Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

USPS in hot water for trying to do something right about the election

Colorado voting

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold has sued the Postal Service, saying its new postcard meant to enlighten voters is filled with false and misleading information about her state.

AAron Ontiveroz/Getty Images

Pity the Postal Service, maybe. Even when it tries to do something right these days, things seem to go awry. Especially when it comes to the election.

The latest case in point: Colorado sued the USPS over the weekend, arguing that postcards being sent to every household in the country — encouraging voters to return their mail-in ballots early so they are sure to arrive in time to be counted — includes incorrect and misleading information about the way elections are held in Colorado.

To make matters worse — as if things could get worse for the financially strapped and politically beleaguered post office these days — several other states are exploring whether to file similar lawsuits.


A federal judge immediately issued a temporary restraining order blocking the distribution of the postcards.

But, adding another dollop of disaster, postal officials say most of the postcards have already been mailed across Colorado. To stop the 200,000 that have been processed but not delivered would require more than 1,000 employees to spend hours manually extracting them from the mail. That process "would be extraordinarily difficult and perhaps impossible," postal officials say in a court filing.

This legal nightmare appears to have started innocently enough when the Postal Service — facing a deluge of mailed-in ballots in November because of the coronavirus pandemic — decided to send 137 million postcards across the country with the headline "If you plan to vote by mail plan ahead." The card suggests people request a ballot at least 15 days before Election Day and mail the ballot back to election offices by Oct. 27, seven days in advance.

The mailing includes a general disclaimer that election rules vary by state — but that was not enough for Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat.

The state is one of five that planned to conduct the election almost entirely through the mail even before the pandemic. (The others are Oregon, Washington, Utah and Hawaii.)

Four others — California, New Jersey, Nevada and Vermont, plus the District of Columbia — have decided on sending a mail-in ballot to every voter for this election only in order to reduce the electorate's exposure to Covid-19. Another nine states plan to send an application for a mail-in ballot to every voter.

During a House Oversight and Reform subcommittee hearing Monday on Postmaster General Louis DeJoy's conduct, Democrat Gerald Connolly of Virginia labeled the handling of the postcard a "debacle." He said it could have been avoided had the Postal Service listened to state officials who asked to review postcard before it was mailed out.

Griswold's lawsuit argues that the statement in the postcard about requesting a ballot is false for Colorado voters because everyone receives one without asking for it.

The statement about returning the ballot through the mail is also false, the suit maintains, because Colorado voters can drop their mail-in ballots at polling centers or in drop boxes and can vote in person if they choose.

Judge William Martinez of Denver ruled Saturday night that it was likely the lawsuit would prevail. In his order, he wrote that the mailing could "sow confusion amongst voters" and leave them wondering whether election laws had been changed.

Postal officials on Sunday immediately challenged Martinez' ruling, saying he erred by issuing it without even hearing their arguments.

Postal officials say the postcards were sent out for a "valid public purpose" and that the majority were delivered on Friday in Colorado.

Extracting those still in the process might slow down delivery of other important mail, postal officials argue in a legal filing.

Martinez gave postal officials until Monday afternoon to file a motion supporting their request that he reconsider his decision to issue the restraining order.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less