terça-feira, 6 de novembro de 2012

Uma avaliação da eleição presidencial nos EUA pelo conhecido sociólogo argentino Atilio Boron

Se elige presidente en EEUU, so what?



So what es una expresión coloquial corriente en el habla cotidiano de Estados Unidos cuyo significado oscila entre un benigno y curioso interrogante y una descortés, incluso ruda e insolente, refutación de algo que se hubiera dicho o escrito anteriormente. Una traducción literal de este segundo significado sería algo así como “¡y eso que diablos importa!”, y es exactamente eso lo que queremos expresar en esta nota en relación a las próximas elecciones presidenciales de Estados Unidos.

La irritación contenida en esa frase es hija del hastío y la fatiga que produce la rutinaria repetición, cada cuatro años, de que esta vez sí la elección del emperador con sede en Washington puede realizar el tan anhelado cambio que se promete, se espera y nunca se produce. Esta insoportable reiteración tiene como compañera una actitud autodenigratoria que se duele ante el hecho de que ninguno de los dos candidatos más importantes (porque hay otros cuatro que los medios ocultan sistemáticamente, sobre todo el del Partido Libertario, del ex gobernador de New Mexico Gary Johnson y la del Partido Verde, Jill Stein) haya mencionado a país alguno de América Latina en sus numerosísimas declaraciones e intervenciones públicas durante la campaña. Esta lamentación prueba una vez más la penetración del proceso de colonización imperialista en las elites políticas, intelectuales y económicas de nuestros países que internalizaron el discurso imperial uno de cuyos axiomas, obviamente, es la negación de la importancia del otro, sobre todo cuando éste es un país o una región que la Casa Blanca considera como propia o, en el mejor de los casos, como su “patio trasero.” Colonialidad del saber, o colonización cultural, como lo establecieran hace tiempo el sociólogo peruano Aníbal Quijano y el escritor cubano Roberto Fernández Retamar en virtud del cual nuestras clases dominantes y sus representantes políticos y culturales asumen sin beneficio de inventario el discurso del César imperial. Obviamente que hay algunos que son conscientes de su condición de representantes vicarios de aquél y saben que el ninguneo en la campaña no se corresponde con la importancia que los jerarcas del imperio le asignan a América Latina y el Caribe. Pero la mayoría no entra en esta categoría y son gentes que creen a pie juntillas en la absurda tesis de la “irrelevancia” de la región, misma que es desmentida por la permanente intervención de los Estados Unidos en los asuntos internos de nuestros países, como lo prueba la historia de las relaciones inter-americanas; desmentida también por la existencia de 76 bases militares de Estados Unidos en esta parte del mundo (¿instaladas, tal vez, como un “premio consuelo” ante nuestra supuesta “irrelevancia”?); desmentida otra vez por ser esta parte del mundo la destinataria de la primera doctrina de política exterior de Estados Unidos, la doctrina Monroe, que antecedió en casi un siglo a la concebida para otra área del globo, Europa, recién en 1918 (Doctrina Wilson). Son estas algunas de las múltiples razones que llevaron en repetidas ocasiones a Fidel y al Che a afirmar que “América Latina es la retaguardia estratégica del imperio”, tema éste examinado cuidadosamente en la extensa producción de un brillante académico y diplomático brasileño, Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira y, sin el mismo brillo, en nuestro América Latina en la geopolítica del imperialismo , un libro de próxima aparición dedicado precisamente a desmontar el pernicioso mito de la “irrelevancia” de América Latina.

