2025-11-17
I've grown tired of making two separate articles for linking and sharing thoughts so I will do both in the same article from now on 😼. Also there's a big backlog of stuff to write about, so the quality of writing is gonna dip. Apologies.
So this is about this quote:
But this was not enough. The second step - cleaning the water - required more than state acknowledgement: it required apportioning labour and resources to fix the water and address the continuing health concerns. What Flint residents received, initially, was a mix of platitudes and mockery from the ruling elite (some of this personally committed by a President that shared a racial identity with many of them). This year, however, it looks as though the tireless activism of Flint residents and their expanding list of teammates has won additional and more meaningful victories: the ongoing campaign is pushing the replacements of the problematic service lines to their final stage and is forcing the state of Michigan to agree to a settlement of $600 million for affected families.from this article.
The emphasis is mine, because I found this very curious.
Upon some initial cursory researches, I found the scandal I believe the "mockery" the quote refers to. I think it's when Obama seemed to "fake a sip" of the water from Flint, which was undergoing a water crisis at the time.
Looking at the timeline of the crisis, I can't imagine what else the author is referring to.
And honestly, I started writing this blog post just express my disappointment about this moment. And even more so to to actually talk about the reporting of it by the BBC.
It frames it as him drinking water but honestly, and when I first saw the title, I thought it was somewhat dishonest framing, since Obama "clearly" was just staging this stunt as propaganda to quieten the voices of the residents of Flint, and the BBC was simply spreading that propaganda.
That was a few days ago. Then I actually read the article, which starts off with this quote:
He took a drink of the city's filtered water to "show it was safe".Emphasis mine.
This struck me. Maybe Obama hid the fact that it's filtered? I mean, the sip is so ... shallow. There must be some deception involved right?
Well here's the clip in context.
Here's some key points in what he says:
So in my view, Obama wasn't really being deceptive here. And the BBC article is only at fault for its (mildly) poor headline.
And I mean, there's no grand ephiphany here. Read past the headline, don't believe in every scandal you hear, everything can be taken out of context.
And I did right? I wasn't going to write about this without actually doing the bare minimum, but in the intermediate time between reading the article and doing the research, I did talk and spread misinformation (albeit with some disclaimers).
Something to ponder I suppose.
Oh and I highlighted the article to source where this whole thought process began. I think the author is incorrect in his framing of what Obama did, I think that's merely a snide remark in the article and doesn't disqualify the whole thing nor its thesis.
It's still worth reading.
I had a brief foray into being "confrontational".
I had a conversation with a friend a few days ago, and I felt he was being dismissive. I was talking about the notion of "language games" Ã la Philosophical Investigations by Ludwig Wittgenstein. I found the metaphors of "language as an ancient city" or "language as a game" to be very compelling.
And as I was explaining it, and comparing it to an understanding of language as a simple mapping of words to signs (as in a dictionary), he said what I was saying was obvious. As in, everyone knows language is subjectve.
I was a bit hurt by this. I mean, I doubt I was the greatest communicator here, I barely started the book. But nonetheless, I gave a sincere go at explaining it and instead of some dialogue, I was told "it's obvious".
I mean, the goal of him saying that, I suppose, is to for me to get to my "actual thesis". But I didn't really have much more to add. So I guess I just wanted to talk about obvious things. And hell, even if I did have more to add, I would still feel hurt. Is me setting the stage so boring that I need to rush to the "good part"?
Now, I don't think he's at fault for anything. I think he'd be at fault for something if was trying to cause me harm but it's just his nature to say the things he says. To suggest he speak another way, well I may as well not have been speaking to him.
But nonetheless, I did feel quite hurt and dismissed.
So I told him "I think you're being quite dismissive". And he apologized but honestly, the whole thing felt so pointless. I mean, he didn't do anything wrong! He was just talking the way he talks, what's wrong there? To suggest something is wrong, that there's something to apologize for, means that there's something for him to change.
I suppose there are other things at play. I think when we talk, he's not as interested. I'm not sure who changed, and I'm not that insecure about it, I find the things I think about to be plenty interesting and worthwhile. Shit, if anything I'm the one judging him.
I think he's moved on from these highly abstract no-where discussions, which I've fallen further in love with.
I think that's what I wanted to talk about.
I sometimes wonder if it's so good to have a shrine to negativity like this. It's a website worth visiting for a chuckle, which is why I share it, but I don't think I'll put it on my feed, as something to regularly visit. I feel it'll do something bad to my psyche.
Also, as a software developer that writes imperfect software, I wonder how fair this is. Then again, I think it's too easy to take the existence of imperfect software as justification to never try.
my dad could still be alive, but he's not.
I think I prefer sorting by choronological ordering, rather thn by what's trending. Chronological is more random. Also it's less sad, I find.
I've gone back to reading at climbing.
I had a brief stint wheer I'd always try to make a new friend when I go climbing. This was in parallel with an effort to get back into dating, really.
But ah well, I don't really have trouble making friends. And I've stopped trying to find a date (short lived as that was), so I think I feel pretty alright about reading at climbing.
I sometimes ask myself "Why am I single?".
I like to interview myself when I'm riding a bike, like I'm on some cheap talk show.
My latest answer: "Larry, I don't know how to get a date for the life of me. With anything else, I'd always know where to start. But with this, I come up nada."
I chuckle, the audience laughs, we move on.
I sometimes do things to impress people and I find it deeply embarassing. It happens out of habit sometimes.
If you notice, don't indulge me, but also don't call me out.
I wonder if would I write about you. I guess this is that.
Is that fair to write about someone without asking them? I can keep you unnamed.
And, I suppose, as long as I don't make it too obvious.
But I wonder what it's like to read something about yourself, when it is not so nice.
Maybe it's not so nice.