policy

Gov. Maura Healey said Tuesday that she supports eliminating tenant-paid brokerage fees, which renters are sometimes required to pay when signing a lease along with first and last month's rent and a security deposit. Resistance to the fees is growing on the state and native levels, with Healey's comments only adding momentum.

At a performance by GBHs “Boston Public Radio“Healey was asked by an audience member about brokerage fees and how they could drive more people out of Massachusetts for affordability reasons.

“I think they should be abolished. I think they should go away. I fully support this and support taking action to achieve this,” Healey said.

Brokerage fees are one-off advance payments that typically amount to about one month's rent. Renters within the Boston area often pay the fees to agents they’ve never met and who’ve done minimal work to attach them with their latest apartment and the owner. Although Healey uses the word “abolish,” most efforts currently give attention to simply forcing landlords to pay agent fees, although the owner hires the agent. That appears to be what the governor meant.

“The landlord can make their own arrangements,” Healey said on GBH when asked about this distinction.

Healey repeatedly mentions the state's housing affordability crisis in interviews and tied the difficulty of brokerage fees to a broader defense of her actions in office to drive down prices for residents, similar to a recently expanded child tax credit.

In November, New York City Council coordinated making landlords liable for brokerage fees on most leases, prompting renewed discussion of the difficulty amongst Massachusetts officials.

Boston, one of the expensive rental markets within the country, can also be one among the last major markets where potential renters typically need to pay agent fees. Along with first month's rent, last month's rent and a deposit, tenants often need to give you the equivalent of 4 months' rent upfront to secure an apartment.

Last yr, the state Senate included a policy in a housing policy bill that may require landlords to pay brokerage fees, not tenants. But House negotiators didn't agree, and the policy didn't make it to Healey's desk. State House News Service reported.

Senate President Karen Spilka said during her speech Inaugural speech last week that the Senate “will once again seek to shift the burden of brokerage fees from tenants.”

State Representative Tackey Chan of Quincy said He helped file a bill Monday that states it’s the responsibility of the party, either the owner or the tenant, that hired the agent to pay their fee. Last month, The editorial board published an article arguing that tenants shouldn’t be forced to pay agent fees. Chan, Rep. Paul Schmid of Westport and Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven of Somerville agreed in a follow-up letter to the editor.

“In an already difficult housing market, adding this fee to the upfront rent ends up trapping people in poor housing conditions, preventing turnover in the housing stock, and discouraging low-income families, students, and seniors on fixed incomes from entering the market,” they wrote .

Locally, the Boston City Council will discuss the difficulty on Wednesday afternoon. Council President Ruthzee Louijeune and Councilwoman Liz Breadon filed a house rule petition This would lead to the party liable for engaging the broker also being liable for paying their fee.

Greater Boston's housing shortage allows property owners to pass brokerage fees onto renters, exacerbating inequality in who has access to housing, city councilors wrote. They pointed to studies that found “systemic housing discrimination by real estate agents.” The home rule petition would still should be approved on Beacon Hill if it passes the City Council.

“We’ll look at it all,” Healey said. “I understand that housing costs are high and we must do everything we can to reduce costs.”

As you drive through downtown Dallas, you might see a outstanding banner on the U-Turn bridge near the Walnut Hill exit on Central Expressway (US 75): “Stop Fluoridation!” Below, other banners call for motion and warn of supposed dangers.

This isn’t the primary time that fluoride has been at the middle of public debate.

Fluoride has been added since 1951 in lots of countries the municipal water supply to stop tooth decay. Fluoridation began as an remark, then an idea, which ended as… scientific revolution 50 years later.

Fluoridation is that controlled, careful addition of a precise amount of fluoride into community water systems to enhance dental health and ensure it stays secure without causing systemic health unwanted side effects.

The practice has been described as one among the “The 10 Greatest Public Health Achievements of the 20th Century.”

But with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vocal opponent of water fluoridation, appointed by President-elect Donald Trump to move the Department of Health and Human Services, This progress is in danger.

I’m a clinical professor Specialized in caries managementwith over 30 years of experience in stopping and treating early blight. In my opinion, it’s critical to depend on evidence-based practices and research that has consistently shown that fluoride is a cornerstone of dental health that advantages tens of millions of individuals without negative effects.