Si los intelectuales y los políticos latinoamericanos se equivocan y hacen suyas las tesis imperiales, quienes no caen en ese error son los grandes estrategas, los jefes militares y los operadores políticos estadounidenses, para los cuales nuestra región es supremamente importante. Quien expresó esto de una manera brutalmente didáctica fue Zbigniew Brzezinski: consultado por qué casi no hablaba de Latinoamérica en uno de sus más importantes libros, El Gran Tablero Mundial , se encogió de hombros y dijo que tampoco hablaba de lo que ocurría en Texas o Alabama. En ocasional coincidencia con el pensamiento crítico latinoamericano Brzezinski dijo que los países al Sur del Río Bravo mal podían analizarse en el marco de la política exterior de Estados Unidos. La extensa frontera mexicano-estadounidense, los millones de inmigrantes procedentes de toda América Latina y el Caribe, la creciente presencia económica, política y cultural de los “latinos” dentro de Estados Unidos amén de la importancia excepcional de la región por sus recursos naturales y sus mercados para la producción norteamericana desaconsejan adoptar un enfoque como el tradicionalmente empleado por los internacionalistas académicos y que estúpidamente suponen que las relaciones de Estados Unidos con esta parte del mundo pueden ser examinadas con el mismo baremo aplicado al estudio de las relaciones de la Roma americana (subrayar por favor eso de “americana”) con países situados en distantes latitudes africanas, asiáticas e inclusive europeas. Una premisa inconmovible de la política internacional es la geografía, y Estados Unidos limita al Sur con México y el Caribe, no con Burundi, Birmania o Lituania. Si cualquiera de estos tres países tuviese la osadía de elegir a un gobierno de izquierda sería harto improbable, por no decir imposible, que la Casa Blanca dispusiera el envío de una expedición punitiva de marines en un número equivalente al 10 por ciento de la población invadida, como lo hiciera Ronald Reagan en 1983 con la “irrelevante” isla de Granada (60.000 habitantes en ese año) para desalojar y luego asesinar al Primer Ministro Maurice Bishop y varios de sus colaboradores. Nuestra América es diferente, tiene con Estados Unidos una “relación especial” y todo lo que ocurre en nuestros países es muy trascendente para la Casa Blanca. Por supuesto, la clase dirigente norteamericana bien se cuida de reconocer públicamente este dato fundamental de su política exterior.

Dados estos antecedentes creer que la personalidad del inquilino de la Casa Blanca puede alterar significativamente la política de Estados Unidos en relación a Latinoamérica y el Caribe es un craso error. Podría objetarse, con razón, que no es igual Ronald Reagan que James Carter y sus políticas de derechos humanos, pero mismo éstas tuvieron límites muy precisos porque mientras Carter creaba la Secretaría de Estado Adjunta para los Derechos Humanos y nombraba como responsable de esa agencia a una activista radical como Patricia M. Derian, el resto del engranaje político de su administración –en donde sobresalían nombres tales como el del ya mencionado Brzezinski, el de Richard Holbrooke, Secretario de Estado Adjunto para Asuntos del Extremo Oriente, y el del embajador en la Argentina, Terence Todman, de indisimulada simpatía con la dictadura genocida de la segunda mitad de los años setentas- saboteaba sistemáticamente esas iniciativas y colaboraba activamente con las dictaduras de la región. Carter tuvo que enfrentar tiempos muy difíciles: los legados de la traumática derrota en Vietnam, producida un año y medio antes de que asumiera su cargo en la Casa Blanca; la inédita “estanflación” que azotó al mundo desarrollado en esos años; la crisis de la energía desatada en 1979 por el triunfo de la revolución y el derrocamiento del Sha de Irán, con el nuevo aumento en el precio del petróleo; la crisis de los rehenes norteamericanos en Irán (donde algunos ven la mano de la CIA, interesada en evitar la re-elección de Carter para liberarse de las restricciones que a su accionar imponía la política de derechos humanos) y, sobre todo, el pecado principal: la firma del Tratado Carter-Torrijos por el cual se devolvía el Canal de Panamá a este país, decisión ésta fuertemente resistida y luego repudiada por los halcones del Pentágono y la derecha estadounidense. 1

