Indiana’s U.S. House members use taxpayer funds for flyers—discover who spent the most.

Indiana's U.S. House members use a longstanding congressional privilege known as the franking privilege to communicate with their constituents without paying postage. This privilege dates back to the 17th-century English House of Commons and was adopted by the American Continental Congress in 1775. It was formally established by the First U.S. Congress in 1789 to facilitate the flow of information across the nation. By allowing members of Congress to send mail under their signature rather than postage, officials can send newsletters, meeting notices, and other official communications to Hoosiers at taxpayer expense. <br /> <br /> Originally, members personally signed each piece of mail, a task later simplified by using rubber stamps. Although intended to improve constituent communication, the privilege has occasionally been abused. Historical anecdotes include sending personal items or excessive mailings to bolster reelection efforts. In response, legislation in 1973 clarified permissible use and created the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards to regulate abuses and provide guidance on proper usage. <br /> <br /> Today, franked mass mailings by Indiana’s representatives are typically sent from Washington, D.C., or local post offices with appropriate authorization. These mailings can be sent as First-Class or Standard Mail, but there are restrictions, such as a "franking blackout" prohibiting unsolicited mass mailings within 90 days of an election in which the member is a candidate. This system allows Indiana’s House members to maintain ongoing communication with constituents efficiently while adhering to rules designed to prevent misuse of this taxpayer-funded benefit.

Rugby legend keeps impressive physique after bold career switch and reveals his fitness secret

Australia's rugby legend David Pocock has impressively maintained his remarkable physical fitness despite a major career shift from professional sport to politics. After retiring from his celebrated Wallabies flanker role in 2020, Pocock transitioned into the political arena, successfully winning a Senate seat representing the Australian Capital Territory in 2021. Despite the demanding nature of his political responsibilities, exercise remains a key part of his daily routine, helping him stay in jaw-dropping shape. Pocock's dedication to fitness is evident in the intensity and consistency of his workouts, which reflect the discipline he cultivated during his athletic career. Known for his punishing training regime on the rugby field, he continues to prioritize exercise not only for physical health but also for mental clarity and resilience—qualities equally valuable in his role as a senator. His approach is a blend of strength, endurance, and functional fitness that keeps him prepared for the rigors of both parliament and public life. Beyond fitness, Pocock’s career change highlights how the skills and values developed in sports—such as determination, strategic thinking, and teamwork—can translate into effective political leadership. Since entering politics, he has focused on making meaningful change, aiming to leverage his platform to benefit his constituents and the broader Australian community. Maintaining his athletic discipline supports both his physical vitality and his capacity to take on the complex challenges of governance, showcasing a remarkable example of career reinvention while sustaining peak physical condition.

Wikipedia fails to overturn UK Government's Online Safety Act in High Court ruling

The Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, lost its legal challenge against parts of the United Kingdom's Online Safety Act (OSA) in the High Court. Mr Justice Jeremy Johnson dismissed the Foundation’s claims on Monday, rejecting their argument that the new regulations could impose overly stringent duties on Wikipedia, potentially forcing it to verify the identities of users and contributors. Such duties, categorized as “Category 1” under the Act, would have required Wikipedia to verify user identities, a condition that the Foundation contended would undermine user privacy and hinder the free flow of knowledge by limiting the number of people able to edit or access the site. The Online Safety Act aims to protect users, particularly children, by requiring online platforms to remove illegal content and enforce strict safety rules, but critics argue it risks curtailing free speech and censoring legal content. Judge Johnson acknowledged the significant value Wikipedia provides and highlighted the potential harm that misclassification under the Act’s rules could cause to Wikipedia’s volunteer community and the platform's operation. However, he also indicated that the Foundation could mount further challenges if the UK regulator, Ofcom, categorizes Wikipedia as a Category 1 service, which would bring those strict duties into force. The Court stressed that Ofcom and the government must carefully apply or potentially amend these regulations to protect Wikipedia’s operations and the rights of its users, suggesting that overly rigid enforcement would be problematic. With the ruling in place, Ofcom’s first categorization decisions were anticipated soon, and the Foundation remains engaged in seeking ways to defend free knowledge and user protections as the Online Safety Act is implemented.<br /> <br />This legal decision represents a significant moment in the ongoing debate between safety regulation and upholding internet freedoms, illustrating the challenges digital platforms face under evolving government legislation.

