Twitter Working on Plan to Charge Users to Watch Videos

According to an internal email obtained by The Washington Post, Musk wants to have Twitter charge users to view videos posted by content creators.

Now that Tesla CEO Elon Musk has taken over Twitter, the billionaire has been frantically shuffling through ambitious plans to turn the ailing social media platform into a revenue-driving business.

Case in point, according to internal email obtained by The Washington Post, Musk is plotting for Twitter to charge users to view videos posted by content creators and take a cut of the proceeds — a highly controversial idea that's already been met with internal skepticism.

The team of Twitter engineers has "identified the risk as high" in the email, citing "risks related to copyrighted content, creator/user trust issues, and legal compliance."

In short, Musk is blazing ahead with his infamously ambitious timelines — a "move fast and break things" approach that could signify a tidal change for Twitter's historically sluggish approach to launching new features.

Musk has already made some big structural changes to Twitter, having fired high-up positions at the company and dissolved its board of directors.

The company will also likely be facing mass layoffs, according to The Washington Post.

The new feature detailed in the new email, which is being referred to as "Paywalled Video," allows creators to "enable the paywall once a video has been added to the tweet" and chose from a preset list of prices, ranging from $1 to $10.

"This will also give Twitter a revenue stream to reward content creators," Musk tweeted on Tuesday, adding that "creators need to make a living!"

But whether Twitter users will be willing to pay for stuff that was previously free remains anything but certain.

Musk has already announced that he is planning to charge $8 a month for Twitter users to stay verified, which has been met with derision.

The billionaire CEO is facing an uphill battle. Now that the company is private, he has to pay around $1 billion in annual interest payments, a result from his $44 buyout, according to the WaPo.

Compounding the trouble, Reuters reported last week that Twitter is bleeding some of its most active users.

Meanwhile, Musk's chaotic moves are likely to alienate advertisers, with the Interpublic Group, a massive inter-agency advertising group, recommending that its clients suspend all paid advertising for at least the week.

That doesn't bode well. It's not out of the question that a paywalled video feature may facilitate the monetization of pornographic content, which may end up scaring off advertisers even further — but Twitter's exact intentions for the feature are still unclear.

According to Reuters, around 13 percent of the site's content is currently marked not safe for work (NSFW).

It's part of Musk's attempt to shift revenue away from advertising on the platform. In a tweet last week, he promised advertisers that Twitter wouldn't become a "free-for-all hellscape."

But that hasn't stopped advertisers from already leaving in droves.

All in all, a paywalled video feature could mark a significant departure for Twitter, a platform still primarily known for short snippets of text.

For now, all we can do is watch.

READ MORE: Elon Musk’s Twitter is working on paid-video feature with ‘high’ risk [The Washington Post]

More on Twitter: Elon Musk Pleads With Stephen King to Pay for Blue Checkmark

The post Twitter Working on Plan to Charge Users to Watch Videos appeared first on Futurism.

View original post here:

Twitter Working on Plan to Charge Users to Watch Videos

This Deepfake AI Singing Dolly Parton’s "Jolene" Is Worryingly Good

Holly Herndon uses her AI twin Holly+ to sing a cover of Dolly Parton's

AI-lands in the Stream

Sorry, but not even Dolly Parton is sacred amid the encroachment of AI into art.

Holly Herndon, an avant garde pop musician, has released a cover of Dolly Parton's beloved and frequently covered hit single, "Jolene." Except it's not really Herndon singing, but her digital deepfake twin known as Holly+.

The music video features a 3D avatar of Holly+ frolicking in what looks like a decaying digital world.

And honestly, it's not bad — dare we say, almost kind of good? Herndon's rendition croons with a big, round sound, soaked in reverb and backed by a bouncy, acoustic riff and a chorus of plaintive wailing. And she has a nice voice. Or, well, Holly+ does. Maybe predictably indie-folk, but it's certainly an effective demonstration of AI with a hint of creative flair, or at least effective curation.

Checking the Boxes

But the performance is also a little unsettling. For one, the giant inhales between verses are too long to be real and are almost cajolingly dramatic. The vocals themselves are strangely even and, despite the somber tone affected by the AI, lack Parton's iconic vulnerability.

Overall, it feels like the AI is simply checking the boxes of what makes a good, swooning cover after listening to Jeff Buckley's "Hallelujah" a million times — which, to be fair, is a pretty good starting point.

Still, it'd be remiss to downplay what Herndon has managed to pull off here, and the criticisms mostly reflect the AI's limited capabilities more than her chops as a musician. The AI's seams are likely intentional, if her previous work is anything to go off of.

Either way, if you didn't know you were listening to an AI from the get-go, you'd probably be fooled. And that alone is striking.

The Digital Self

Despite AI's usually ominous implications for art, Herndon views her experiment as a "way for artists to take control of their digital selves," according to a statement on her website.

"Vocal deepfakes are here to stay," Herndon was quoted saying. "A balance needs to be found between protecting artists, and encouraging people to experiment with a new and exciting technology."

Whether Herndon's views are fatalistic or prudently pragmatic remains to be seen. But even if her intentions are meant to be good for artists, it's still worrying that an AI could pull off such a convincing performance.

More on AI music: AI That Generates Music from Prompts Should Probably Scare Musicians

The post This Deepfake AI Singing Dolly Parton's "Jolene" Is Worryingly Good appeared first on Futurism.

Read more from the original source:

This Deepfake AI Singing Dolly Parton's "Jolene" Is Worryingly Good

China Plans to Send Monkeys to Space Station to Have Sex With Each Other

Chinese astronauts are reportedly planning to let monkeys loose on their brand-new space station to have them have sex with each other.

Chinese scientists are reportedly planning to send monkeys to its new Tiangong space station for experiments that will involve the animals mating and potentially reproducing, the South China Morning Post reports.

It's a fascinating and potentially controversial experiment that could have major implications for our efforts to colonize space: can mammals, let alone humans, successfully reproduce beyond the Earth?

According to the report, the experiment would take place in the station's largest capsule, called Wentian, inside two biological test cabinets that can be expanded.

After examining the behavior of smaller creatures, "some studies involving mice and macaques will be carried out to see how they grow or even reproduce in space," Zhang Lu, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, said during a speech posted to social media earlier this week, as quoted by the SCMP.

"These experiments will help improve our understanding of an organism’s adaptation to microgravity and other space environments," he added.

Some simpler organisms, including nematodes and Japanese rice fish, have been observed reproducing in space.

But more complex life forms have struggled. In 2014, a Russian experiment to see whether geckos could produce offspring in space failed when all the critters died.

And the failure rate for mammals, so far, has been total. Soviet Union scientists got mice to mate during a space flight in 1979, but none of them gave birth after being returned to Earth.

In other words, getting monkeys to reproduce on board a space station will be anything but easy. For one, just dealing with living creatures in space can pose immense challenges. The astronauts will "need to feed them and deal with the waste," Kehkooi Kee, a professor with the school of medicine at Tsinghua University, told the SCMP.

Then there's the fact that astronauts will have to keep the macaques happy and comfortable, something that experts say will be challenging since long term confinement in the spartan environments of space habitats could cause immense stress for the simians.

And even if astronauts successfully set the mood for the monkeys, the physics of sex in space are predicted to be challenging.

"Firstly, just staying in close contact with each other under zero gravity is hard," Adam Watkins, an associate professor of reproductive physiology at University of Nottingham, wrote in a 2020 open letter highlighted by the SCMP. "Secondly, as astronauts experience lower blood pressure while in space, maintaining erections and arousal are more problematic than here on Earth."

With its new space station in nearly full operation, China isn't shying away from asking some big questions — but whether these experiments will play out as expected is anything but certain.

READ MORE: Chinese scientists plan monkey reproduction experiment in space station [South China Morning Post]

More on sex in space: Scientists Say We Really Have to Talk About Boning in Space

The post China Plans to Send Monkeys to Space Station to Have Sex With Each Other appeared first on Futurism.

Read more from the original source:

China Plans to Send Monkeys to Space Station to Have Sex With Each Other

Scientists Use Actual Lunar Soil Sample to Create Rocket Fuel

A team of Chinese researchers claim to have turned lunar regolith samples brought back by the country's Chang'e 5 mission into a source of fuel.

Fill 'Er Up

A team of Chinese researchers say they managed to convert actual lunar regolith samples into a source of rocket fuel and oxygen — a potential gamechanger for future space explorers hoping to make use of in-situ resources to fuel up for their return journey.

The researchers found that the lunar soil samples can act as a catalyst to convert carbon dioxide and water from astronauts' bodies and environment into methane and oxygen, as detailed in a paper published in the National Science Review.

"In situ resource utilization of lunar soil to achieve extraterrestrial fuel and oxygen production is vital for the human to carry out Moon exploitation missions," lead author Yujie Xiong said in a new statement about the work. "Considering that there are limited human resources at extraterrestrial sites, we proposed to employ the robotic system to perform the whole electrocatalytic CO2 conversion system setup."

That means we could have a much better shot at carrying out longer duration explorations of the lunar surface in the near future.

Set It, Forget It

According to the paper, which builds on previous research suggesting lunar soil can generate oxygen and fuel, this process can be completed using uncrewed systems, even in the absence of astronauts.

In an experiment, the team used samples from China's Chang'e-5 mission, which landed in Inner Mongolia back in December 2020 — the first lunar soil returned to Earth since 1976.

The Moon soil effectively acted as a catalyst, enabling the electrocatalytic conversion of carbon dioxide into methane and oxygen.

"No significant difference can be observed between the manned and unmanned systems, which further suggests the high possibility of imitating our proposed system in extraterrestrial sites and proves the feasibility of further optimizing catalyst recipes on the Moon," the researchers conclude in their paper.

Liquified

But there's one big hurdle to still overcome: liquifying carbon dioxide is anything but easy given the Moon's frosty atmosphere, as condensing the gas requires a significant amount of heat, as New Scientist reported earlier this year.

Still, it's a tantalizing prospect: an autonomous machine chugging away, pumping out oxygen and fuel for future visitors. But for now, it's not much more than a proof of concept.

READ MORE: Scientists investigate using lunar soils to sustainably supply oxygen and fuels on the moon [Science China Press]

More on lunar soil: Bad News! The Plants Grown in Moon Soil Turned Out Wretched

The post Scientists Use Actual Lunar Soil Sample to Create Rocket Fuel appeared first on Futurism.

