Ah I’ve been being provocative again! It is my way!
As the last post shows, and doubtless anyone having turned on the news will have noticed, there was a kerfuffle going on about the rescue of some Chilean miners over the last 24 hours. They are now all out, and ready to go back to their ordinary lives again. Well, give or take the movie/book deals, tv appearances, messy divorces due to mistresses turning up, and other such trivialities.
So.. that’s all well and good then? Yes? Well… no actually. It seems God got involved! Which God, is under debate. It appears that several are trying to take credit. Have a shufti here to read an amusing article about it.
Of course though, it is obvious that there was no God involved. This article puts this quite succinctly and is quite astute in it’s observations. However, it fails to address the obvious flaw in the argument that all the Godsquaders also seem not to like. If God saved the minors…. then surely because of Gods defacto omnipotent/omnipresent state, God also caused the mine to collapse?
Here’s where people start to get a little touchy. “To blame God for creating this accident is just ridiculous in itself” is the first response I got, which in fairness, is not nearly as hysterical as some responses floating around the net. However, it is unfortunate that the person their did not know me. My reply : “So..it’s ridiculous to blame god for the collapse? But it’s ridicule-less to blame god for the rescue? You don’t see an irony there?”. Wordplay is always fun, but that was there for the taking and I would’ve felt like I offended my own sensibilities not to have used it.
See, to me, it’s a reasonable equation. If you apply god to one side, you then have to apply god to the other. You simply cannot have it one way and not the other. So… If this is the same god who saved the miners, he is the same god who knew about all the suffering his act would cause to the families and friends of those miners! If that is your sadistic god, you can keep him!
But.. to be fair, that isn’t what actually wound me up about this whole debacle. This was a subplot ( which… in my opinion ended in humour in the environment I was discussing it, a mention of debate without passion is like Christmas without pudding elicited a response about Christmas being a Christian festival, to which I replied… which is why I never called it Xmas, in an attempt not to offend!), what actually bothered me was the massive amount of media attention this received, the sensationalisation of the story, and the subsequent fervour whipped up in the viewer.
However… it seems I’m not alone. While Miner number X was being winched out, the Guardian was publishing an article about the BBC having spent so much money on the story… other major stories for the rest of the year now lack funding! As it happens, The Telegraph is now showing the same story of the excessive spending which means I don’t have to have a Guardian link… lol.
So… that’s £100,000 of licence payers money, spent on a story that, lets face it, no one in the Uk actually had any connection with, save for a voyeuristic attachment generated by…. oh… the media! How is that ok? Why is that money not spent elsewhere? Why is that emotional outpouring not directed at people who actually need it? I can tell you why! It’s because every now and again, the media needs to pick a story with a happy ending so that people can convince themselves that they too were somehow involved, and can celebrate the victory, and thus the media can ignore / pass over (hmm a festival..?) the events that we, the people, and they the media could actually influence, help, and save people from dying! “It is good to see a story with a happy ending”, people cry! Yes! It is! But it used to be that these stories came at the end of the news in 2 minute snippets.
So, in closing, though the outcome was good, this story saddens me. It should, I believe, sadden you too.