, perpetuating conflicts born of fear and stupidity.
AND LO, in such a battleground we find… The Hero!
Once again, I’ll provide my definition of the word: I would describe a ‘Hero’ as one who has performed an act so courageous and selfless as to set them apart from the average person through their virtue and caring. Now, I don’t know too much about soldiers, but I would most certainly never describe them as empathic or virtuous. I would describe them as pitiful pawns with a misguided sense of duty to their ‘country’ (once again, another pointless divide in a world that should have grown out of such ideas).
But, once again, it’s the misuse of the word that upsets me most; when wounded soldiers are INSTANTLY described as ‘Heroes’. It seems that, without heed to the circumstances, without hesitation, a soldier wounded immediately becomes the subject of reverence for the newspapers and is branded a ‘Hero’. I would describe a soldier as a ‘Hero’ if he strode out into a crossfire of phosphorous mortars to single-handedly retrieve a bus-full of children from a minefield surrounded by explosive sharks.
It seems, however, that the news has a slightly more loose definition. Get shot? Hero. Step on a land mine? Man, that’s damn heroic. Accidentally slip on a soggy packet of crisps and trip over onto a carelessly placed jar of mayonnaise? Have a fucking Victoria Cross!
‘Soldier’ is a job. Stepping on an anti-tank mine and becoming a splat of yourself isn’t heroic. It’s not a display of you doing your job well; it’s a demonstration of your ineptitude. It’s like a bus driver being rewarded with a big fat bonus for driving off a bridge.
-Box