Fluoride within the water supply

Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral present in water, soil and even certain foods. Its role in oral health was first recognized through observations by researchers within the early twentieth century lower tooth decay rates In Communities with naturally high fluoride levels of their water.

In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan became the primary city on this planet to achieve this intentionally fluoridating its water supply. This decision was made after thorough discussions with Dr. H. Trendley Dean, then chief of the Division of Dental Hygiene on the National Institutes of Health, and other public health organizations. The Michigan Department of Health approved the addition of fluoride to public water supplies the next yr.

The city was chosen due to its low natural fluoride levels, large variety of school-age children, and proximity to Muskegon, which served as a control city. After 11 years, the outcomes were remarkable: Tooth decay rates in Grand Rapids children born after fluoridation began fell by over 60%.

By 2008, over 72% of the US population – over 200 million Americans – used Public water systems had access to fluoridated water.

This scientific breakthrough modified dental care and dentistry Turn tooth decay right into a preventable condition for the primary time in history.

Fluoride is of course present in most water sources, but typically in The concentrations are too low to stop tooth decay. By adjusting the fluoride content to the recommended 0.7 milligrams per litersuch as about three drops in a 55 gallon drumit is going to sufficient to strengthen tooth enamel.

Benefits of Fluoride for Dental Health

The science is straightforward: fluoride strengthens tooth enamelthe protective outer layer of the teeth, by promoting remineralization. It also makes teeth more immune to the acids produced by bacteria within the mouth. This prevents tooth decay, amongst other things Problem that remains to be widespread even in modern societies.

Fluoridated water has been extensively studied and its advantages are well documented. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, water fluoridation is vital reduces tooth decay by approx. 25% across all age groups. It's a public health measure that works passively – every sip of water helps protect your teeth without you having to alter your behavior.

This is especially vital for vulnerable populations. Low-income communities often have difficulty accessing dental care or fluoride-containing products equivalent to toothpaste. By fluoridating water, communities provide a security net that ensures everyone advantages, no matter their circumstances.

From an economic perspective, it is a great investment. Research shows that for each dollar spent on fluoridation, communities Save about $20 on dental treatment costs. These savings come from fewer fillings, extractions and emergency visits – meaning less costs Low-income communities are disproportionately affected.

Resistance to fluoridation

Despite its advantages, water fluoridation is feasible isn’t without controversy. Opponents often argue that it impinges on personal alternative – in spite of everything, most individuals don't have the choice Avoid drinking community water. Others raise concerns about potential health risks, equivalent to: FluorosisBone problems or thyroid problems.

Fluorosis, a condition attributable to excessive fluoride exposure in childhoodis commonly cited as a cause for concern. However, typically it manifests itself as slight white spots on the teeth and isn’t harmful. Severe fluorosis is rare in areas with regulated fluoride levels.

What about other health risks? Decades of research, including large-scale assessments by expert panels from all over the world and the World Health Organization have found no credible evidence Link between fluoridation and serious health problems if fluoride levels are maintained inside advisable limits. In fact, the concentration of fluoride in drinking water is fastidiously monitored to balance safety and effectiveness.

The CDC oversees monitoring of fluoride levels in community water systems within the United States. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency sets a security standard of two milligrams per liter to stop mild or moderate dental fluorosis.

Nevertheless, the controversy continues, fueled by Misinformation and distrust of public health initiatives.

It is vital to separate legitimate concerns from unfounded claims and depend on the overwhelming body of evidence supporting the protection of fluoridation.

Fluoride alternatives

For those that would reasonably avoid fluoride, there are alternatives to contemplate. But they arrive with challenges.

Fluoride-free toothpaste is an option, however it is less effective at stopping tooth decay in comparison with products containing fluoride. Calcium-based treatments, equivalent to: B. hydroxyapatite toothpaste, are increasingly popular as a fluoride alternativealthough research on their effectiveness remains to be limited.

Nutrition also plays an important role. Reduce consumption of sugary snacks and drinks significantly reduce the danger of tooth decay. Including foods like crunchy vegetables, cheese, and yogurt in your food plan can assist promote oral health stimulates saliva production and provides vital nutrients that strengthen tooth enamel.