De lo anterior se desprende que, tal como lo señalan algunos analistas no convencionales de la política norteamericana, conviven en Estados Unidos dos gobiernos: uno transitorio, surgido del proceso electoral, y otro, mucho más importante, permanente, de facto , elegido por nadie y responsable ante nadie que es quien toma las decisiones fundamentales y establece el rumbo de la política que deben adoptar e implementar el Ejecutivo y el Congreso. Abona esta interpretación el famoso Discurso de Despedida del Presidente Dwight Eisenhower alertando a sus conciudadanos del inmenso poder adquirido por el complejo militar-industrial. Eisenhower señaló que el influjo de esa coalición empresarial y militar era tan grande que no había rama o nivel de la administración pública que escapara a su influencia y que tal cosa entrañaba el peligro del “desastroso surgimiento de un poderío que ya existe y que persistirá a lo largo del tiempo.” Mientras el gobierno permanente fue agigantándose, los circunstanciales gobiernos instalados por el voto popular no hicieron sino debilitarse frente a las fuerzas del mercado, de los mega conglomerados empresariales y a su articulación en torno al complejo militar-industrial y los sectores económicos y financieros que giran a su alrededor. La historia además enseña los riesgos que conlleva cualquier tentativa de oponerse a los designios de las clases dominantes, tanto ayer como hoy. Cuatro presidentes fueron asesinados en los Estados Unidos, tres de los cuales (Lincoln, Garfield y Kennedy) habían tenido la imprudencia de expresar opiniones inadmisibles para los poderes establecidos. Abraham Lincoln, por ejemplo, dijo poco antes de ser ultimado que “tengo dos grandes enemigos: el Ejército del Sur frente a mí y los banqueros a mis espaldas. De los dos, los de atrás son los peores.” Tiempo después, James Garfield declaró que: “Quienquiera que controle el volumen de dinero en cualquier país es el amo absoluto de la industria y el comercio.” (Garfield fue asesinado en 1881, a escasos cuatro meses de haber asumido la presidencia). Kennedy, por último, había mostrado su grave preocupación ante el hecho que “(L)a oficina del Presidente ha sido usada para fomentar un complot para destruir la libertad de los americanos y antes que deje la Presidencia debo informar a los ciudadanos de este estado de cosas”. (JFK fue asesinado en Noviembre de 1963). 2

Para resumir: el silencio de los candidatos en materia de política exterior (apenas alguna referencia aislada a Medio Oriente y, especialmente Israel, fogoneada por Romney como respuesta a la intensa presión del lobby judío) revela lo obvio: ese no es un tema que deba discutirse en público y ante la ciudadanía. Las opciones ya fueron tomadas por el gobierno permanente, que no tiene el menor interés en que asuntos de importancia nacional sean ventilados en debates electorales. La decisión de rodear América Latina y el Caribe con bases militares no va a ser ni remotamente sometida a un escrutinio democrático. Lo mismo cabe decir de la política de incondicional apoyo al régimen fascistoide israelí; o el apoyo financiero y logístico para derrocar a Khadafi y ahora al régimen sirio; o la exorbitante escalada del gasto militar estadounidense; o la decisión de asesinar selectivamente opositores en terceros países utilizando drones, aún en los casos en que esos países no estén en guerra con Estados Unidos, como es el caso de Yemen, Pakistán o Palestina. Estos son “asuntos serios” en los cuales, como lo recuerda Noam Chomsky, la “chusma” no tiene razón alguna para ser informada y, mucho menos, decidir. Y en asuntos domésticos la situación es igual: ¿cómo se le va a preguntar a la ciudadanía en un referendo si prefiere salvar a los estafadores seriales de Wall Street y sus compinches o a quienes quedaron en la calle al no poder pagar sus hipotecas? Es obvio que un asunto tan delicado como este no puede quedar librado a los volátiles humores de una plebe fácilmente manipulable por un demagogo irresponsable. Y como éste tantos otros temas, que sería tedioso enumerar. Recordemos apenas la cuestión del fenomenal negociado que la industria farmacéutica y los prestadores médicos hacen a costa de la salud de la población; o la persistencia de una reaccionaria política que obstaculiza la sindicalización de los trabajadores; o los alambicados vetos que impidieron llevar adelante una reforma del sistema bancario; o la necesidad de implementar una auténtica reforma tributaria que ponga fin a los innumerables mecanismos de elusión legal, subsidios y exenciones de todo tipo que favorecen a las grandes fortunas mientras los asalariados se convierten en una masa de contribuyentes cautivos. Estos, y tantos otros, son temas demasiado importantes para ser discutidos públicamente, en el ámbito de una genuina democracia, y sólo el gobierno permanente decide sobre los mismos.