Go here to read the rest:

Scientists Use Actual Lunar Soil Sample to Create Rocket Fuel

Elon Musk Meeting With Advertisers, Begging Them Not to Leave Twitter

Advertisers are fleeing Twitter in droves now that Tesla CEO Elon Musk has taken over control. Now, he's trying to pick up the pieces and begging them to return.

Advertisers are fleeing Twitter in droves now that Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has taken over control.

Ever since officially closing the $44 billion deal, Musk has been busy gutting the company's executive suite and dissolving its board. Senior executives, as well as Twitter's advertising chief Sarah Personette, have departed as well.

After all, Musk has been very clear about his disdain for advertising for years now.

The resulting uncertainty has advertisers spooked — major advertising holding company IPG has already advised clients to pull out temporarily — and the billionaire CEO is in serious damage mode.

Now, Reuters reports, Musk is spending most of this week meeting with advertisers in New York, trying to reassure them that Twitter won't turn into a "free-for-all hellscape."

According to one of Reuters' sources, the meetings have been "very productive" — but plenty of other marketers are far from satisfied.

Advertisers are reportedly grilling Musk over his plans to address the rampant misinformation being spread on the platform, a trend that Musk himself has been actively contributing to since the acquisition.

And if he's succeeding in ameliorating advertisers in private, he's antagonizing them publicly. On Wednesday, Musk posted a poll asking users whether advertisers should support either "freedom of speech," or "political 'correctness'" — a type of false dichotomy that echoes the rhetoric of far-right conspiracy theorists and conservative pundits.

"Those type of provocations are not helping to calm the waters," an unnamed media buyer told Reuters.

Some are going public with the same sentiment.

"Unless Elon hires new leaders committed to keeping this 'free' platform safe from hate speech, it's not a platform brands can/should advertise on," Allie Wassum, global media director for the Nike-owned shoe brand Jordan, wrote in a LinkedIn post.

So far, Musk's plans for the social media platform remain strikingly muddy. In addition to the behind-the-scenes advertising plays, he's also announced that users will have to pay to retain their verification badge, though he's engaged in a comically public negotiation as to what the cost might be.

He's also hinted that previously banned users — former US president Donald Trump chief among them — might eventually get a chance to return, but only once "we have a clear process for doing so, which will take at least a few more weeks."

The move was seen by many as a way to wait out the impending midterm elections. After all, Twitter has played a huge role in disseminating misinformation and swaying elections in the past.

While advertisers are running for the hills, to Musk advertising is clearly only a small part of the picture — even though historically, social giants like Twitter have struggled to diversify their revenue sources much beyond display ads.

Musk nodded to that reality in a vague open letter posted last week.

"Low relevancy ads are spam, but highly relevant ads are actually content!" he wrote in the note, addressed to "Twitter advertisers."

Big picture, Twitter's operations are in free fall right now and Musk has yet to provide advertisers with a cohesive plan to pick up the pieces.

While he's hinted at the creation of a new content moderation council made up of both "people from all viewpoints" and "wildly divergent views," advertisers are clearly going to be thinking twice about continuing their business with Twitter.

With or without advertising, Twitter's finances are reportedly in a very deep hole. The billions of dollars Musk had to borrow to finance his mega acquisition will cost Twitter around $1 billion a year in interest alone.

The company also wasn't anywhere near profitable before Musk took over, losing hundreds of millions of dollars in a single quarter.

Whether that picture will change any time soon is as unclear as ever, especially in the face of a wintry economy.

But, of course, Musk has proved his critics wrong before. So anything's possible.

READ MORE: Advertisers begin to grill Elon Musk over Twitter 'free-for-all' [Reuters]

More on the saga: Elon Musk Pulling Engineers From Tesla Autopilot to Work on Twitter

The post Elon Musk Meeting With Advertisers, Begging Them Not to Leave Twitter appeared first on Futurism.

Read the original here:

Elon Musk Meeting With Advertisers, Begging Them Not to Leave Twitter

NASA Sets Launch Date for Mission to $10 Quintillion Asteroid

After disappointing setbacks and delays, NASA has finally got its mission to an invaluable asteroid made of precious metals back on track.

Rock of Riches

After disappointing setbacks and a delay over the summer, NASA says it's finally reviving its mission to explore a tantalizing and giant space rock lurking deep in the Asteroid Belt.

Known as 16 Psyche, the NASA-targeted asteroid comprises a full one percent of the mass of the Asteroid Bet, and is speculated to be the core of an ancient planet. But Psyche's size isn't what intrigues scientists so much as its metal-rich composition, believed to be harboring a wealth of iron, nickel, and gold worth an estimated $10 quintillion — easily exceeding the worth of the Earth's entire economy. Although, to be clear, they're not interested in the metals' monetary value but rather its possibly planetary origins.

Back On Track

Initially slated to launch in August 2022, NASA's aptly named Psyche spacecraft became plagued with a persistent flight software issue that led the space agency to miss its launch window that closed on October 11.

But after surviving an independent review determining whether the mission should be scrapped or not, NASA has formally announced that its spacecraft's journey to Psyche will be going ahead, planned to launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket as early as October 10, 2023.

"I'm extremely proud of the Psyche team," said Laurie Leshin, director of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in a statement. "During this review, they have demonstrated significant progress already made toward the future launch date. I am confident in the plan moving forward and excited by the unique and important science this mission will return."

Although the new launch date is only a little over a year late, the expected arrival at the asteroid Psyche is set back by over three years — 2029 instead of 2026 — due to having to wait for another opportunity to slingshot off of Mars' gravity.

Peering Into a Planet

Once it arrives, the NASA spacecraft will orbit around the asteroid and probe it with an array of instruments, including a multispectral imager, gamma ray and neutron spectrometers, and a magnetometer, according to the agency.

In doing so, scientists hope to determine if the asteroid is indeed the core of a nascent planet known as a planetesimal. If it is, it could prove to be an invaluable opportunity to understand the interior of terrestrial planets like our own.

More on NASA: NASA Announces Plan to Fix Moon Rocket, and Maybe Launch It Eventually

The post NASA Sets Launch Date for Mission to $10 Quintillion Asteroid appeared first on Futurism.

View post:

NASA Sets Launch Date for Mission to $10 Quintillion Asteroid

There’s Something Strange About How These Stars Are Moving, Scientists Say

Astronomers are puzzled by the strange behavior of a crooked cluster of stars, which appears to be following an alternative theory of gravity.

Astronomers are puzzled by the strange behavior of certain crooked clusters of stars, which appear to be violating our conventional understanding of gravity.

Massive clusters of stars usually are bound together in spirals at the center of galaxies. Some of these clusters fall under a category astrophysicists call open star clusters, which are created in a relatively short period of time as they ignite in a huge cloud of gas.

During this process, loose stars accumulate in a pair of "tidal tails," one of which is being pulled behind, while the other moves ahead.

"According to Newton’s laws of gravity, it’s a matter of chance in which of the tails a lost star ends up," Jan Pflamm-Altenburg of the University of Bonn in Germany, co-author of a new paper published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in a statement. "So both tails should contain about the same number of stars."

But some of their recent observations seemingly defy conventional physics.

"However, in our work we were able to prove for the first time that this is not true," Pflamm-Altenburg added. "In the clusters we studied, the front tail always contains significantly more stars nearby to the cluster than the rear tail."

In fact, their new findings are far more in line with a different theory called "Modified Newtonian Dynamics" (MOND).

"Put simply, according to MOND, stars can leave a cluster through two different doors," Pavel Kroupa, Pflamm-Altenburg's colleague at the University of Bonn and lead author, explained in the statement. "One leads to the rear tidal tail, the other to the front."

"However, the first is much narrower than the second — so it’s less likely that a star will leave the cluster through it," he added. "Newton’s theory of gravity, on the other hand, predicts that both doors should be the same width."

The researchers' simulations, taking MOND into consideration, could explain a lot. For one, they suggest that open star clusters survive a much shorter period of time than what is expected from Newton's laws of physics.

"This explains a mystery that has been known for a long time," Kroupa explained. "Namely, star clusters in nearby galaxies seem to be disappearing faster than they should."

But not everybody agrees that Newton's laws should be replaced with MOND, something that could shake the foundations of physics.

"It’s somewhat promising, but it does not provide completely definitive evidence for MOND," University of Saint Andrews research fellow Indranil Banik told New Scientist. "This asymmetry does make more sense in MOND, but in any individual cluster there could be other effects that are causing it — it’s a bit unlikely that would happen in all of them, though."

The researchers are now trying to hone in on an even more accurate picture by stepping up the accuracy of their simulations, which could either support their MOND theory — or conclude that Newton was, in fact, correct the first time around.

More on star clusters: Something Is Ripping Apart the Nearest Star Cluster to Earth

The post There's Something Strange About How These Stars Are Moving, Scientists Say appeared first on Futurism.

Continue reading here:

There's Something Strange About How These Stars Are Moving, Scientists Say

Scientists Found a Way to Control How High Mice Got on Cocaine

A team of neuroscientists at the University of Wisconsin claim to have found a way to control how high mice can get on cocaine.

A team of neuroscientists at the University of Wisconsin claim to have found a way to control how high mice can get on a given amount of cocaine.

And don't worry — while that may sound like a particularly frivolous plot concocted by a team of evil scientists, the goal of the research is well-meaning.

The team, led by University of Wisconsin neuroscientist Santiago Cuesta, was investigating how the gut microbiome can influence how mice and humans react to ingesting the drug.

The research, detailed in a new paper published this week in the journal Cell Host & Microbe, sheds light on a vicious feedback loop that could explain cases of substance abuse disorders — and possibly lay the groundwork for future therapeutic treatments.

In a number of experiments on mice, the researchers found that cocaine was linked to the growth of common gut bacteria, which feed on glycine, a chemical that facilitates basic brain functions.

The lower the levels of glycine in the brain, the more the mice reacted to the cocaine, exhibiting abnormal behaviors.

To test the theory, the scientists injected the mice with a genetically modified amino acid which cannot break down glycine. As a result, the behavior of mice returned to normal levels.

In other words, the amino acid could curb cocaine addiction-like behaviors — at least in animal models.