However, these lifestyle changes require consistent effort and education – something not all people or communities have access to.

Community programs equivalent to dental sealant initiatives will also be helpful, especially for youngsters. Sealants are thin layers which are applied to the chewing surfaces of the teeth. Preventing blight in high risk areas. These programs, while effective, are still effective more resource intensive and can’t be replicated the broad, passive advantages of water fluoridation.

Ultimately, while there are alternatives, they place greater burdens on people and will not meet the needs of probably the most vulnerable populations.

Should Fluoridation Be a Personal Choice?

The argument that water fluoridation limits personal alternative is one among them most convincing points of view against its use. Some argue why not leave fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash and provides people the liberty to make use of it or not.

This perspective is comprehensible, however it overlooks the broader goals of public health. Fluoridation is like adding iodine to salt or vitamin D to exploit. These are measures that Prevent common health problems easily and cost-effectively. Such interventions aren’t about imposing decisions; It's about providing everyone with a basic level of protection.

Without fluoridated water, low-income communities would bear the brunt increasing dental disease. Especially children would suffer more tooth decayThis results in pain, missed school days and expensive treatments. The aim of public health policy is to stop these consequences while balancing individual freedoms with collective well-being.

For those that wish to avoid fluoride, alternatives equivalent to bottled water or filtered water can be found. At the identical time, policymakers should proceed to make sure that fluoridation levels are secure and effective and address concerns transparently to construct trust.

As the controversy over fluoride continues, the major query is how best to guard everyone's oral health. While fluoride removal may appeal to those that value personal alternative, it risks undoing many years of progress within the fight against tooth decay.

Whether through fluoridation or other methods, oral health stays a public health priority. Addressing this problem requires thoughtful, evidence-based solutions that ensure equity, safety and community well-being.

SAN JOSE – Santa Clara County Councilwoman Sylvia Arenas had enough.

During Tuesday's board meeting, she listened quietly as county child welfare officials presented a slideshow detailing progress in reforming the agency since three-month-old baby Phoenix Castro died of a fentanyl overdose last yr they usually refused to separate him from his drug-addicted father.

She waited for Damion Wright, the top of the Department of Family and Children Services, to say a scathing latest report from the California Department of Human Services — a follow-up to a similarly scathing report from last yr — that outlined how the state still was “concerned about the risks to child safety.”

Wright never mentioned it. So Arenas, who spent her profession in child support court before joining the board in 2023, delivered a blistering 20-minute critique, demanding accountability from Wright, his boss Dan Little – who now heads the county’s social services department – ​​and be Chief, County Executive James Williams. Their leadership and policies were leaving children in dangerous homes, Arenas said, and she or he demanded to know what they were doing to alter that.

“I want an answer. Damion? Dan? What are you doing? James, what are you doing?” she asked from the rostrum, looking down at Wright and Little, who were slouching of their seats. “How do we mitigate the impact of this extreme 'family preservation' concept that is endangering our children? That has caused a death in our community? That continues to impact brown and black children? What are you doing?”

When Little tried to answer that he would answer the identical query as he had at a board meeting nine months ago, Arenas interrupted him.

“I would really appreciate it if you said something different than you did in December,” she said. “It was really disappointing.”

The tense exchange between an elected official and salaried staff during a public meeting was extraordinary. Arena's voice almost trembled with anger at times and her three counterparts remained in awkward silence. Board meetings are often sober affairs that always seem interminable to members of the general public who may come to listen. If there are disagreements, they are often couched in polite platitudes that end with a thanks.

But Arenas turned those norms on their head on Tuesday.

The meeting got here nearly a yr after the Mercury News revealed that the county's family preservation policy – pushed by Dan Little in 2021 – gave the impression to be more vital than child safety within the case of baby Phoenix's death, whilst social staff had raised alarms. That news organization also uncovered the unique February 2023 state report that found the district attorney's office often overruled social staff' decisions to remove children from unsafe families. Little had kept that state report secret from the Board of Supervisors until the night before this newspaper published it.

After neither Little nor Wright mentioned the second state report in July of their presentation, Arenas made it clear Tuesday that she had little confidence within the agency's leadership, its transparency or its commitment to child safety as its most significant element.