De lo anterior se desprende la intrascendencia de las elecciones norteamericanas, lo que contrasta con la importancia que tiene la estructura del poder real corporizada en el gobierno permanente de Estados Unidos. La frustración de la Administración Obama, tan pletórica en promesas (recordar el “yes, we can” ) incumplidas, como el cierre de la infame cárcel y centro de torturas de Guantánamo; la “nueva relación” con América Latina y el Caribe; la reforma migratoria; el fiasco de las fallidas reformas del sistema de salud y del sector financiero; la criminal acentuación de las políticas belicosas establecidas por su predecesor y la escalada infernal de los drones ; el infame linchamiento de Khadafi y la mafiosa ejecución de Osama bin Laden frente a su familia y las mentiras acerca del supuesto ritual fúnebre de su cadáver y posterior desaparición en el mar (que ahora sabemos se encuentra en una base de la Fuerza Aérea en territorio de Estados Unidos); el ilegal espionaje masivo sobre los correos electrónicos, mensajes de texto y telefonemas denunciado por la American Civil Liberties Union ; la sistemática censura de prensa promovida tanto fuera y dentro de Estados Unidos, sobre todo en relación a las “zonas calientes” del sistema internacional; la represión a las manifestaciones del movimiento Occupy Wall Street (¡que llevó a encarcelar a la candidata del Partido Verde en plena campaña!) son pruebas más que suficientes acerca de la escasa gravitación que el insólito Premio Nobel de la Paz que despacha en la Oficina Oval de la Casa Blanca tiene en la estructura de poder del imperio.

Con todo, si existiera alguna posibilidad de un leve desvío en relación a los dictados del gobierno permanente tal cosa sólo podría ocurrir en el segundo mandato de un presidente, no en el primero. El complot en contra de Carter y el asesinato de Kennedy son muestras muy persuasivas de los riesgos que corre quien quiera promover políticas contrarias a las que impulsa la coalición que realmente manda en Estados Unidos. Cualquier presidente de este país sabe que todo lo que haga en el primer turno de su mandato deberá estar subordinado al imperativo de su re-elección. Si tiene éxito en este empeño, en el segundo puede hacer algo distinto. Salvo, claro está, en casos excepcionales como el de Franklin D. Roosevelt, pero la distancia entre la alianza social que respalda a Obama (ni hablar de Romney) y FDR es sencillamente inconmensurable. Bajo esta perspectiva, y sabiendo que tanto Obama como Romney no tienen nada bueno que ofrecer para los estadounidenses y para los pueblos del resto del mundo, hay una mínima chance de que el primero -tal vez y si tiene las reservas morales y las agallas que hasta ahora no ha podido demostrar- pueda torcer en algo el rumbo catastrófico por el que Estados Unidos está arrastrando al resto del mundo. Podría intentar, por ejemplo, ordenar el cierre de la cárcel de Guantánamo y poner fin a un baldón que cubre de infamia a los Estados Unidos ante la comunidad internacional; o disponer el indulto para “Los cinco” luchadores antiterroristas cubanos presos en las cárceles del imperio precisamente por luchar contra el terrorismo organizado por la mafia anticubana y los servicios de inteligencia de Estados Unidos con base en Miami; o suspender las criminales incursiones de los drones; o poner fin al bloqueo contra Cuba; o las actividades desestabilizadoras y las campañas de terrorismo mediático en contra de los gobiernos de izquierda en la región, financiadas con fondos de los contribuyentes de Estados Unidos según declaraciones de altos funcionarios de la USAID y la NED. Las chances de que esto ocurra son ínfimas en el caso de Obama, y completamente inexistentes si su contendor llegara a triunfar. Por eso no se entiende la infantil excitación de algunos observadores y comentaristas latinoamericanos acerca de las elecciones presidenciales en Estados Unidos. Son un penoso síntoma, eso sí, del triunfo ideológico del imperio, una prueba más de que éste se sostiene no sólo por la opresión económica y las fuerzas de las armas sino también, y tal vez principalmente, por la eficacia de sus dispositivos de dominación cultural. Pero las cosas están cambiando. Aún cuando sus estrategas y grandes intelectuales orgánicos alertan sobre su decadencia los intelectuales y los políticos y gobernantes colonizados siguen creyendo que el coloso es invencible y será eterno. No pasará mucho tiempo antes de que los hechos les propinen una dura réplica y, como lo dijera Salvador Allende en su postrero discurso bajo la metralla de los traidores, se abran las grandes alamedas por donde los hombres y mujeres libres de Nuestra América marcharán para comenzar a escribir su verdadera historia.
Notas:
1 La crisis de los rehenes ocurrió cuando estudiantes islamistas radicales de Irán tomaron la Embajada de Estados Unidos en Teherán y mantuvieron como rehenes a 52 ciudadanos estadounidenses durante 444 días. La crisis se resolvió apenas minutos después de que Ronald Reagan asumiera como nuevo presidente. Antes había fracasado lastimosamente una operación de rescate, concebida y ejecutada de manera llamativamente torpe por un comando de elite de las fuerzas armadas norteamericanas y que dejó un saldo de ocho estadounidenses y un iraní muertos en la operación. Tan milagrosa resolución de la crisis alimentó las sospechas de la intervención de la CIA en todo este incidente.
2 Hay un fuerte debate en torno a esta cita. Algunos afirman que es apócrifa, mientras otros aseguran que es verdadera. Lo cierto es que se encuentra perfectamente alineada con la tesis sostenida por Eisenhower en su célebre discurso.
Rebelión ha publicado este artículo con el permiso del autor mediante una licencia de Creative Commons, respetando su libertad para publicarlo en otras fuentes.

