Tom Pepinsky

Author: tompepinsky

  • More about Bandung

    So I (jm) was in the bathroom at the Institute today and while I washing my hands heard a very loud sound like meowing. I looked up and there was a teeny tiny kitten at a little break near the window trying to get into the room from seven feet up. It was very strange. We think somehow this kitten (and hopefully it mother) got themselves stuck on the roof and were wandering around up there. It was very sad, but some guys were going to try and help them, and I hope they got down. Then I walked around the corner and scared the lizard who sometimes lives in the hallway (and myself). I think that’s enough indoor wildlife for the day.

    I’ve got some pictures of Bandung which will hopefully be up tomorrow, the site wasn’t working correctly today. I took some pictures from the (moving) train, and they turned out well. The train ride was absolutely gorgeous, with rich paddies everywhere. There were tons of little valleys and gorges all full of terraced steps.

    As soon as we left the train station, we were accosted by three teenage girls who were giggling lots and asked to interview us (well I think they actually only wanted to talk to Tom, good thing I was there!). Tom made a deal, and said they could ask questions after they told us where the puppet shop was which was pretty funny. But it worked and we weren’t even lost for a change. They had all sorts of questions, but were mostly very shy, and one kept whispering questions to another, who then asked us in Indonesian how to ask things in English. We helped them figure out the question in English, and then answered in English too. It was very confusing but quite silly and fun. For the rest of the day as we walked around we were treated to the usual “HELLO MISTER!” screamed at top volume by everyone. I still cannot comprehend why they do this. I would never think of screaming “HOLA” at a Hispanic person just walking down the street.

    We spent even less for our hotel (about $11) than in Bogor, which was miraculous, and dinner ended up costing the same as our room. We found a place in the guide book which looked like it would be good for trying the local Sundanese food, but couldn’t seem to find it when we walked around. Turns out, it was gone. As was the next place we tried, a fancier Chinese place. The third time was a charm. Sometimes we just can’t seem to get anything right.

  • The Incompetent or the Incoherent?

    This is the headline of The Economist magazine this week. The Economist, for its part, is going with the incoherent. The logic is simple, but the argument is incomplete. According to the Economist, a liberal-in-the-European-sense magazine published in London, President Bush understands the need for freedom in the Middle East, and acted decisively to respond to the true culprits of 9/11 with a minimum number of mistakes there. However, the editors of the Economist believe that while it was correct to invade Iraq based on shoddy evidence of WsMD, the subsequent occupation has been a disaster. They believe that the American people should give Bush the accountability that he claims to require for everyone, but seems not to require of himself, and vote for Kerry.

    OK, I pretty much agree with that. There are several interesting observations, however. To me, it is amazing that the Economist, a magazine so dedicated to free markets, capitalism, and libertarian ideals, after having endorsed George W. Bush (whose record included six unimpressive years in Austin, a stint as manager of a baseball team, and several failed oil companies) over a sitting Vice President with a record of economic growth but a woody personality, after rallying behind Bush in Iraq, after moaning about the wretched “indecisiveness” of Kerry, has still chosen to change horses mid-stream.

    It is also amazing that throughout the Economist’s justification for its decision, it mentions not once the fiscal policies of this administration. After demand stimulus tax cuts to the wrong segment of society; a record of pork, log-rolling, and horse-trading that even embarrasses the Heritage Foundation; an incoherent trade policy that vacillates between protectionism and liberalism; and three years of “disappointing” job/growth numbers, you think that the Economist would live up to its name as “The Economist” and actually talk about economics.

    How many months of worse-than-expected economic statistics do you want before you say, dammit George, please revise your expectations down and tell the truth? Just shows you, fool me once, um, …