That July state report criticized the county for failing to trace whether families who were capable of keep their children after reports of abuse or neglect actually accomplished the county's voluntary programs to enhance their parenting. From July 2022 to March 2024, state investigators found that in 55 percent of cases where there have been safety concerns in the house, safety plans weren’t developed or monitored. There were no formal protocols for social staff to follow when families didn’t complete their parenting programs, and there have been no formal processes to evaluate whether a short lived caregiver was appropriate.

After Little Arenas said, “We want to make sure that every decision we make for each child is the right decision for that child,” she interrupted again.

“But it wasn't, Dan. So I ask you: What are you doing to correct your leadership to ensure that the systems don't go back to where they were and put the well-being of our children at risk?”

When Little tried to reply, saying they were following “policies and practices,” she interrupted him.

“I ask you to take responsibility,” she said.

“You had a responsibility, Dan. How about we admit that to our community? How about we admit that we made a mistake in our system? Are you going to apologize to every single child you put in danger because there was no safety plan?”

The board meeting was live streamed and recordedAlex Lesniak, a social employee and union representative for the county, viewed it twice on Wednesday.

“I literally cried, in a good way, because it's like someone is finally getting it and seeing what we've all been trying to point out since before Phoenix died,” Lesniak said. “Someone is actually asking the people who made these decisions and implemented these policies to be accountable for what they're going to do differently so that this never happens again.”

The board has the facility to fireside Williams. The remainder of the five-member board, nonetheless, appears to have little interest in doing so. Only Williams has the facility to fireside Little or Wright – another choice that appears to have little traction.

Nevertheless, Arenas – with the support of the board – required in a motion that Wright and Little write a “personal reflection” on their leadership, outlining the way it has failed vulnerable children and what they’re doing to enhance it.

“I really want this to be your personal reflection on your own role in this fiasco we are in right now,” she said.

She became particularly animated when she brought up the state's July report and asked why neither Little nor Wright mentioned it. For ten deadly seconds, there was no response. Finally, Williams spoke up and agreed that it “would make sense” to include the state's findings and suggestions into the agency's future work plan.

Arenas shot back.

“The system works as well as the people who run it,” Arenas said. “And sometimes we have to ask ourselves if we have the right people on the team to actually do the work.”

Since President Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race on July 21, 2024, and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris because the Democratic presidential candidate. Harris' campaign has generated great enthusiasm and a focus. She quickly became the official Democratic presidential candidate and equaled Donald Trump's lead over Biden in National team And Swing state Opinion poll.

Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, have also Tens of 1000’s of supporters to her recent rallies in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and Nevada.

While things could change dramatically in the following two months, there may be an actual possibility that the United States will finally elect its first female president.

But a poll we conducted in August 2024, after Harris was expected to be named the Democratic nominee, found that sexism remains to be a strong force in American politics.

Hope and alter?

Yes, the scars of the 2016 election campaign – through which sexism played a key role within the election of the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's defeat by Trump – are still fresh for the Democrats. But many hope The America has modified and ladies in leadership positions are increasingly accepted.

This argument suggests that Harris' gender is not going to be a major obstacle for voters.

Superficially, Current nationwide representative survey of 1,000 American adults support this, with 51% of Americans agreeing with the statement, “America is ready for its first African-American president.” Only 23% of Americans disagreed.

Nevertheless, some Republicans appear to imagine they’ll win by Making gender a difficulty within the election campaign. This is obvious within the sexist rhetoric that Trump and other Republicans use when talking about Harris.

Trump, the has a story making sexist remarks, claimed foreign leaders would Harris as a “toy”, them as unintelligentand is now Comment on their appearance. Both The Associated Press And The New York Times have reported – based on unnamed sources – that Trump also called Harris a “bitch” in private conversations, although Trump’s spokesman denied that he used that term.

In a similarly sexist manner, Trump’s allies have tried to make Harris' past amorous affairs into campaign issues, with a conservative commentator on Fox Business News crudely describing Harris as “Original Hawk Tuah Girls,” an obscene sexual innuendo.