PGR protegeu beneficiários do mensalão tucano

247 - Numa carta endereçada ao jornalista Luis Nassif, o advogado Marcelo Leonardo, que defende o empresário Marcos Valério na Ação Penal 470, faz revelações surpreendentes sobre o mensalão tucano, ocorrido em 1998, na tentativa frustrada de reeleição de Eduardo Azeredo. De acordo com Leonardo, Valério entregou à procuradoria-geral da República os nomes de todos os beneficiários dos repasses do valerioduto, mas nenhum deles foi citado em qualquer denúncia, porque o procurador-geral, Antonio Fernando de Souza, tratou o caso apenas como caixa dois -- um crime prescrito.
Eis, abaixo, um trecho da carta de Marcelo Leonardo a Luís Nassif:
"Quanto ao chamado "mensalão mineiro", o andamento do caso está em fase bem mais adiantada do que se imagina. A etapa das investigações já foi concluída e nela Marcos Valério forneceu todas as informações , inclusive os nomes dos políticos ligados ao PSDB (deputados e ex-deputados) que receberam, em contas bancárias pessoais, recursos financeiros para custear as despesas do segundo turno da tentativa de reeleição do então Governador Eduardo Azeredo, em 1998, tendo entregue as cópias dos depósitos bancários realizados."
Esta é a primeira vez que Marcelo Leonardo afirma que seu cliente, Marcos Valério, entregou à procuradoria-geral da República os nomes de parlamentares do PSDB que foram beneficiados com recursos desviados das estatais Bemge, Comig e Copasa -- as fontes do mensalão mineiro. E é também a primeira vez que diz que nenhum deles foi denunciado, porque o procurador Antonio Fernando, segundo Marcelo Leonardo, "entendeu, expressamente, que o fato seria apenas crime eleitoral (artigo 350 do Código Eleitoral – "caixa dois de campanha"), que já estava prescrito". O advogado de Valério reforçou ainda que "este entendimento não foi adotado no oferecimento da denúncia e no julgamento da AP 470".
Cabe, agora, à procuradoria-geral da República explicar por que adotou um procedimento no tocante a deputados do PT e de sua base aliada (compra de votos) e outro (caixa dois) no que diz respeito aos parlamentares do PSDB. Lembrando, é claro, que a denúncia usada por Roberto Gurgel na Ação Penal 470 partiu da que havia sido formulada antes por Antonio Fernando de Souza.
Por que dois pesos e duas medidas? Ou será que a Justiça no Brasil não é cega?