"The gut bacteria are consuming all of the glycine and the levels are decreasing systemically and in the brain," said Vanessa Sperandio, senior author, and microbiologist from the University of Wisconsin, in a statement. "It seems changing glycine overall is impacting the glutamatergic synapses that make the animals more prone to develop addiction."

It's an unorthodox approach to treating addiction, but could be intriguing — if it works in people, that is.

"Usually, for neuroscience behaviors, people are not thinking about controlling the microbiota, and microbiota studies usually don't measure behaviors, but here we show they’re connected," Cuesta added. "Our microbiome can actually modulate psychiatric or brain-related behaviors."

In short, their research could lead to new ways of treating various psychiatric disorders such as substance use by adjusting the gut microbiome and not making changes to the brain chemistry.

"I think the bridging of these communities is what's going to move the field forward, advancing beyond correlations towards causations for the different types of psychiatric disorders," Sperandio argued.

READ MORE: How gut bacteria influence the effects of cocaine in mice [Cell Press]

More on addiction: Study: Magic Mushrooms Helped 83% of People Cut Excessive Drinking

The post Scientists Found a Way to Control How High Mice Got on Cocaine appeared first on Futurism.

Link:

Scientists Found a Way to Control How High Mice Got on Cocaine

Greta Thunberg Says UN Climate Conference Is a Scam and She’s Not Attending

The UN's upcoming COP27 climate conference in Egypt is basically a

COP Out

Ever since she lambasted world leaders at a UN conference in 2018 when she was only 15 years old, Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg has had the ear of the international community.

Now, Thunberg says she's skipping out on next week's COP27 UN climate summit in Egypt. Why? Because it's rife with "greenwashing."

"I'm not going to COP27 for many reasons, but the space for civil society this year is extremely limited," Thunberg said at a press event for her book, "The Climate Book," as quoted by The Guardian. "The COPs are mainly used as an opportunity for leaders and people in power to get attention, using many different kinds of greenwashing."

Ultimately, in Thunberg's view, the COP conferences "are not really meant to change the whole system" and instead only promote incremental change. Bluntly put, they're feel-good events that don't accomplish much, so she's bowing out.

Wasted Breath

It's not an unfair assessment. For all the pledges made to drastically cut back emissions and achieve net carbon zero by 2050, very few nations have followed through in the short term. And in Europe, the energy crisis in the wake of the war in Ukraine has further sidelined those climate commitments.

So we can't blame her for not going. But it's a bit disheartening that even a tenacious young spokesperson like Thunberg has given up on convincing world leaders at the biggest climate summit in the world.

Maybe it's indicative of the frustrations of her generation at large. When Thunberg was asked what she thought about the recent wave of Just Stop Oil protests that included activists throwing soup on a Van Gogh painting, she said that she viewed what many detractors perceived as a dumb stunt to be symptomatic of the world's failure to effect meaningful environmental change.

"People are trying to find new methods because we realize that what we have been doing up until now has not done the trick," she replied, as quoted by Reuters. "It's only reasonable to expect these kinds of different actions."

Maybe the real question is: if even a UN climate conference isn't the place to get the message out and change hearts, where's the right place, and what's the right way? If the headlines are any indication, zoomers are struggling to figure that out.

More on Greta Thunberg: Greta Thunberg Thinks Germany Shutting Down Its Nuclear Plants Is a Bad Idea

The post Greta Thunberg Says UN Climate Conference Is a Scam and She's Not Attending appeared first on Futurism.

See the original post:

Greta Thunberg Says UN Climate Conference Is a Scam and She's Not Attending

Huge Drone Swarm to Form Giant Advertisement Over NYC Skyline

Someone apparently thought it was a great idea to fly 500 drones over NYC as part of an ad experiment without much warning.

Droning On

Someone thinks it's a great idea to fly 500 drones over New York City to create a huge ad in the sky on Thursday evening. Because New Yorkers certainly don't have any historical reason to mistrust unknown aircraft over their skyline, right?

As Gothamist reports, the drone swarm is part of a "surreal takeover of New York City’s skyline" on behalf of — we shit you not — the mobile game Candy Crush.

Fernanda Romano, Candy Crush's chief marketing officer, told Gothamist that the stunt will "turn the sky into the largest screen on the planet" using the small, light-up drones.

Though this is not the first time the Manhattan skyline has been used as ad space — that distinction goes to the National Basketball Association and State Farm, which did a similar stunt this summer during the NBA draft — local lawmakers are ticked off about it nonetheless.

"I think it’s outrageous to be spoiling our city’s skyline for private profit," Brad Hoylman, a state senator that represents Manhattan's West Side in the NY Legislature, told the local news site. "It’s offensive to New Yorkers, to our local laws, to public safety, and to wildlife."

Freak Out

Indeed, as the NYC Audubon Society noted in a tweet, the Candy Crush crapshoot "could disrupt the flight patterns of thousands of birds flying through NYC, leading to collisions with buildings" as they migrate.

Beyond the harm this will do to birds and the annoyance it will undoubtedly cause the famously-grumpy people of New York, this stunt is also going down with very little warning, considering that Gothamist is one of the only news outlets even reporting on it ahead of time.

While most viewers will hopefully be able to figure out what's going on pretty quickly, the concept of seeing unknown aircraft above the skyline is a little too reminiscent of 9/11 for comfort — and if Candy Crush took that into consideration, they haven't let on.

So here's hoping this event shocks and awes Thursday night city-goers in a good way, and not in the way that makes them panic.

More drone warfare: Russia Accused of Pelting Ukraine Capital With "Kamikaze" Drones

The post Huge Drone Swarm to Form Giant Advertisement Over NYC Skyline appeared first on Futurism.

See the article here:

Huge Drone Swarm to Form Giant Advertisement Over NYC Skyline

That "Research" About How Smartphones Are Causing Deformed Human Bodies Is SEO Spam, You Idiots

That

You know that "research" going around saying humans are going to evolve to have hunchbacks and claws because of the way we use our smartphones? Though our posture could certainly use some work, you'll be glad to know that it's just lazy spam intended to juice search engine results.

Let's back up. Today the Daily Mail published a viral story about "how humans may look in the year 3000." Among its predictions: hunched backs, clawed hands, a second eyelid, a thicker skull and a smaller brain.

Sure, that's fascinating! The only problem? The Mail's only source is a post published a year ago by the renowned scientists at... uh... TollFreeForwarding.com, a site that sells, as its name suggests, virtual phone numbers.

If the idea that phone salespeople are purporting to be making predictions about human evolution didn't tip you off, this "research" doesn't seem very scientific at all. Instead, it more closely resembles what it actually is — a blog post written by some poor grunt, intended to get backlinks from sites like the Mail that'll juice TollFreeForwarding's position in search engine results.

To get those delicious backlinks, the top minds at TollFreeForwarding leveraged renders of a "future human" by a 3D model artist. The result of these efforts is "Mindy," a creepy-looking hunchback in black skinny jeans (which is how you can tell she's from a different era).

Grotesque model reveals what humans could look like in the year 3000 due to our reliance on technology

Full story: https://t.co/vQzyMZPNBv pic.twitter.com/vqBuYOBrcg

— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) November 3, 2022

"To fully realize the impact everyday tech has on us, we sourced scientific research and expert opinion on the subject," the TollFreeForwarding post reads, "before working with a 3D designer to create a future human whose body has physically changed due to consistent use of smartphones, laptops, and other tech."

Its sources, though, are dubious. Its authority on spinal development, for instance, is a "health and wellness expert" at a site that sells massage lotion. His highest academic achievement? A business degree.

We could go on and on about TollFreeForwarding's dismal sourcing — some of which looks suspiciously like even more SEO spam for entirely different clients — but you get the idea.

It's probably not surprising that the this gambit for clicks took off among dingbats on Twitter. What is somewhat disappointing is that it ended up on StudyFinds, a generally reliable blog about academic research. This time, though, for inscrutable reasons it treated this egregious SEO spam as a legitimate scientific study.

The site's readers, though, were quick to call it out, leading to a comically enormous editor's note appended to the story.

"Our content is intended to stir debate and conversation, and we always encourage our readers to discuss why or why not they agree with the findings," it reads in part. "If you heavily disagree with a report — please debunk to your delight in the comments below."

You heard them! Get debunking, people.

More conspiracy theories: If You Think Joe Rogan Is Credible, This Bizarre Clip of Him Yelling at a Scientist Will Probably Change Your Mind

The post That "Research" About How Smartphones Are Causing Deformed Human Bodies Is SEO Spam, You Idiots appeared first on Futurism.

Visit link:

That "Research" About How Smartphones Are Causing Deformed Human Bodies Is SEO Spam, You Idiots

Chinese Spaceplane Releases Mystery Object Into Orbit

After launching into orbit three months ago, China's top-secret spaceplane has released a mysterious object, which is now circling the Earth behind it.

Spaceplane Buddy

After launching into orbit roughly three months ago, China's top-secret spaceplane has released a mysterious object, which is now circling the Earth behind it, SpaceNews reports.

There's very little we know about China's "reusable experimental spacecraft," except that it launched atop a Long March 2F rocket back in August. We don't know its purpose, what it looks like, or what cargo it was carrying during launch — but it's an intriguing development, nonetheless, for China's reusable launch platform.

Mysterious Object

The object was released between October 24 and October 31, according to tracking data being analyzed by the US Space Force's 18th pace Defense Squadron.

We can only hazard a guess as to what the mysterious object's purpose is. According to Harvard astronomer and space tracker Jonathan McDowell, it "may be a service module, possibly indicating an upcoming deorbit burn."

Based on the size and weight of payloads Long March rockets usually carry, China's mysterious spaceplane is likely similar to the Air Force's X-37B spaceplane, which is similarly shrouded in mystery and currently on its sixth mission.

We also don't know when the Chinese model will make its return back to Earth, but given recent activity at the Lop Nur base in Xinjiang suggests, it may land there in the near future, according to the report.

It's a puzzling new development for China's secretive spacecraft — but it does raise the possibility of a renewed interest in spaceplanes, a potentially affordable and reusable way to launch payloads into orbit.

More on the spaceplane: China Launches Mysterious "Reusable Test" Spacecraft

The post Chinese Spaceplane Releases Mystery Object Into Orbit appeared first on Futurism.

Continued here:

Chinese Spaceplane Releases Mystery Object Into Orbit

Jeff Bezos’ Housekeeper Says She Had to Climb Out the Window to Use the Bathroom

Jeff Bezos' ex- housekeeper is suing him for discrimination that led to her allegedly having to literally sneak out out of his house to use the bathroom.