Will such attempts to take advantage of sexism as a campaign strategy backfire? Or is it still not possible, in any case these years, for a girl to beat sexist stereotypes and win the very best office within the United States?

Understanding the meaning of sexism

We are Political scientist who study the role of identity in American politics and who Conduct surveys that examine Americans' views on gender and the extent of sexism that also permeates the country.

We conducted two national polls this yr—one in January 2024, when Biden was still within the race, and the opposite in August 2024, after Harris became the Democratic nominee. For each poll, we surveyed 1,000 American adults ages 18 and older, asking them about their thoughts on the election, their political opinions, and their attitudes toward various social groups.

Given the change at the highest of the Democratic ticket, we are able to higher assess the impact of sexism on voting within the presidential election by comparing the ends in January, when there have been two male candidates, with those in August, when Harris entered the race.

In each surveys, we first asked respondents which candidate they’d vote for if presidential elections were held today.

To measure sexism, we asked respondents whether or not they agreed or disagreed with a series of three statements expressing prejudice, resentment, and hostility toward women, or what political scientists call “hostile sexism.” The statements in the “hostile sexism” battery are: “Women try to achieve power by asserting control over men”; “Women are too easily offended”; and “Women exaggerate after they have problems at work.” Stronger agreement with these statements indicates more sexist views.

We also measured respondents’ demographics (including age, gender, race, education, and income), their political attitudes and identities, and their racial views.

Sexism played a task even when Biden was within the race

Partly resulting from Trump's sexist rhetoric during his election campaigns and his presidency. sexist attitudes have turn into closely linked with who individuals support as presidentOn average, more sexist people tended to Republican candidates within the last elections.

For example, even in our January poll, when Biden was the Democratic nominee, sexism was strongly correlated with support for Trump. When we examined a head-to-head matchup between Biden and Trump, the more respondents agreed with statements about hostile sexism, the more likely they were to prefer Trump to Biden.

Of those that most strongly disagreed with statements measuring hostile sexism, 73 percent supported Biden, while about two-thirds of those that scored highest on the sexism scale supported Trump.

Taking under consideration other aspects that influence support for Biden—partisanship, ideology, racial attitudes, education, economic views, and so forth—we found that those with the least sexist views had an 83 percent probability of supporting Biden, while those with probably the most sexist views were 17 percent prone to accomplish that.

Sexism is more vital for Harris

If sexism has weakened individual support for Biden's candidacy, does that mean Harris won't face additional disadvantages in the shape of lost support for her candidacy? Hardly.

Hostile sexism, as we measured it, is costing Harris votes.

While sexism played a task in January, it was much more outstanding in August after Harris took over the Democratic ticket.

In a direct comparison between Harris and Trump, 89 percent of those in the underside third of the sexism scale—those that most disagree with statements measuring hostile sexism—support Harris, in comparison with 11 percent for Trump. On the opposite hand, only 18 percent of those that rating highest on sexism support Harris, in comparison with 82 percent for Trump.

When we have in mind other considerations that influence whether individuals prefer Harris or Trump, our results are much more striking. The least sexist respondents are 92% prone to say they plan to vote for Harris, but probably the most sexist respondents are only 4% prone to say they support her.

This implies that while sexist attitudes influenced individuals' preferences for the president when Biden was the Democratic presidential nominee, they’ve a good greater influence now that Harris is the Democratic nominee.

Without sexism

Harris appears to be barely ahead of Trump within the polls. Why should we care in regards to the influence of hostile sexism on the election?

To answer this query, we imagine a world through which hostile sexism doesn’t affect attitudes toward female presidential candidates. Our results suggest that Harris' lead over Trump could also be larger in such a world. Simply put, hostile sexism contributes to creating the election closer than it otherwise could be.

sexism has long played a strong role in influencing the Americans Voting behavior and attitudes towards political issuesThis is particularly true today given the high political importance of gender-related issues equivalent to abortion, contraception and LGBTQ+ rights.

Our evaluation shows that folks with negative attitudes toward women are much less prone to support Harris as a presidential candidate. Whether Harris' campaign can successfully take care of this reality stays to be seen.