Retrocesso na liberdade de imprensa na União Europeia- em inglês

Press freedom under attack inside EU, advocates say

Today @ 17:26
  1. By Nikolaj Nielsen
  2. Nikolaj email
  3. Nikolaj Twitter
BRUSSELS - Media advocates are calling on EU lawmakers to speak out against the roll-back of press freedoms in some EU member states.
"There is not a single member state that has not taken a step back on press freedom," said Olivier Basille, secretary general of the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) at a hearing in the European Parliament on Tuesday (6 November).
Basille, along with a panel of media experts and advocates, laid out troubling trends in European media, with journalists coming under increasing pressure from political heavyweights to cede critical reporting.
Romanian Liberal MEP Renate Weber, who drafted the European Parliament's position on media freedom in the EU, said the European Commission cannot shy away from taking a position.
"It is not good enough to invoke bureaucratic difficulties - be they legal powers in the sense of a specific legislation - to justify the lack of willingness of the commission [to speak out]," said Weber.
The protection of sources and the protection against defamation claims by public figures are among some of the standards that are not being wholly respected.
William Horsley of the Association of European Journalists (AEJ) pointed out that reporters are routinely intimidated, receive threats of violence by police and suffer arbitrary arrests in countries such as Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and in soon-to-join-the-EU Croatia.
Bulgarian journalist Yavor Dachkov, who co-edits the Galeria newspaper in Sofia, told this website in July that a bomb exploded in front of his office soon after they published a phone call in January 2011 that allegedly incriminates Bulgaria's Prime Minister Borisov in a scandal involving a national beer company.
"It was close to taking the life of one of our colleagues," wrote Dachkov in a letter addressed to European Parliament president Martin Schulz.
Meanwhile, concentrated ownership of media outlets in the hands of the few has created its own sets of problems.
Owners of some media outlets in Romania and Bulgaria have links to organised crime, said the AEJ's Horsely: "This is corrupting the free flow of information within the borders of the European Union to an extent that EU lawmakers should understand and act on."
He added that the commission and the parliament have known about the extent of abuse and press freedom violations for some time but "have clearly not acted."
For its part, the New York-based Open Society Foundations (OSF), says there is an urgent need to address media ownership concentration.
The group has surveyed the impact of digitisation and digital media on media pluralism, diversity, accessibility and independence in 60 countries including 13 EU member states.
Their study found that media concentration impacts editorial independence given the shady ties that are sometimes formed between owners and the political and business elite.
They attribute some of this trend to the deregulation of media ownership rules and in some cases, to the removal of market share thresholds, as in the Netherlands, Romania and Slovenia.
"This has consolidated agenda-setting power in particular entities—including individual proprietors—which harms pluralism and undermines democracy," said OSF.
Member state funding of publicly run media outlets is also raising concern and in particular, official advertising, which "supports politically friendly media and discriminates against others."

O número de presidiários e ex-presidiários proibidos de votar nos EUA elevou-se de 1.2 milhão em 1976, para 3,3 milhões em 1996 e para mais de 5,85 milhões em 2010.

Postado originalmente por:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/felon-voting-rights_n_1924535.html