Jeff Bezos' former housekeeper is suing the Amazon founder for workplace discrimination that she says forced her to literally climb out out the window of his house to use the bathroom.

In the suit, filed this week in a Washington state court, the former housekeeper claimed that she and Bezos' other household staff were not provided with legally-mandated eating or restroom breaks, and that because there was no "readily accessible bathroom" for them to use, they had to clamber out a laundry room window to get to one.

In the complaint, lawyers for the ex-housekeeper, who is described as having worked for wealthy families for nearly 20 years, wrote that household staff were initially allowed to use a small bathroom in the security room of Bezos' main house, but "this soon stopped... because it was decided that housekeepers using the bathroom was a breach of security protocol."

The suit also alleges that housekeepers in the billionaire's employ "frequently developed Urinary Tract Infections" that they believed was related to not being able to use the bathroom when they needed to at work.

"There was no breakroom for the housekeepers," the complaint adds. "Even though Plaintiff worked 10, 12, and sometimes 14 hours a day, there was no designated area for her to sit down and rest."

The housekeeper — who, like almost all of her coworkers, is Latino — was allegedly not aware that she was entitled to breaks for lunch or rest, and was only able to have a lunch break when Bezos or his family were not on the premises, the lawsuit alleges.

The Washington Post owner has denied his former housekeeper's claims of discrimination through an attorney.

"We have investigated the claims, and they lack merit," Harry Korrell, a Bezos attorney, told Insider of the suit. "[The former employee] made over six figures annually and was the lead housekeeper."

He added that the former housekeeper "was responsible for her own break and meal times, and there were several bathrooms and breakrooms available to her and other staff."

"The evidence will show that [the former housekeeper] was terminated for performance reasons," he continued. "She initially demanded over $9M, and when the company refused, she decided to file this suit."

As the suit was just filed and may well end in a settlement, it'll likely be a long time, if ever, before we find out what really happened at Bezos' house — but if we do, it'll be a fascinating peek behind the curtain at the home life of one of the world's most powerful and wealthy men.

More on billionaires: Tesla Morale Low As Workers Still Don't Have Desks, Face Increased Attendance Surveillance

The post Jeff Bezos' Housekeeper Says She Had to Climb Out the Window to Use the Bathroom appeared first on Futurism.

Read more:

Jeff Bezos' Housekeeper Says She Had to Climb Out the Window to Use the Bathroom

AOC Says Her Twitter Account Broke After She Made Fun of Elon Musk

Another day, another Elon Musk feud on Twitter — except now, he's the owner of the social network, and he's beefing with AOC.

Latest Feud

Another day, another Elon Musk feud on Twitter — except now, he's the owner of the social network, and he's beefing with a sitting member of Congress.

The whole thing started innocently enough earlier this week, when firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY, and better known by her initials, "AOC") subtweeted the website's new owner.

"Lmao at a billionaire earnestly trying to sell people on the idea that 'free speech' is actually a $8/mo subscription plan," the New York Democratic Socialist tweeted in a post that, upon Futurism's perusal, appeared to load only half the time.

Sweat Equity

Not one to be shown up, Musk later posted a screenshot of an AOC-branded sweatshirt from the congressperson's website, with its $58 price tag circled and an emoji belying the billionaire's alleged affront at the price.

In response, Ocasio-Cortez said she was proud her sweatshirts were made by union labor, and that the proceeds from their sales were going to fund educational support for needy kids. She later dug in further, noting that her account was "conveniently" not working and joking that Musk couldn't buy his way "out of insecurity."

Yo @elonmusk while I have your attention, why should people pay $8 just for their app to get bricked when they say something you don’t like?

This is what my app has looked like ever since my tweet upset you yesterday. What’s good? Doesn’t seem very free speechy to me ? pic.twitter.com/e3hcZ7T9up

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 3, 2022

Bricked

To be clear, any suggestion that Musk personally had anything to do with any Twitter glitches on AOC's part would seem ludicrously petty. But then again, this is a guy who once hired a private detective to investigate a random critic.

Occam's razor, though, suggests that it was probably AOC's mega-viral tweet that broke the site's notoriously dodgy infrastructure. Of course, that's not a ringing endorsement of the site that Musk just acquired for the colossal sum of $44 billion.

More on Twitter: Twitter Working on Plan to Charge Users to Watch Videos

The post AOC Says Her Twitter Account Broke After She Made Fun of Elon Musk appeared first on Futurism.

More:

AOC Says Her Twitter Account Broke After She Made Fun of Elon Musk

Hackers Just Took Down One of the World’s Most Advanced Telescopes

ALMA is one of the largest and most advanced radio telescopes in the world. And for reasons still unknown to the public, hackers decided to take it down.

Observatory Offline

The Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) Observatory in Chile has been hit with a cyberattack that has taken its website offline and forced it to suspend all observations, authorities there said.

Even email services were limited in the aftermath, illustrating the broad impact of the hack.

Nested high up on a plateau in the Chilean Andes at over 16,000 feet above sea level, ALMA is one of the most powerful and advanced radio telescopes in the world. Notably, ALMA helped take the first image of a black hole in 2019, in a collaborative effort that linked radio observatories worldwide into forming the Event Horizon Telescope.

Thankfully, ALMA's impressive arsenal of 66 high-precision antennas, each nearly 40 feet in diameter, was not compromised, the observatory said, nor was any of the scientific data those instruments collected.

In High Places

What makes ALMA so invaluable is its specialty in observing the light of the cooler substances of the cosmos, namely gas and dust. That makes ALMA a prime candidate for documenting the fascinating formations of planets and stars when they first emerge amidst clouds of gas.

Since going fully operational in 2013, it's become the largest ground-based astronomical project in the world, according to the European Southern Observatory, ALMA's primary operators.

So ALMA going offline is a distressing development, especially to the thousands of astronomers worldwide that rely on its observations and the some 300 experts working onsite. Getting it up and running is obviously a top priority, but the observatory said in a followup tweet that "it is not yet possible to estimate a date for a return to regular activities."

As of now, there's no information available on who the hackers were, or exactly how they conducted the attack. Their motivations, too, remain a mystery.

More on ALMA: Astronomers Think They Found the Youngest Planet in the Galaxy

The post Hackers Just Took Down One of the World's Most Advanced Telescopes appeared first on Futurism.

Go here to see the original:

Hackers Just Took Down One of the World's Most Advanced Telescopes

How Ron Howard And His Team Recreated The Dangerous Thai Caves For Thirteen Lives – /Film

Howard discussed how helpful NatGeo was in their efforts, as well as the real divers/rescuers Rick Stanton, John Volanthen, and Jason Mallinson, because there wasn't that much footage of the actual rescue part of things. He said:

"There were some schematics that we were able to get. Nat Geo loaned them to us, because Brian Grazer and I have done a lot of work with Nat Geo [laughs] and they were great. Schematics made of the cave when it was dry. The trick here in condensing this and making it a movie, making it something visceral, entertaining, suspenseful, is to find those key points. Find those breaking points where it really was do or die, either physically or emotionally. So we went through the caves, and honestly, the guys would just point it out and say, 'This is a particularly difficult [spot]. Here's where a mishap happened. Here's where there was a surprise. This is the way the current changed. This is the way the visibility shifted.' And we just kept taking notes and building sequences around that."

I cannot imagine the terror those kids must have felt, and as someone who has a fear of caves, I'm hoping this doesn't give me months of nightmares. That said,I want to watch, just to once again marvel at the good that sometimes people will do for each other. It's probably a story we all need right now.

"Thirteen Lives" will be released in select theaters on July 29, 2022, for a limited one-week engagement, and will launch globally on Prime Video on August 5, 2022.

Here is the original post:

How Ron Howard And His Team Recreated The Dangerous Thai Caves For Thirteen Lives - /Film

5 Home Renovations With the Worst Payoff – Money Talks News

Andrey_Popov / Shutterstock.com

Home renovations can be a real chore not to mention expensive. If its a change that will improve a home you plan to stay in for a long time, go ahead and take on the challenge.

But sometimes, homeowners can be fooled into thinking an update will greatly improve their homes resale value. And thats not always the case.

Remodeling magazines 2022 Cost vs. Value Report looks at how well 22 remodeling projects retain their value at resale in 150 U.S. markets. In some cases, youll barely recoup half the renovation cost when it comes time to sell.

The following are the home renovations with the absolute worst payoff, starting with the project in the No. 5 spot.

National average cost: $175,473

Average cost recouped: 53.4%

The study doesnt just look at remodels, but at additions as well, meaning adding a completely new section to a house. The addition of a midrange master suite can cost more than $175,000 and recoups just over half that when the time comes to sell. But before you sell, youd be enjoying a pretty luxe new bedroom. The Remodeling magazine estimate assumes youve added a walk-in closet, dressing area and bathroom with double-bowl vanity, freestanding soaker tub and a separate ceramic tile shower.

National average cost: $158,015

Average cost recouped: 52.5%

If you love to cook or entertain in your kitchen, you may want to splurge on an upscale remodel but note that it will cost more than $158,000. While you might not be doing it for resale value, youll certainly enjoy the perks, which include high-end appliances, custom cabinets, stone countertops and new lighting.

National average cost: $63,986

Average cost recouped: 51.8%

One more bathroom may not recoup its costs entirely, but youll obviously find it helpful, especially if you have a large family or plenty of visitors. A midrange bathroom addition includes adding a 6-by-8-foot space much smaller than an upscale version, but more practical and less pricey.

National average cost: $114,773

Average cost recouped: 51.5%

If you can spend more than $100,000 adding a bathroom, youre certainly living well, and maybe you wont mind that youll only recoup about 50% of what you put into it. But you may never want to leave this new 100-square-foot bathroom, which includes a shower, soaker tub, two medicine cabinets, stone countertop with two sinks, heated floors and more.

National average cost: $356,945

Average cost recouped: 46.3%

Drum roll, please the home renovation with the absolute worst payoff, according to the report, is an upscale master suite addition. But to be fair, this is a monster project, including a large sleeping area, master bath, custom bookcases, high-end gas fireplace, walk-in closet, hospitality counter with bar sink, fridge and microwave, soundproofing and in-floor heating. Were betting those who have more than $350,000 to spend on a master suite like this arent going to need to recoup a lot when they go to sell.