By REGINA GARCIA CANO, GABRIELA SÁ PESSOA and E. EDUARDO CASTILLO

CARACAS, Venezuela — The U.S. government on Thursday recognized Venezuelan opposition candidate Edmundo González because the winner of the South American country's presidential election, discrediting the result announced by electoral authorities that had declared President Nicolás Maduro the winner.

“Given the overwhelming evidence, it is clear to the United States, and most importantly to the Venezuelan people, that Edmundo González Urrutia won the majority of votes in Venezuela's July 28 presidential election,” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in an announcement.

The National Electoral Council declared Maduro the winner of Sunday’s highly anticipated election, however the president’s essential challenger, Gonzalezand opposition leader Maria Corina Machado have said they’ve greater than two thirds of the the tally sheets which each electronic voting machine printed out after the polling stations closed.

They said the publication of the information on these counts would prove that Maduro has lost.

The US government’s announcement got here as a part of diplomatic efforts Maduro let go Vote counting from that Choice According to officials from Brazil and Mexico, there are increasing calls for an independent review of the outcomes.

Government officials from Brazil, Colombia and Mexico are in constant contact with Maduro's government to persuade him to present the ballots from Sunday's election and permit an impartial review, a Brazilian government official told the Associated Press on Thursday.

Officials have told the Venezuelan government that presenting the information is the one option to dispel any doubts concerning the results, said the Brazilian official, who asked to not be identified because he was not authorized to talk publicly concerning the diplomatic efforts.

A Mexican official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity for a similar reason, confirmed that the three governments have discussed the problem with Venezuela, but didn’t provide details. Earlier, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said he planned to talk with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Colombian President Gustavo Petro and that his government considered it vital that the election results be made public.

Later Thursday, the governments of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico issued a joint statement urging Venezuelan electoral authorities to “move forward expeditiously” and release detailed election results, but didn’t confirm that there had been any closed-door diplomatic efforts to pressure Maduro's government to release the election results.

“The fundamental principle of popular sovereignty must be respected through an impartial verification of the results,” the statement said.

After the National Electoral Council declared Maduro the winner of the election on Monday, hundreds of opposition supporters took to the streets. The government said it had arrested lots of of protesters and the Venezuela-based human rights group Foro Penal said 11 people were killed. Dozens more were arrested the next day, including former opposition candidate Freddy Superlano.

Opposition leader Maria Corina Machado – who was excluded from the presidential candidacy – and Gonzalez On Tuesday, they addressed a big rally of their supporters within the capital Caracas, but haven’t been seen in public since. Later that day, National Assembly President Jorge Rodriguez called for his or her arrest, calling them criminals and fascists.

In an opinion piece published within the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, Machado said she was “in hiding because she fears for her life, her freedom and that of her compatriots.” She reiterated that the opposition had solid evidence that Maduro had lost the election and called on the international community to intervene.

“We voted out Mr. Maduro,” she wrote. “Now it is up to the international community to decide whether to tolerate a demonstrably illegitimate government.”

Years of presidency repression have driven opposition leaders into exile. After the editorial was published, Machado's team told the AP that she was “seeking protection.” Machado later posted a video on social media urging her supporters to assemble across the country on Saturday morning.

There was no comment from the González campaign team on the editorial.

On Wednesday, Maduro asked Venezuela’s highest court perform an examination the election, but this demand almost immediately drew criticism from foreign observers He said the court was too near the federal government to find a way to conduct an independent review.

It shouldn’t be clear whether Maduro's first concession to demands for greater transparency was the results of talks with Brazil, Colombia and Mexico. Venezuela's president confirmed during a press conference on Wednesday that he had spoken to Petro about it.

Venezuela's Supreme Court is closely linked to Maduro's government. The court's judges are nominated by federal officials and confirmed by the National Assembly, which is dominated by Maduro sympathizers.

On Thursday, the court granted Maduro's request for an investigation and ordered him, González and the eight other candidates who participated within the presidential election to look before the judges on Friday.

González and Machado say they’ve greater than two-thirds of the the tally sheets printed by electronic voting machines after the polls closed. They said that the publication of the information on these counts can be a defeat for Maduro.

When asked why electoral authorities had not released detailed vote counts, Maduro said the National Electoral Council had been the goal of attacks, including cyberattacks, without providing further details.