Eric Bates was caught twice in the late 1990s driving with a suspended license, and then again in 2006. That third time, under then-Virginia law, Bates was considered a habitual offender and was prosecuted as a felon.
He served 14 months in prison and was released in 2008. He returned home hoping to put his legal issues behind him and move on with his life.
But like many of the nearly 1 million people who are released from correctional facilities each year, Bates said he has had difficulty finding steady work and making ends meet. His rather pedestrian criminal record has also come with one other lingering consequence: Bates has found himself among the approximately 5.8 million whose voting rights have been taken away because of a felony conviction.
"I owned up to my crime. I served my time and I just want my rights back," Bates, 53, an unemployed electrical engineer, told The Huffington Post. "I want to participate. But it's just as well as if I murdered somebody. It's a life sentence."
Four states permanently disenfranchise ex-felons. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia, it takes a decree by the governor or a clemency board to restore a person's voting rights, and only after a predetermined waiting period and all fines and fees are paid can an individual submit an application.
In Virginia, that waiting period is two years. In Florida, non-violent felons must wait five years before applying for reinstatement; violent felons must wait seven years.
Seven other states -- Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee and Wyoming -- allow some with felony convictions to vote after they are released from supervision. In Arizona, for example, one is not permanently disenfranchised until that person has committed two or more felonies, after which voting rights can only be regained through a pardon or restoration by a judge.
The personal and political impact of such disenfranchisement can be enormous, voting rights advocates say, as whole masses are swept off the voting rolls or prevented from participating in the political process, particularly in battleground states or in states where control of the legislature is tenuous.
Many of those disenfranchised because of a felony conviction are poor, African American or Latino.
With the November elections looming, voter disenfranchisement and voter suppression have become hot-button political issues. Recent Republican-led efforts in as many as 11 states across the country have resulted in new voting laws that require state-issued photo identification to cast a ballot. Other states have made it tougher to vote, purged the voter rolls or enacted tough restrictions on third-party voter registration groups.
Voting rights advocates say that laws that disenfranchise felons go hand-in-hand with such voter ID laws, which Democrats and opponents say are specifically designed to target likely Democratic voters, including the poor, minorities, college students and the elderly.
"This is a concerted effort," said Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) recently reversed course on a policy enacted by his predecessor that expanded voting rights for felons, while the state simultaneously introduced some of the most restrictive voting policies in the country, including massive voter purges of suspected non-citizens, the elimination of early voting and limitations on third-party voter registration groups.
"In at least 34 states there are serious efforts to suppress voter turnout," said Hastings, who particularly noted battleground states like Florida and North Carolina.
Hastings said many of the new laws are akin to a "backdoor poll tax," referring to Jim Crow-era voting laws that required blacks to pay a special fee to vote.
"That impacts African Americans doubly," he said.
RACIAL DISPARITY
One in every 40 American adults is disenfranchised because of a felony conviction, according to The Sentencing Project, a group that advocates for voting rights. The number of Americans who have lost their vote due to a conviction has spiked dramatically over the decades, from about 1.2 million in 1976 to 3.3 million in 1996, to more than 5.85 million in 2010, according to a report from the group.
The impact is acute among the African-American voting-age population, where one in 13 is disenfranchised because of a prior conviction.
In three Southern states the numbers are more stark: In Florida, 23 percent of the voting-age black population can't vote because of a felony record; in Kentucky it's 22 percent; and in Virginia it's 20 percent. Taken together, one in five blacks living in those three states is disenfranchised.
Florida, with 1.5 million disenfranchised ex-felons, leads the nation.
Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said felon disenfranchisement has long been used as a tool to suppress the black vote.
McDonald said that during Reconstruction, legislators (primarily Democrats) passed laws specifically designed to depress the political power of recently emancipated blacks, selecting crimes that they thought blacks committed more often than whites as a basis for disenfranchisement.
"I think there's clearly a racial bias, and we know that there is a disproportionate racial impact," McDonald said. "When you marginalize all of these people, you make it much more difficult to rehabilitate them. It doesn't serve anybody's interest."
"But we're not talking about doing a favor for people that commit crimes," he added, "we're talking about trying to ensure that people can be taken back into the system, that they can become descent citizens again."
Sarah Massey, a spokeswoman with Project Vote, said that a clear message is being sent by the engineering of voting laws that specifically target certain demographic groups.
"One out of four black men go to jail in this country, and we [America] have the worst incarceration rate in the Western world. Then taking away people's rights to vote, it all paints a picture to me that one population doesn't deserve to have the same rights as the others," Massey said. "It's all in the numbers of people in jail, and let's be real, it's also about the races of the people in jail."
Benjamin Todd Jealous, president of the NAACP, contends that legislative records from across the country show that many states have banned formerly incarcerated people from voting "for the expressed purpose of shrinking the black voting base."
In response, the NAACP launched a campaign against felony disenfranchisement with a rally in Tallahassee, Fla., on Tuesday, Oct. 2. A second stop in Virginia took place on Friday. The campaign will include billboards and ads on public transportation and will last through 2013, according to an NAACP spokeswoman.
"While voter ID and registration ID are like Jim Crow, ex-felon voting bans literally are Jim Crow," Jealous said.
HIGH HURDLES
Eric Bates, who lives in Richmond, Va., with his wife, has not committed a crime since his release in 2008. Upon his release, he went back to school to build on the two-year degree in computer engineering he'd earned some 20 years earlier.
"I figured that I was a non-violent offender with a lot of work experience, and that the degree would balance things out," Bates said.
Each week Bates said he submits about 50 job applications online to employers. He does occasional repair work for friends of friends and neighbors.
But his criminal record continues to stymie his comeback.
One major obstacle to reinstating his voting rights: $3,000 in fines. Bates says he doesn't have the money to pay the fines because his conviction keeps him from getting a job.
Yet even if the fines were paid, Bates still has to lobby the governor.

"Not being able to vote on top of everything else, it makes me kind of feel like a second-class citizen," Bates said. "I'm not the only one either. There are thousands and thousands of people just like me."
Experts and advocates say that across the country ex-felons are caught in a legal and political limbo trying to regain the franchise, beyond facing the relatively straightforward financial burdens.
State clemency boards claim a backlog of applicants has slowed the review process. Newer voting laws like those in Iowa and Florida have made the application process arduous and complicated. And many formerly incarcerated people are confused about their legal standing and their eligibility to vote.
Richard Walker, founder of Bridging The Gap, a Richmond, Va.-based nonprofit that works with formerly incarcerated people, said that he has talked with many men and women who applied to have their rights restored but were never given an answer by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's office within the required 60 days.
A spokesman for the governor's office in September told WTVR that the office is inundated with restoration requests, but that it works diligently to make notifications in a timely manner.
"The key to remember here is that there are many parts to an application that must be done by our office, by the courts," Jeff Caldwell, a spokesman for the governor, told WTVR. "Once the application is turned in completed, we strive to make sure that they are notified and will know in enough time for the upcoming election."
Walker said there are some 350,000 convicted felons in Virginia who have not had their rights restored.
"You're losing a population of voters," said Walker, a former felon who recently regained his voting rights.
Caldwell told The Huffington Post that McDonnell, a former prosecutor who campaigned as "tough on crime," has created the "fastest and fairest" restoration of rights process in the state's history.