Disclosure: The information you read here is always objective. However, we sometimes receive compensation when you click links within our stories.

Read the rest here:

5 Home Renovations With the Worst Payoff - Money Talks News

Legislative Republicans, political action committees, donated thousands to vulnerable incumbents – Salt Lake Tribune

(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) Lawmakers in the House Chamber during a special legislative session, at the State Capitol in Salt Lake City on Tuesday, Nov. 9, 2021.

| June 28, 2022, 1:12 p.m.

A handful of Republican legislators are facing tough primary elections on Tuesday. According to recent financial disclosure filings, several candidates received hefty campaign contributions from their colleagues in the Utah Legislature and prominent political action committees.

House and Senate Republicans have used their political action committees to make significant financial donations to fellow Republicans this year. Senate Republicans have donated $35,000 each to Sens. Evan Vickers, Jerry Stevenson, Keith Grover and Ann Millner, who are all on Tuesdays primary ballot. The PAC also donated $10,000 to Sens. Kirk Cullimore, Scott Sandall, Daniel Thatcher and Ron Winterton to help them fend off challengers for the GOP nomination at party conventions.

House Republicans donated $4,000 to eight incumbents with primary challengers on Tuesday. Reps. Melissa Garff Ballard, Jeff Stenquist, Ray Ward, Susan Pulsipher, Kera Birkeland, Kelly Miles, Mike Petersen and Christine Watkins received the $4,000 donations from House Republicans. Another nine House Republicans were given $2,000 donations ahead of party conventions.

House Speaker Brad Wilson also donated to Republican House incumbents through his leadership PAC. Birkeland and Ward received $3,000, while Ballard was given $2,000. Wilsons PAC made a $1,500 donation to Miles, Watkins and Pulsipher. He also kicked in $2,000 to Paul Cutler, who is running to fill the seat vacated by Rep. Tim Hawkes.

Senate President Stuart Adams is also in the incumbent protection business. His leadership PAC donated $5,000 to Grover for his primary matchup against Brandon Beckham.

Several outside political action committees have also jumped into the fray to shore up some Republican incumbents.

Mitt Romneys Believe in America PAC donated $10,000 to Reps. Stenquist, Ward, Pulsipher and Miles. They also gave $10,000 to Paul Cutlers campaign.

The Utah Association of Realtors PAC paid $3,100 to run digital ads on behalf of Sen. Millner and almost $2,500 for a mailer promoting Paul Cutler. They reported another $572 on get-out-the-vote (GOTV) operations for Cutlers campaign. The PAC also donated $10,000 to Speaker Wilsons leadership PAC.

The Count My Vote PAC donated $26,000 to several candidates to assist their efforts in gathering enough signatures to qualify for the primary ballot. Sens. Evan Vickers and Keith Grover each received $5,000. Sen. Jerry Stevenson was given $2,000, and Democrat Nate Blouin received $2,500 for his race against longtime incumbent Sen. Gene Davis. The CMV PAC recorded a $50,000 donation from Gail Miller.

Read the original here:

Legislative Republicans, political action committees, donated thousands to vulnerable incumbents - Salt Lake Tribune

Westworld Season 4 Episode 1 Review: The Auguries – Den of Geek

Christina (Evan Rachel Wood) seems trapped. She gets up, zips up her bed, raises the blinds on her New York City apartment, then walks the High Line on her way to work, where she pitches plots for games at Olympiad Entertainment. Shes not great at her job; nobody wants romance and happy endings, people want melodrama, transgressions, and lots of downer endings. Not a natural choice for someone who seems to see the beauty in the world around her. She leaves work, goes back home, and repeats the whole process again the next day, with only sporadic interruptions by a deranged man calling her phone hundreds of times a day, begging her to change her stories, begging that his life has been destroyed by her game. Engaging him only escalates the behavior; its all a big mystery waiting to be unraveled.

While Caleb tries to forget his past and Christina tries to forge a future, Maeve (Thandiwe Newton) is hiding from the ambitious, dangerous man in charge of Delos, William (Ed Harris), who has emerged from hiding and resumed his mad quest to hunt down and exterminate the escaped Hosts, starting with Maeve, and supporters of hosts like Caleb. He also kills off a Mexican cartel and takes over a data storage facility built into the Hoover Dam in the cold opening, so William might have been laying low, but hes still thinking big and solving his problems with violence. His emergence spells trouble for both Maeve and Caleb. As it turns out, paranoia can be pretty useful when youre enemies with a vengeful billionaire with a taste for ten-gallon hats, revolvers, and killer robots like the repurposed Col. Brigham (Frederic Lehne) and Hector (Rodrigo Santoro).

Wont Maeve be thrilled if she sees him again after so long?

It seems as though time jumps are the biggest new trend on television, or at least the genre television I tend to watch. It makes sense, though; if you dont want to wade through the fallout of an epic season finale, just move forward until its settled down and you can work on telling whatever story youre really looking to tell. In this case, Maeve, William, and Caleb seem to be getting ready to finish what started last season and Christina (or perhaps Dolores?) may be on the cusp of finding a familiar partner to ride shotgun with her on the journey of life. Im not sure whats getting set up, but Lisa Joy and Will Soodiks script is solid work, with Christina being an interesting wrinkle on the traditional role of Dolores as a farmers daughter artist who dreams bright and big, and Caleb settling back into familiar roles as a co-conspirator battling against the wealth and power of a billionaire. Maeves tongue is sharper than ever after 8 long years of living in the wilderness. The seeds planted for Christina also seem like theyll be interested, especially considering just who stepped in to prevent her from being battered by her stalker.

Eight years gave humanity an opportnity to rebuild that apparently wasnt taken, aside from a more open job market. Roles were inevitably settled back into, and the performers on Westworld have no issues settling back into their roles. Aaron Pauls Caleb is happier, more settled, despite his lot in life not really changing all that much. Christina is a new character, but Evan Rachel Wood imbues her with the weight of Dolores old soul with ease. Thandiwe Newton still steals every scene shes in with a cutting glance; wry amusement drips off every word she utters in her scene with Caleb. Ed Harris may or may not be playing a host version of William, but hes still the no-nonsense, intimidating threat hes always been, whether hes staring at Caleb across a crowded plaza or shaking down a Mexican organized crime syndicate.

Director Richard J. Lewis does a very good job handling the table-setting sections of the story. We dont really know who Christina is, or why she looks like Dolores, but the scenes of her traveling through New New York are tense, especially once her stalker is actively after her, drawing mazes in dirt on her fire escape and watching her from afar. Calebs scenes are more grounded, but the character still seethes with internal struggle that reflects wonderfully in Aaron Pauls body language; hes trying to be normal, but hes not sure what that is after dedicating so much of his life to war. William is William; Ed Harris is the most dangerous pensioner to ever shrug on a suit jacket, and he knows it.

Go here to read the rest:

Westworld Season 4 Episode 1 Review: The Auguries - Den of Geek

Ron Paul – Wikipedia

American politician, statesman and physician

Ron Paul

Paul in 2011

Ronald Ernest Paul

Carolyn Wells

Ronald Ernest Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American author, activist, physician, and retired politician who served as the U.S. representative for Texas's 22nd congressional district from 1976 to 1977 and again from 1979 to 1985, and for Texas's 14th congressional district from 1997 to 2013. On three occasions, he sought the presidency of the United States: as the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988 and as a candidate for the Republican Party in 2008 and 2012. A self-described constitutionalist, Paul is a critic of the federal government's fiscal policies, especially the existence of the Federal Reserve and the tax policy, as well as the militaryindustrial complex, the war on drugs, and the war on terror. He has also been a vocal critic of mass surveillance policies such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the NSA surveillance programs. In 1976, Paul formed the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE), and in 1985 was named the first chairman of the conservative PAC Citizens for a Sound Economy, both free-market groups focused on limited government.[3] He has been characterized as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement, a fiscally conservative political movement started in 2009 that is largely against most matters of interventionism.[4][5]

Paul served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968, and worked as an obstetrician-gynecologist from the 1960s to the 1980s.[6] He became the first Representative in history to serve concurrently with a child in the Senate when his son, Rand Paul, was elected to the U.S. Senate from Kentucky in 2010.[7] Paul is a Senior Fellow and Distinguished Counselor of the Mises Institute,[8] and has published a number of books and promoted the ideas of economists of the Austrian School such as Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises during his political campaigns. He often cites President Grover Cleveland as a preferred model of governance.[9]

After the popularity and grassroots enthusiasm of his 2008 presidential bid, Paul announced in July 2011 that he would forgo seeking another term in Congress in order to focus on his 2012 bid for the presidency.[10] Finishing in the top four with delegates in both races (while winning four states in the 2012 primaries), he refused to endorse the Republican nominations of John McCain and Mitt Romney during their respective 2008 and 2012 campaigns, and on May 14, 2012, Paul announced that he would not be competing in any other presidential primaries but that he would still compete for delegates in states where the primary elections had already been held.[11] At both the 2008 and 2012 Republican National Conventions, Paul received the second-highest number of delegates behind only McCain and Romney respectively.

In January 2013, Paul retired from Congress but remained active on college campuses, giving speeches promoting libertarian and libertarian-conservative ideas.[12][13] He also continues to provide political commentary through The Ron Paul Liberty Report, a web show he co-hosts on YouTube. Paul received one electoral vote from a Texas faithless elector in the 2016 presidential election, making him the oldest person to receive an Electoral College vote, as well as the second registered Libertarian presidential candidate in history to receive an electoral vote, after John Hospers in 1972.

