| | |
| Politics Ron Paul's Long Game The libertarian's looking good in Iowa, and he won't just be a one-state wonder. Posted Tuesday, Jan 03, 2012, at 10:07 PM ET CEDAR FALLS, Iowa—"We're already done with Iowa," Eric tells me after Ron Paul's latest speech. "We were done weeks ago." What does he mean? He opens his MacBook Air and clicks on a spreadsheet with information about the 3.5 million glossy campaign documents he's printing up for the "Ron Paul Super Brochure Precinct Blast." Eric has started to fill orders for people in later primary states—6,849 for a volunteer in South Carolina, a few hundred for someone in Florida, where Eric lives. (Eric doesn't want to give a last name, as this would "take credit" away from project funder Curt Schultz.) Order a batch and you get your name printed on the back, in case you want to mail them to voters. "It's not hidden, like a Super PAC," says Eric. "It's all transparent." Everyone in Iowa will tell you that Ron Paul's Iowa campaign isn't Iowan enough. The other campaigns all say it, and reporters speculate about it. It's an important piece of the Iowa-caucus-doesn't-matter-anymore argument we'll hear if Paul wins the caucuses. Unlike so much campaign chatter, this story is true. Talk to the man's supporters—I followed Paul on a north-central Iowa "whistle stop tour"—and you inevitably run into Minnesotans, South Dakotans, Illinoisans, and Wisconsinites, none of whom can caucus on Tuesday night. You see Indiana license plates on cars with "LEGALIZE THE CONSTITUTION" stickers. There are people who drive ... To continue reading, click here. Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum What did you think of this article? POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES Also In Slate Weigel: How Ron Paul Diehards Plan To Keep His Campaign Alive After Iowa What the Iowa Caucuses Would Look Like if They Really Were a Horse Race Was Matt Flynn's Amazing Performance Sunday a Fluke? | Advertisement |
| Manage your newsletters subscription: Unsubscribe | Forward to a Friend | Advertising Information | |
| Ideas on how to make something better? Send an e-mail to slatenewsletter@nl.slate.com. Copyright 2011 The Slate Group | Privacy Policy | |
A destination on the Interweb to brighten your day (now get back to work!)
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Politics: Ron Paul?s Long Game
Arts: The Movie Club
| | |
| The Movie Club The Movie Club Can you admire a movie without enjoying it? By Dan Kois Posted Tuesday, Jan 03, 2012, at 08:18 PM ET Dana! Stephanie! Michael! "Is there a difference between loving a movie and loving the experience of watching?" Stephanie asks in her excellent dispatch, and that's a question that's been much on my mind this year. In my experience, there is. That's why on my ballots in the Indiewire and Village Voice polls I named Kelly Reichardt (Meek's Cutoff) my best director. The austere, challenging (for me, anyway) Meek's, a sort of handmade Western starring Michelle Williams as a pioneer wife whose little party is lost in the Oregon badlands, was a fine example of a film that, in the end, I liked quite a bit, even though I had trouble enjoying the experience of watching it. I liked it because it has specific artistic ambitions and because it fulfills those artistic ambitions, in part, by frustrating the audience's viewing experience. It's a unified piece of work; Reichardt's accomplished something real that stuck in my head for a long time—that even forced me to wrestle, publicly and embarrassingly, with my own shortcomings as a viewer. So Meek's, like Melancholia, was for me a film that didn't offer enjoyment in the moment but did inspire affection as time went on. Are there films that work in the reverse? Films that offer enjoyable viewing experiences, but then afterward provoke disdain? Of course! How about apparent Oscar front-runner The Artist, a charming piece of work that never tires, never bores, never in its ... To continue reading, click here. Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum What did you think of this article? POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES Also In Slate Weigel: How Ron Paul Diehards Plan To Keep His Campaign Alive After Iowa What the Iowa Caucuses Would Look Like if They Really Were a Horse Race Was Matt Flynn's Amazing Performance Sunday a Fluke? | Advertisement |
| Manage your newsletters subscription: Unsubscribe | Forward to a Friend | Advertising Information | |
| Ideas on how to make something better? Send an e-mail to slatenewsletter@nl.slate.com. Copyright 2011 The Slate Group | Privacy Policy | |
Moneybox: Weak-Willed? There?s an App for That.
| | |
| Moneybox Weak-Willed? There's an App for That. Meet GymPact, a new company that wants to charge you for not exercising. By Matthew Yglesias Posted Tuesday, Jan 03, 2012, at 09:10 PM ET Welcome to January, the month of broken promises. Each December we take stock of our lives and decide where we'd like to see improvement, confirming our aspirations with New Year's resolutions. Sadly, resolutions are shattered as swiftly as they're made: You're probably already wavering on that one to skip dessert. Change, after all, is hard. If you really wanted to act differently you probably wouldn't need a resolution to persuade you to change. But perhaps there is a way to use a different set of incentives to persuade us to behave ourselves. The new startup GymPact is betting on the idea that Americans want to get better at resolving. To put it another way, they believe there's a market for a service that will do little more than charge you money for not going to the gym. The fundamental problem of weakness of the will has plagued mankind from time immemorial. The ancient Greeks had a special word for it, akrasia, which comes down to us in part because Plato found it so vexing that he decided it was impossible, writing that "no one goes willingly toward the bad, or what he believes to be bad" and that apparent instances must in fact represent some form of ignorance. Modern behavioral economists, less interested in the metaphysical issues, call it "time-inconsistent preferences" and have simply documented that it occurs systematically in ways that undermine the neoclassical modeling assumptions of humans as rational utility maximizers. We ... To continue reading, click here. Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum What did you think of this article? POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES Also In Slate Weigel: How Ron Paul Diehards Plan To Keep His Campaign Alive After Iowa What the Iowa Caucuses Would Look Like if They Really Were a Horse Race Was Matt Flynn's Amazing Performance Sunday a Fluke? | Advertisement |
| Manage your newsletters subscription: Unsubscribe | Forward to a Friend | Advertising Information | |
| Ideas on how to make something better? Send an e-mail to slatenewsletter@nl.slate.com. Copyright 2011 The Slate Group | Privacy Policy | |
Fracking and Earthquakes; LA's Bizarre Arson Case; Wendi Deng Twitter Hoax; and more from The Slatest.
Manage your newsletters on Slate Unsubscribe | Forward to a Friend | Advertising Information
Please do not reply to this message since this is an unmonitored e-mail address.
Ideas on how to make something better? Send an e-mail to slatenewsletter@nl.slate.com.
Copyright 2012 The Slate Group | Privacy Policy
The Slate Group | c/o E-mail Customer Care | 1350 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 410 | Washington, D.C. 20036