We need leaders ready to unite and move beyond divisive politics

At both the Boulder City Council and the University of Colorado Board of Regents, recent events reveal leadership caught in deep political divisions, leading to confrontations and public conflicts that undermine unity. Tensions surfaced notably around CU Regents Wanda James, who is under investigation for a possible conflict of interest after challenging a cannabis-risk education campaign that used racially insensitive imagery. Her advocacy to redirect state funds from that campaign to social equity programs sparked backlash among fellow regents, culminating in a rare censure vote. James, the first Black woman elected to the board in over 40 years, argues that speaking out against racism has resulted in punitive responses, reflecting entrenched resistance to change within institutional politics.<br /><br />Simultaneously, Boulder City Council incumbents gear up for reelection amid heightened political polarization, further intensifying the atmosphere of division. These tensions come at a volatile time following the tragic June 1 attack at Boulder’s Pearl Street Mall, which the CU Board of Regents unanimously condemned, reaffirming their commitment to fighting antisemitism and discrimination while striving to maintain a safe, inclusive community.<br /><br />The combination of these divisive political dynamics within local government and university leadership highlights the challenges of governance in a time marked by social sensitivity, activism, and demands for equity. Leaders’ confrontations and politicization of issues risk further alienating constituents and complicating efforts to foster collaboration and healing in Boulder and across the University of Colorado system. This environment calls for renewed focus on respectful dialogue and bridging divides to move beyond destructive conflict toward common goals.

Meet Tammy Bruce, Trump’s nominee for the next U.S. deputy representative to the United Nations.

US President Donald Trump announced on August 9 that he is nominating State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce as the next US deputy representative to the United Nations. Trump praised Bruce on his Truth Social platform, saying she has done a “fantastic job” since the beginning of his second term in office and described her as a great patriot and bestselling author. Bruce currently serves as the spokesperson for the State Department and will hold the rank of ambassador if her nomination is confirmed by the US Senate, where the Republican Party holds the majority.<br /> <br /> Tammy Bruce has been a prominent defender of the Trump administration’s foreign policies, including its hardline stance on immigration, responses to the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, and has previously warned Russia about ceasefire demands. She joined the administration when Trump took office and was formerly a conservative commentator and longtime contributor to Fox News, noted for her political analysis and critique of liberal viewpoints. Bruce has also authored books such as “Fear Itself: Exposing the Left’s Mind-Killing Agenda.”<br /> <br /> Trump’s nomination of Bruce comes as his pick for US ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz—former White House national security adviser—awaits Senate confirmation. Waltz’s confirmation process has been delayed after he testified about his plans and involvement in a military-related controversy. If both are confirmed, Bruce would serve as deputy to Waltz and act as US representative at the UN in his absence. Bruce expressed gratitude for the nomination, indicating she expects to assume the role soon, continuing to promote “America First” values on the global stage.<br /> <br /> Bruce’s new appointment marks a key move in staffing the US delegation to the United Nations during Trump’s second presidential term.

The one Trump trait that most Americans find intolerable

Tens of millions of Americans voted for President Donald Trump believing he would govern competently. However, many were unsettled by his legal troubles, including his status as a convicted felon, and deeply concerned by his role in the violent events of January 6, 2021. On that day, thousands of Trump’s supporters, incited by his repeated false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, gathered at a rally near the White House. There, Trump urged them to "fight like hell" and encouraged them to march to the Capitol, where a joint session of Congress was certifying President Joe Biden’s victory.<br /><br />This rhetoric fueled a violent mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol, resulting in a historic attack on democracy itself. Defendants charged with involvement in the insurrection often cited Trump as their leader, answering his calls to action. Investigations, such as those by the January 6 Select Committee, concluded that Trump was the "central cause" of the attack, criticizing his failure to intervene when violence erupted. Congressional hearings described his inaction as a "dereliction of duty" and characterized the day as an attempted coup.<br /><br />Following numerous guilty pleas and sentences for participants—many linked to extremist groups—Trump later granted clemency to those convicted. The attack highlighted deep political fissures in the United States and raised serious questions about accountability and the peaceful transfer of power. Despite these controversies, Trump retained substantial support among voters who prioritized his leadership style and policy positions over these events.