Ronald Ernest Paul was born on August 20, 1935, in Pittsburgh,[14] the son of Howard Casper Paul (19041997), who ran a small dairy company, and Margaret Paul (ne Dumont; 19082001). His paternal grandfather emigrated from Germany,[15] and his paternal grandmother, a devout Christian, was a first-generation German American.[16]

As a junior at suburban Dormont High School, he was the 200-meter dash state champion.[17] Paul went to Gettysburg College, where he was a member of the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity.[18] He graduated with a B.S. degree in Biology in 1957.[17]

Paul earned a Doctor of Medicine degree from Duke University's School of Medicine in 1961, and completed his medical internship at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit and his residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Magee-Womens Hospital in Pittsburgh.[19][20] Paul served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and then in the United States Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968. Paul and his wife then relocated to Texas, where he began a private practice in obstetrics and gynecology.[20] One child that he helped deliver was singer Selena.[21]

While a medical resident in the 1960s, Paul was influenced by Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, which caused him to read other publications by Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. He came to know economists Hans Sennholz and Murray Rothbard well, and credits his interest in the study of economics to them.[22][23]

When President Richard Nixon "closed the gold window" by ending American participation in the Bretton Woods System, thus ending the U.S. dollar's loose association with gold[22] on August 15, 1971, Paul decided to enter politics[24] and became a Republican candidate for the United States Congress.[25]

In 1974, incumbent Robert R. Casey defeated him for the 22nd district.[20] President Gerald Ford later appointed Casey to the Federal Maritime Commission, and Paul won an April 1976 special election to the vacant office after a runoff.[26][27][28] Paul lost the next regular election to Democrat Robert Gammage by fewer than 300votes (0.2%), but defeated Gammage in a 1978 rematch, and was reelected in 1980 and 1982.[29][30][31] Gammage underestimated Paul's popularity among local mothers: "I had real difficulty down in Brazoria County, where he practiced, because he'd delivered half the babies in the county. There were only two obstetricians in the county, and the other one was his partner."[32]

Paul served in Congress three different periods: first from 1976 to 1977, after he won a special election, then from 1979 to 1985, and finally from 1997 to 2013.[33]

In his early years, Paul served on the House Banking Committee, where he blamed the Federal Reserve for inflation and spoke against the banking mismanagement that resulted in the savings and loan crisis.[15][34] Paul argued for a return to the gold standard maintained by the U.S. from 1873 to 1933, and with Senator Jesse Helms convinced the Congress to study the issue.[22] He spoke against the reinstatement of registration for the military draft in 1980, in opposition to President Jimmy Carter and the majority of his fellow Republican members of Congress.[35]

During his first term, Paul founded the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE), a non-profit think tank dedicated to promoting principles of limited government and free-market economics.[36][37] In 1984, Paul became the first chairman of the Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE),[3] a conservative political group founded by Charles and David Koch "to fight for less government, lower taxes, and less regulation." CSE started a Tea Party protest against high taxes in 2002.[38] In 2004, Citizens for a Sound Economy split into two new organizations, with Citizens for a Sound Economy being renamed as FreedomWorks, and Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation becoming Americans for Prosperity. The two organizations would become key players in the Tea Party movement from 2009 onward.

Paul proposed term-limit legislation multiple times, while himself serving four terms in the House of Representatives.[35] In 1984, he decided to retire from the House in order to run for the U.S. Senate, complaining in his House farewell address that "Special interests have replaced the concern that the Founders had for general welfare... It's difficult for one who loves true liberty and utterly detests the power of the state to come to Washington for a period of time and not leave a true cynic."[39][40] Paul lost the Republican primary to Phil Gramm, who had switched parties the previous year from Democrat to Republican. Another candidate of the senatorial primary was Henry Grover, a conservative former state legislator who had lost the 1972 gubernatorial general election to Democrat Dolph Briscoe, Jr.[41][42]

On Paul's departure from the House, his seat was assumed by former state representative Tom DeLay, who would later become House Majority Leader.[43]

Following the loss of the 1984 senate race, Paul returned to his obstetrics practice and took part in a number of other business ventures.[15][44] Along with his former congressional chief of staff, Lew Rockwell, Paul founded a for-profit enterprise, Ron Paul & Associates, Inc. (RP&A) in 1984, with Paul serving as president, Rockwell as vice president, Paul's wife Carol as secretary, and daughter Lori Pyeatt as treasurer.The company published a variety of political and investment-oriented newsletters, including Ron Paul Freedom Report and Ron Paul Survival Report,[45] and by 1993 was generating revenues in excess of $900,000.[46]

Paul also co-owned a mail-order coin dealership, Ron Paul Coins, for twelve years with Burt Blumert, who continued to operate the dealership after Paul resumed office in 1996.[47][48] Paul spoke multiple times at the American Numismatic Association's 1988 convention.[47] He worked with his Foundation for Rational Economics and Education on such projects as establishing the National Endowment for Liberty, producing the At Issue public policy series that was broadcast on the Discovery Channel and CNBC,[36] and continuing publication of newsletters.

Paul left the Republican Party in 1987 and launched a bid for the presidency running on the Libertarian Party ticket. His candidacy was seen as problematic because of the party's long support for freedom of choice on abortions. Native American activist Russell Means, Paul's rival for the nomination, emphasized that he was in favor of abortion rights.[49] In a forum held prior to the nomination, Means dismissed the greater funds raised by Paul's campaign, commenting that Means was receiving "10 times more press" than the former Congressman and was therefore "100 times more effective".[50]

On September 25, 1988, American psychologist and psychedelic advocate Timothy Leary held a fundraiser for Paul, who attended the event.[51][52][53] Journalist Debra Saunders attended and wrote about her experience.[54]

In the 1988 presidential election, Paul was on the ballot in 46 states,[55] scoring third in the popular vote with 432,179votes (0.5%).[56] Paul was kept off the ballot in Missouri, due to what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch termed a "technicality," and received votes there only when written in,[57] just as he did in North Carolina.[58]

According to Paul, his presidential campaign was about more than obtaining office; he sought to promote his libertarian ideas, often to school and university groups regardless of vote eligibility. He said, "We're just as interested in the future generation as this election. These kids will vote eventually, and maybe, just maybe, they'll go home and talk to their parents."[55]

Paul considered campaigning for president in 1992,[59] but instead chose to endorse Pat Buchanan that year, and served as an adviser to Buchanan's Republican presidential primary campaign against incumbent President George H. W. Bush.[60]

During 1996, Paul was re-elected to Congress after a difficult campaign. The Republican National Committee endorsed incumbent Greg Laughlin in the primary; Paul won with assistance from baseball pitcher, constituent, and friend Nolan Ryan, tax activist and publisher Steve Forbes[15] and conservative commentator Pat Buchanan (the latter two of whom had, had presidential campaigns that year). Paul narrowly defeated Democratic attorney Charles "Lefty" Morris in the fall election, despite Morris' criticism over controversial statements in several newsletters that Paul published.

In 1998 and 2000, Paul defeated Loy Sneary, a Democratic Bay City, Texas, rice farmer and former Matagorda County judge.[24]In the 2008 Republican primary,[61] he defeated Friendswood city councilman Chris Peden,[62] with over 70 percent of the vote[63] and ran unopposed in the general election.[64] In the 2010Republican primary, Paul defeated three opponents with 80percent of the vote.[65]

On July 12, 2011, Paul announced that he would not seek re-election to the House in order to pursue the 2012 presidential election.[66][67]

Of the 620 bills that Paul had sponsored through December 2011, over a period of more than 22 years in Congress, only one had been signed into lawa lifetime success rate of less than 0.3%.[68] The sole measure authored by Paul that was ultimately enacted allowed for a federal customhouse to be sold to a local historic preservation society (H.R. 2121 in 2009).[68]

By amending other legislation, he helped prohibit funding for national identification numbers, funding for federal teacher certification,[24] International Criminal Court jurisdiction over the U.S. military, American participation with any U.N. global tax, and surveillance of peaceful First Amendment activities by citizens.[69]

In November 1997, Paul was one of eighteen Republicans in the House to co-sponsor a resolution by Bob Barr that sought to launch an impeachment inquiry against President Bill Clinton.[70][71] The resolution did not specify any charges or allegations.[71] This was an early effort to impeach Clinton, predating the eruption of the ClintonLewinsky scandal. The eruption of that scandal would ultimately lead to a more serious effort to impeach Clinton in 1998.[72] On October 8, 1998, Paul voted in favor of legislation that was passed to open an impeachment inquiry.[73] On December 19, 1998, Paul voted in favor of all four articles of impeachment against Clinton (only two of which received the needed majority of votes).[74][75][76][77] Two days prior, on December 16, Paul had stated that he would vote to impeach based on Clinton's military attacks in the Middle East, namely the 1998 bombing of Iraq and Operation Infinite Reach, and not necessarily the Lewinsky scandal, which he described as far less serious than the "unconstitutionality of presidents waging wars".[78]

Paul was honorary chairman of, and is a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a political action committee that describes its goal as electing "liberty-minded, limited-government individuals".[79] He is an initiating member of the Congressional Rural Caucus, which deals with agricultural and rural issues, and the 140-member Congressional Wildlife Refuge Caucus.[80]

Paul served on the following committees and subcommittees.[81]

With the election of the 112th Congress, and a resulting GOP majority in the House, Paul became the chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology starting in January 2011.[82]

Paul's congressional career ended on January 3, 2013 with the swearing in of the 113th Congress.

Paul formally declared his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination on March 12, 2007, on C-SPAN.[83] Few major politicians endorsed him, and his campaign was largely ignored by traditional media.[84] However, he attracted an intensely loyal grassroots following,[85] interacting through internet social media.[86][87][88] In May 2007, shortly after the first televised primary debates, the blogs search engine site Technorati.com listed Paul's name as the term most frequently searched for;[86] and Paul's campaign claimed that Paul had more YouTube channel subscribers than Barack Obama or any other candidate for president.[89] Paul fundraised more money than any other Republican candidate in the fourth quarter of 2007, as the primary season headed into the Iowa caucuses.[90][91]

Despite benefiting from campaign contributions from individual donors,[92] and the supporters determined to keep his name a frequent topic of discussion on the internet,[86] over the course of the campaign Paul was unable to translate the enthusiasm of his core supporters into large enough numbers of actual primary votes to unseat his rivals.