The presidents of Colombia and Brazil – each close allies of the Venezuelan government – ​​called on Maduro to release detailed data on the vote count.

The Brazilian official said the diplomatic effort was simply intended to advertise dialogue amongst Venezuelan stakeholders to barter an answer to the disputed election. The official said this might include releasing election data and allowing for an independent review.

López Obrador said Mexico hopes that the desire of the Venezuelan people will probably be respected and that there will probably be no violence. He added that Mexico expects “the evidence, the records of the electoral results, to be presented.”

Since the election, pressure on the president has been growing.

The National Electoral Council, which is loyal to Maduro's United Socialist Party of Venezuela, has not yet released results broken down by voting machine, unlike in previous elections. However, it reported that Maduro received 5.1 million votes while González received greater than 4.4 million. But opposition leader Machado said vote tallies showed that González received around 6.2 million votes while Maduro received only 2.7 million.

Venezuela has the the most important proven crude oil reserves on the earth and was once probably the most developed economy in Latin America, but after Maduro got here to power in 2013, the country went into free fall. Falling oil prices, widespread shortages and hyperinflation that exceeded 130,000 percent led to social unrest and mass emigration.

More than 7.7 million Venezuelans have left the country since 2014, the most important exodus within the recent history of Latin America.

Sá Pessoa reported from Sao Paulo. Associated Press correspondent María Verza in Mexico City contributed.

Originally published: August 1, 2024 at 5:37 p.m.

Local news

Politicians across New England are reacting after former President Donald Trump was convicted Thursday of falsifying business records to hide paying hush money to a porn star before the 2016 election. While the character of those reactions has largely followed predictable partisan lines, one statement from Maine Senator Susan Collins is drawing particular ire.

Collins, a moderate who was one in all only seven Republican senators to Voted In a press release to The Hill, prosecutors criticized the choice to question Trump for inciting an rebel on the U.S. Capitol after January 6.

The charges were brought “precisely based on the person of the defendant and not on any specific criminal conduct,” Collins said within the statement.

At the top of March, Collins told the local news channel WGME that she wouldn’t vote for Trump in November. This calculation was based on her feelings about Trump's role within the events of January 6, she said, but clarified that she wouldn’t support President Joe Biden either.

After Trump’s acquittal in 2021 Collins spoken She spoke for 16 minutes about why she voted for his conviction. Trump abused his power and broke his oath of office by opposing the peaceful transfer of power, she said on the time.

Collins' contradictory messages were the topic of an editorial in Friday. Many voters would have been satisfied with remaining silent on the hush money ruling, others would have liked her to support the court case. Instead, in line with the editorial team, Collins acted “shamelessly.”

“Where is the courage to stand back from the ever-thickening fog of criminality that surrounds Trump, from the repeated threats to undermine our country's institutions, processes and norms? Where is the political fearlessness? Where is the trust that the editorial board would like to believe would be rewarded at the ballot box?” the editorial board wrote.

In an article published after the decision Author Charles P. Pierce called Collins' statement “the most disgusting and fascinating response of all.” Tom Nichols, editor at , condemned the erosion of moderate Republican politics in favor of subservience to Trump. Her response was a “good reminder” of why Collins “was, for me, the straw that broke the camel's back that finally abandoned the Republicans,” he said. wrote on social media.

Other members of Maine's congressional delegation criticized Trump and praised the jury. Senator Angus King, an independent, emphasized in a press release to The hill. Democratic Congressman. Chellie Pingree said on social media that Trump had a good trial and that the decision “represents a moment to have some faith in our democracy.”

In Massachusetts, Democrats joined Pingree.

Representative. Catherine Clarkthe second-highest Democrat within the House, said the jury had upheld the rule of law and that Americans “deserve so much better” than Trump.

Representative. Ayanna Pressley said that “accountability is welcome and long overdue” as Trump “has been deceiving people, causing harm and evading legal accountability for decades.”

Representative. Seth Moulton called Thursday a “sad day in American politics,” but said the decision was indicative of how a healthy democracy should work. He called on his Republican colleagues to denounce Trump.