Paul came in 5th place in both the January 4 Iowa caucuses (10% of votes cast)[93] and the January 8 New Hampshire primary (8%).[94] With the exception of the Nevada caucuses January 19, where he came in 2nd (14%) behind Romney (51%), he did little better through the rest of January: Michigan 4th (6%), South Carolina 5th (4%), Florida 5th (3%). On Super Tuesday, February 5, he placed 4th in almost every state, generally taking in a mere 36% of the votes although he did better in the northern states of North Dakota (21%, 3rd place) and Montana (25%, 2nd place).[95][96]

By March, front-runner John McCain had secured enough pledged delegates to guarantee that he would win the nomination, and Romney and Huckabee had both formally withdrawn from the race. Paul, who had won no state primaries, knew that it was now impossible for him to win the nomination, as he had captured only 20[97]40 pledged delegates compared to more than 1,191 for McCain, yet he refused to concede the race and said that it was unlikely that he would ultimately endorse McCain.[98][99][100] Over the next few weeks, Paul's supporters clashed with establishment Republicans at several county and state party conventions over state party rules, the party platforms, and selection of delegates for the national convention.[101][102][103] In one instance, Nevada's state party leaders in response to Paul's supporters at the state nominating convention, resorted to prematurely shutting down the convention before selecting national delegates, with a plan to reconvene at a later date.[104][105]

On June 12, 2008, Paul withdrew his bid for the Republican nomination. He later said that one of the reasons he did not run in the general election as a third-party candidate, after losing the primaries, was that, as a concession to gain ballot access in certain states, he had signed legally binding agreements to not run a third-party campaign if he lost the primary.[106] Some of the $4 million remaining campaign contributions was invested into the political action and advocacy group called Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty.[107]

At a September 10, 2008, press conference, Paul announced his general support of four third-party candidates: Cynthia McKinney (Green Party); Bob Barr (Libertarian Party); Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party); and Ralph Nader (independent). He said that each of them had pledged to adhere to a policy of balancing budgets, bringing the troops home, defending privacy and personal liberties, and investigating the Federal Reserve. Paul also said that under no circumstances would he be endorsing either of the two main parties' candidates (McCainRepublican Party, or ObamaDemocratic Party) because there were no real differences between them, and because neither of them, if elected, would seek to make the fundamental changes in governance that were necessary. He urged instead that, rather than contribute to the "charade" that the two-party election system had become, the voters support the third-party candidates as a protest vote, to force change in the election process.[108][109] Later that same day, Paul gave a televised interview with Nader saying much the same again.[110]

Two weeks later, "shocked and disappointed" that Bob Barr (the Libertarian nominee) had pulled out of attending the press conference at the last minute and had admonished Paul for remaining neutral and failing to say which specific candidate Paul would vote for in the general election, Paul released a statement saying that he had decided to endorse Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, for president.[111]

Paul withdrew from active campaigning in the last weeks of the primary election period. He received 42,426 votes, or 0.03% of the total cast, in the general election.[112]

Paul won several early straw polls for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination[113] and formed an official exploratory committee in late April 2011.[114][115] He participated in the first Republican presidential debate on May 5, 2011[116] and on May 13, 2011 formally announced his candidacy in an interview on ABC's Good Morning America.[117] He placed second in the 2011 Ames Straw Poll, missing first by 0.9%.[118] Paul indicated in a June 2011 interview that if nominated, he would consider former New Jersey Superior Court judge Andrew Napolitano as his running mate.[119]

In December 2011, with Paul's increased support, the controversy over racist and homophobic statements in several Ron Paul newsletters in the 1980s and early 1990s once again gained media attention.[120] During this time Paul supporters asserted that he was continually ignored by the media despite his significant support, citing examples of where television news shows would fail to mention Paul in discussions of the Republican presidential hopefuls even when he was polling second.[121][122][123]

Ron Paul's presidential campaign managers Jesse Benton, John Tate and Demetri Kesari were all found guilty of paying former Iowa State Senator Kent Sorenson $73,000 to switch his support from Rep. Michele Bachmann to Paul.[124] In court papers filed in August 2014, Sorenson said that he had been paid by both presidential campaigns for his endorsement and pled guilty to criminal charges stemming from the incident.[125]

Paul came in third in the Iowa Republican Caucus held on January 3, 2012. Out of a turnout of 121,503 votes, Paul took 26,036 (21%) of the certified votes. Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney finished in a virtual tie for first place with 25% each,[126] although Ron Paul had ultimately won[127] Iowa at the Republican National Convention gathering 22 delegates to Mitt Romney's 5. In the New Hampshire primary held on January 10, 2012, Paul received 23% of the votes and came in second after Romney's 39%.[128]

Paul's results then declined, despite the withdrawal of candidates Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry. He had fourth-place finishes in the next two primaries, on January 21 in South Carolina (with 13% of the vote)[129] and on January 31 in Florida (where he received 7% of the vote).[130][131][132]

On February 4, Paul finished third in Nevada with 18.8% of the vote.[133] Three non-binding primaries were held on February 7; Paul took 3rd place in Colorado[134] and Missouri[135] with 13% and 12% of the vote, respectively. He fared better in Minnesota[136] with 27%, finishing second to Rick Santorum.

On May 14, Paul's campaign announced that due to lack of funds (though despite financial backing from financiers Peter Thiel and Mark Spitznagel)[137] he would no longer actively campaign for votes in the 11 remaining primary states, including Texas and California, that had not yet voted.[11][138] He would, however, continue to seek to win delegates for the national party convention in the states that had already voted.

In June, a group of 132 supporters of Paul, demanding the freedom as delegates to the upcoming Republican party national convention to cast votes for Paul, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the Republican National Committee and 55 state and territorial Republican party organizations for allegedly coercing delegates to choose Mitt Romney as the party's presidential nominee.[139] The suit alleged that there had been "a systematic campaign of election fraud at state conventions," employing rigging of voting machines, ballot stuffing, and falsification of ballot totals. The suit further pointed to incidents at state conventions, including acts of violence and changes in procedural rules, allegedly intended to deny participation of Paul supporters in the party decision-making and to prevent votes from being cast for Paul. An attorney representing the complainants said that Paul campaign advisor Doug Wead had voiced support for the legal action.[139] Paul himself told CNN that although the lawsuit was not a part of his campaign's strategy and that he had not been advising his supporters to sue, he was not going to tell his supporters not to sue, if they had a legitimate argument. "If they're not following the rules, you have a right to stand up for the rules. I think for the most part these winning caucuses that we've been involved in we have followed the rules. And the other side has at times not followed the rules."[140]

Paul declined to speak at the Republican National Convention as a matter of principle, saying that the convention planners had demanded that his remarks be vetted by the Romney campaign and that he make an unqualified endorsement of Romney.[141] Paul had felt that "It wouldn't be my speech... That would undo everything I've done in the last 30 years. I don't fully endorse him for president."[141] Many of Paul's supporters and delegates walked out of the convention in protest over rules adopted by the convention that reduced their delegate count and that would make it harder for non-establishment candidates to win the party's nomination in future elections.[142] Supporters and media commentators had noted that the delegations from states where Paul had had the most support were given the worst seats in the convention hall, while delegations from regions with no electoral votes, such as the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico, were given prime seats at the front.[143][144]

As in 2008, in 2012 Paul ultimately refused to endorse the ticket selected by the Republican Party. He said that there was no essential difference between Romney and his Democratic opponent, President Obama, on the most critical policies: "I've been in this business a long time and believe me there is essentially no difference from one administration to another no matter what the platforms... The foreign policy stays the same, the monetary policy stays the same, there's no proposal for any real cuts and both parties support it."[145] Paul received 26,204 write-in votes, or 0.02% of the total cast in the election.[146]

Throughout his entire tenure in Congress, Paul has represented his district as a member of the Republican Party. However, he has frequently taken positions in direct opposition to the other members and the leadership of the party, and he has sometimes publicly questioned whether he really belonged in the party.

Paul voted for Dwight D. Eisenhower for president in 1956 when he was 21 years old.[147] He had been a lifelong supporter of the Republican Party by the time he entered politics in the mid-1970s.[147] He was one of the first elected officials in the nation to support Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign,[148] and he actively campaigned for Reagan in 1976 and 1980.[149] After Reagan's election in 1980, Paul quickly became disillusioned with the Reagan administration's policies. He later recalled being the only Republican to vote against Reagan budget proposals in 1981,[150][151] aghast that "in 1977, Jimmy Carter proposed a budget with a $38 billion deficit, and every Republican in the House voted against it. In 1981, Reagan proposed a budget with a $45 billion deficitwhich turned out to be $113 billionand Republicans were cheering his great victory. They were living in a storybook land."[148] He expressed his disgust with the political culture of both major parties in a speech delivered in 1984 upon resigning from the House of Representatives to prepare for a (failed) run for the Senate, and he eventually apologized to his libertarian friends for having supported Reagan.[150]

By 1987, Paul was ready to sever all ties to the Republican Party, as he explained in a blistering resignation letter: "Since [1981] Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? ... There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years."[147][149] A month later he announced he would seek the 1988 Libertarian Party nomination for president.

During the 1988 campaign, Paul called Reagan "a dramatic failure"[149] and complained that "Reagan's record is disgraceful. He starts wars, breaks the law, supplies terrorists with guns made at taxpayers' expense and lies about it to the American people."[152] Paul predicted that "the Republicans are on their way out as a major party,"[150] and he said that, although registered as a Republican, he had always been a libertarian at heart.[150][151]

Paul returned to his private medical practice and managing several business ventures after losing the 1988 election; but by 1996, he was ready to return to politics, this time running on the Republican Party ticket again. He said that he had never read the entire Libertarian platform when he ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988, and that "I worked for the Libertarians on my terms, not theirs."[153] He added that in terms of a political label he preferred to call himself "a constitutionalist. In Congress I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the (Republican) platform."[153]

When he lost the Republican Party presidential primary election in 2008, Paul criticized the two major political parties, saying that there was no real difference between the parties and that neither of them truly intended to challenge the status quo. He refused to endorse the Republican Party's nominee for president, John McCain, and lent his support to third-party candidates instead.[154][155]

In the 2012 presidential campaign, during which he acknowledged it was unlikely that he would win the Republican Party nomination,[156] Paul again asserted that he was participating in the Republican Party on his own terms, trying to persuade the rest of the party to move toward his positions rather than joining in with theirs.[157] He expressed doubt that he would support any of his rivals should they win the nomination, warning that, "If the policies of the Republican Party are the same as the Democrat Party and they don't want to change anything on foreign policy, they don't want to cut anything, they don't want to audit the Fed and find out about monetary policy, they don't want to have actual change in government, that is a problem for me."[158] On that same theme he said in another interview, "I would be reluctant to jump on board and tell all of the supporters that have given me trust and money that all of a sudden, I'd say, [all] we've done is for naught. So, let's support anybody at all ... even if they disagree with everything that we do."[159]

Paul has been described as conservative and libertarian.[15] According to University of Georgia political scientist Keith Poole, Paul had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress from 1937 to 2002,[160][161] and is the most conservative of the candidates that had sought the 2012 Republican nomination for president.[162] Other analyses have judged Paul much more moderate. The National Journal, for instance, rated Paul only the 145th-most-conservative member of the House of Representatives (out of 435) based on votes cast in 2010.[163][164] The National Journal's analysis gave Paul a 2011 composite ideological rating of 54% liberal and 46% conservative.[165] Paul says that he does not use the term "conservative" to describe himself very often and does not consider himself politically conservative "at all."[23]

The foundation of Paul's political philosophy is the conviction that "the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else."[166]

He has been nicknamed "Dr. No," reflecting both his medical degree and his insistence that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."[24][34]

In 2008, Paul spoke at the John Birch Society's 50th-anniversary celebration.[167][168]

An anti-war activist, Paul promotes a noninterventionist foreign policy and an end to American imperialism.[169] He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty.[170]

He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11 attacks, but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists, in lieu of launching an Afghanistan invasion. Paul acknowledged his vote for the authorization of force was a difficult one.[23]

An opponent of the Iraq War as well, and potential war with Iran, he has criticized neoconservatism and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, arguing that both inadvertently cause terrorist reprisals against Americans, such as the 9/11 attacks. Paul has stated that "Israel is our close friend" and that it is not the place of the United States to "dictate how Israel runs her affairs". Paul, a critic of the US's implementation of most foreign aid, said in 2011 that "it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power to repress his people in the first place."[171]

Following the Orange Revolution protests in 2004, which led to Viktor Yanukovych's ouster from government, Paul accused the National Endowment for Democracy of having staged a coup in Ukraine.[172][173] Paul supported the 2014 Crimean status referendum,[174] for which he has been called a friend of Putin,[175] and has objected to sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War and foreign aid to Ukraine.[176]

Paul endorses constitutional rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, and habeas corpus for political detainees. He was one of only three Republicans in the House to vote against the Patriot Act. Paul opposes federal use of torture, presidential autonomy, a national identification card, warrantless domestic surveillance, and the draft. He has also called for shutting down the TSA and moving matters of airline security to private businesses.[177] Paul believes that the notion of the separation of church and state is currently misused by the court system: "In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous 'separation of church and state' metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty."[178]

Sometime within the same month but much after the event of authorities executing a lock-down in sequence to the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, Paul commented on the tactics used by governing forces into a harsh criticism that he has written as a "military-style occupation of an American city".[13]

Paul is a proponent of Austrian School economics; he has authored six books on the subject, and displayed pictures of Austrian School economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises (as well as of President Grover Cleveland and Chicago School economist Milton Friedman)[179] on his office wall. He regularly voted against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes;[180] he cast two thirds of all the lone negative votes in the House during a 19951997 period.[24]

He pledged never to raise taxes[181] and states he has never voted to approve a budget deficit. Paul believes that the country could abolish the individual income tax by scaling back federal spending to its fiscal year 2000 levels;[182][183] financing government operations would be primarily by excise taxes and non-protectionist tariffs. He endorses eliminating most federal government agencies, terming them unnecessary bureaucracies.

On April 15, 2011, Paul was one of four Republican members of Congress to vote against Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, known as "The Path to Prosperity."[184]

Paul has consistently warned of hyperinflation and called for a return to the gold standard as far back as 1981.[185][186] From 1999 until his retirement, he introduced bills into each Congress seeking to eliminate the Federal Reserve System in a single year,[187][188][189] a position he outlines in his 2009 book End the Fed.

Paul is a strong proponent of free trade, once saying that "free trade is an answer to a lot of conflicts around the world".[190] He rejects membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade".[191] He has also advocated for open trade and better relations with the country of Cuba. In addition, Paul argued in 2012 that "as well intentioned as sanctions are, they almost always backfire and hurt the people."[190]

He has described his interest in ending wars and lowering military spending as partly an "economic issue", adding, "We'd save a lot of money by not being engaged [in overseas conflict] like this."[192]

As a free-market environmentalist, he asserts private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention.[193] He rejects the scientific consensus on climate change and has claimed that global warming is a hoax in a 2009 Fox Business interview.[194]

Paul has stated that "The government shouldn't be in the medical business." He pushes to eliminate federal involvement with and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to decrease due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market.[195] He also opposes federal government influenza inoculation programs.[196]

Paul endorses increased border security and opposes welfare for illegal immigrants, birthright citizenship and amnesty;[197] he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. However, in a 2019 interview, Paul expressed disapproval of President Donald Trump's proposed border wall along the southern US border, saying, "I don't like walls. I don't want to wall people in and wall people out."[198]

He is an outspoken proponent of increased ballot access for third-party candidates.[199] He has sought to repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as the Motor Voter law.[200]

Paul has stated that secession from the United States "is a deeply American principle" and that "If the possibility of secession is completely off the table there is nothing to stop the federal government from continuing to encroach on our liberties and no recourse for those who are sick and tired of it."[201] Paul wrote the remarks in a post on his Congressional website in one of his final public statements as a member of Congress, noting that many petitions had been submitted to the White House calling for secession in the wake of the November 2012 election.[202]

Citing the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, Paul advocates states' rights to decide how to regulate social matters not cited directly by the Constitution. He opposes federal regulation of such matters as the death penalty[203] (although he opposes capital punishment),[204] of education,[205] of drugs, and of marriage. Regarding same-sex marriage, he stated in 2011 that "My personal opinion is government shouldn't be involved. The whole country would be better off if individuals made those decisions and it was a private matter."[206] He endorsed revising the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy to concern mainly disruptive sexual behavior (whether heterosexual or homosexual).[207] His abortion-related legislation, such as the Sanctity of Life Act in 2005, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."[208] Paul says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe that life begins at conception.[209][210]

Paul opposes the federal War on Drugs,[211] and advocates that states should decide whether to regulate or deregulate drugs such as medical and recreational marijuana, and other substances.[212][213] In 2001, he joined with Democratic Congressman Barney Frank in helping pass the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act (H.R. 2592), an attempt to stop the federal government from preempting states' medical marijuana laws.[214]

Paul again partnered with Frank in support of online gambling rights. In 2006, both strongly opposed H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, and H.R. 4411, the Goodlatte-Leach Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.[215][216]

Paul was critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it sanctioned federal interference in the labor market and did not improve race relations. He once remarked: "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society".[217] Paul opposes affirmative action.[218]

Paul says that he does not have a "final answer" on whether bitcoin will replace the dollar, but says that it should be legal. He attends bitcoin and cryptocurrency conferences because, "I think the world's a disaster, the financial system is coming apart, and the government money is terrible, and people ought to have a right to be able to develop something."[23]

In April 2013, Paul founded the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, a foreign policy think tank that seeks to promote his non-interventionist views.[219] The institute is part of his larger foundation Foundation for Rational Economics and Education. In the same month, he began to offer the Ron Paul Curriculum, a homeschool online curriculum developed by Gary North and taught from a "free market and Christian" perspective.[220]

In June 2013, Paul criticized the NSA surveillance program and praised Edward Snowden for having performed a "great service to the American people by exposing the truth about what our government is doing in secret".[221]

In April 2015, Paul began appearing in infomercials for Stansberry & Associates Investment Research, warning about an upcoming financial meltdown as a result of the imminent crash of the world's currencies.[222][223] In March 2017, Paul predicted a market downturn again.[224]

Paul was a critic of Donald Trump's plans to increase the number of military personnel in Afghanistan. In August 2017, he said that Americans don't see Afghanistan as a threat to their personal security and being aggressive in foreign policy only loses Trump some of his support base.[citation needed][225] Paul has also called for Trump to bring American troops back from Syria in April 2018, on the grounds that the threat from ISIS has been eliminated.[226] He continues to voice his disagreements regarding foreign policy, and more recently, regarding the events involving America and Iran.[227][228]

In 2013, Paul established the Ron Paul Channel, an Internet broadcast. Its slogan was "Turn Off Your TV. Turn On the Truth."[229][230] In 2015, Ron Paul ended all relationships with the Ron Paul Channel in order to start a new Internet program called The Ron Paul Liberty Report,[231] which he co-hosts with Daniel McAdams.

Paul endorsed his son, Senator Rand Paul, in the 2016 Republican primary and campaigned for him in Iowa.[232] After his son dropped out, Paul had said that no Republican or Democratic candidate even came close to holding libertarian views.[233] Paul expressed disappointment in former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson's Libertarian Party nomination for President, and told independent voters that Green Party nominee Jill Stein was a better candidate for those who "lean towards progressivism and liberalism", while emphasizing that he was not endorsing her.[234]

Paul received one electoral vote from a Texas faithless elector, South Texas College political science professor William Greene (who had been pledged to Donald Trump),[235] in the 2016 presidential election,[236][237] making Paul the oldest person ever to receive an electoral vote, and the second Libertarian Party member to receive an electoral vote, after John Hospers in 1972.

In the 2020 Democratic primary, Paul described Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard as "the most intelligent" and "the very, very best" option of the Democratic candidates, primarily for her views on foreign policy, adding that "We probably wouldn't agree with too much on economics."[192]

Beginning in 1978, for more than two decades Paul and his associates published a number of political and investment-oriented newsletters bearing his name (Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, the Ron Paul Investment Letter, and the Ron Paul Political Report).[45]

A number of the newsletters, particularly in the period between 1988 and 1994 when Paul was no longer in Congress, contained racist material that proved controversial when he returned to Congress and race for president. Topics included conspiracy theories, anti-government militia movements, and race wars.[238] During Paul's 1996 congressional election campaign, and his 2008 and 2012 presidential primary campaigns, critics charged that some of the passages reflected racism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia.[24][239][240][241]

In a 1996 interview, Paul did not deny writing the newsletters and defended some of their contents, but specified that he opposes racism.[242][243][244] In March 2001, Paul said he did not write the commentaries, but stopped short of denying authorship in 1996 because his campaign advisers had thought it would be too confusing and that he had to live with the material published under his name.[245][246] Half a dozen libertarian activists, including some still closely associated with Paul, pointed to Lew Rockwell as the primary ghostwriter of the newsletters. Rockwell denied responsibility for the content.[45] In 2011, Paul's spokesperson Jesse Benton said Paul had "taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch."[247]

Read the rest here:

Ron Paul - Wikipedia