“Patriotism does not mean parroting a man who would just as easily destroy the foundations of our democracy for his own personal gain,” he wrote in a press release posted on social media.

Representative. Richard Neal said there was “no manipulation” in the method and that “the justice system worked as our founding fathers intended.”

Others were much more succinct. “No one is above the law,” said Rep. Lori Trahan said. “Equal justice before the law,” said Attorney General Andrea Campbell said.

Senator Ed Markey simply Posted an image of former Red Sox slugger David Ortiz in his number 34 jersey, a cheeky reference to the 34 counts of which Trump was found guilty.

MassGOP Chairwoman Amy Carnevale, nonetheless, said she was “disheartened by the outcome of his political impeachment.” The verdict “marks a troubling moment for the integrity of the American justice system,” she added in a press release posted on social media.

A request by telecommunications giant AT&T to withdraw from the requirement to offer landline and other traditional phone services to large swaths of California customers appears doomed to failure after the state commission answerable for reviewing such requests signaled its opposition in a news release Friday has.

The California Public Utilities Commission published a proposal Rejecting AT&T's request to withdraw as a carrier of last resort provider after the request sparked an amazing public outcry from customers across the state, including many in Santa Cruz County.

The proposal is predicted to be on the agenda of the Commission's voting meeting on June 20.

According to the press release, the proposed denial appears to be based largely on AT&T's failure to offer sufficient alternatives to the landline option that many residents still depend on for essential services.

“The CPUC’s proposal underscores the critical importance of ensuring universal access to essential telecommunications services for all Californians,” the discharge said. “Despite AT&T’s assertion that providers of voice alternatives to wireline services – such as VoIP or cellular service – can fill the gap, the CPUC found that AT&T has not met the requirements for COLR withdrawal. In particular, AT&T could not demonstrate the availability of replacement providers willing and able to act as a COLR, nor could AT&T demonstrate that alternative providers met the COLR definition.”

AT&T is currently the most important load-resort provider within the state, meaning that in areas where it’s the default telephone service provider, it’s required to offer “traditional telephone service” to each potential customer in its service area who visits incessantly the form of copper landline connections.

Despite AT&T's assurances that it might not limit service in areas without viable alternatives – comparable to cellular or internet-based options – many purchasers within the county, particularly in rural or mountainous areas, said the request caused them to panic. Many feared that although that they had mobile phone service, it was unreliable and in emergency situations – comparable to a forest fire – a dropped call could mean the difference between life and death. Even when internet-based options are technically available, they often fail during wildfires or storms.

“This is a victory for many in our community who rely on landlines as a lifeline,” said Santa Cruz County 2nd District Supervisor Zach Friend, who attended one in all the commission's public forums to talk out against the proposal. in an email to the Sentinel. “It is clear that there is no adequate backup system for many of our rural residents. Until this is the case, there is no place for requests to stop the service, which in my opinion leaves these residents in the lurch.”

In FebruaryFriend, along along with his 4 colleagues on the county board, voted to approve sending a letter to the state commission expressing his opposition to the request.

AT&T argued that fixed-line technology is outdated and has develop into a competitive drawback, consuming resources that may very well be higher used for research into recent technologies. It also downplayed the pace of the change, saying the withdrawal process could take months and even years if the request is approved.

“We are disappointed by the CPUC's proposed denial of our request for an exemption from the Carrier of Last Resort Regulation (COLR), as we had hoped the Commission would give us an opportunity to demonstrate why the number of the “With so many voice service options available to customers, the COLR requirement is unnecessary,” AT&T wrote in an announcement to the Sentinel. “Given the competitive options in today's market, it's no surprise that no provider was interested in bidding on a service that was seeing declining customer numbers. We remain committed to keeping our customers connected to voice services and will continue to work with state leaders on policies that will allow us to provide modern communications to Californians.”

The proposal also includes the Commission's intention to initiate a brand new rulemaking process aimed toward adapting its regulations to changing market conditions and technological advances, the press release said.

“This is a great direction, especially for our isolated seniors in the mountains,” said Gine Johnson, an analyst with fifth District Supervisor Bruce McPherson, who represents the San Lorenzo Valley. “We will definitely call the (CPUC), testify and send something showing that we certainly fully support that direction.”