"The governor is on par to exceed all prior governors with the restoration of rights," Caldwell told HuffPost. To date Caldwell said the governor has restored the rights of about 3,800 former felons, for an approval rate of 80 percent to 85 percent.

"When Gov. McDonnell was running for office, he agreed that the process for the restoration of rights was taking too long," Caldwell said. So McDonnell pledged that his office would process every application in 90 days. After he took office, Caldwell said the governor made an executive decision to cut that time to 60 days.

"He has lived up to that commitment," said Caldwell, who added the applications that are denied generally haven't been filled out properly, or the applicants haven't provided enough information or simply aren't eligible based on their specific conviction.

"[Gov. McDonnell] is a big believer that anybody that has served their time and has been restored to society should have the opportunity to vote and serve on a jury, if they can continue to play by the rules," Caldwell said.
C.C. Holloman, coordinator of the 2012 Community Campaign and Beyond, described the state of affairs in Florida as "outrageous."
Gov. Scott recently reversed laws passed by the previous governor, fellow Republican Charlie Crist, that automatically restored voting rights to felons once they were no longer under state supervision. Today, according to recent news reports, more than 13,000 people who had their rights restored under the Crist administration may not know that they are eligible to vote.

According to the ACLU of Florida, state officials have been unable to locate about 17,604 ex-felons who automatically had their rights restored under Crist. The ACLU scoured state records and found that 75 percent, or 13,517, of that number were not currently registered to vote.
According to people in Florida who work to help ex-felons with the reinstatement process, Scott's administration has also stopped mailing out status notification letters to those who have not committed a crime for the legally required period and who may now be eligible to vote.
Scott's office did not return calls for comment.
Some of Florida's ex-felons say that they were previously granted their voting rights, but that more recently, since Scott took office, they have received letters from the state that say it is "suspected" that they are now ineligible to vote.
"They gave me my voting rights back, but I got a letter a couple of months ago telling me they are taking them away," said Stephen Paulk, 42, of West Palm Beach, who was convicted of drug charges in 1999 and served five years in prison.
A few years after his release in 2003, his voting rights were restored. In 2008 he voted for President Barack Obama.
"I haven't been in trouble in 10 years," said Paulk, an entrepreneur who sells women's clothing and accessories. "I said, 'Damn, I'm still getting prosecuted for something I did time for already.' But we don't have no rights no more. If they don't want you to vote, they won't let you vote."
The Miami Herald recently reported that election supervisors had removed nearly 7,000 people with recent felony convictions from the rolls, which included 2,956 African Americans.
An analysis of state data by the Herald found that Democrats were three times more likely than Republicans to be removed, and that blacks were disproportionately purged. While blacks make up 16 percent of Florida's population, 43 percent of those removed from the rolls were black.
Holloman, the coordinator of the 2012 Community Campaign and Beyond, called the practice voter intimidation.
"The purging and this oppression of eligible people who are ex-offenders is going to have the biggest impact of all the suppression," Holloman said. Through her organization, she said she has helped nearly 1,500 men and women apply to have their rights restored. Only a few have actually been granted those rights, she said.
Among those still waiting to have their voting rights restored, she said, are some people with convictions from as far back as 15 years who have committed no crime since their release.
"They don't know where to turn for help," Holloman said.
Iowa, like Florida, had passed measures in 2005 that automatically restored ex-felons' voting rights, but Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican who took office in 2011, has repealed those measures.
Ex-felons in Iowa now must appeal directly to the governor to have their franchise restored, in addition to submitting a credit report. According to the Associated Press, of the 8,000 Iowans who have completed their terms during Branstad's term, only 11 have succeeded in regaining their voting rights.
'I JUST WANT TO PARTICIPATE'
Family conversations around Moranda Lambert's dinner table often begin or end with talk of politics. And neither she nor her husband is usually the one who does the talking. Lambert's 12-year-old daughter and 10-year-old son are full-blown fanatics of President Obama and the first family.
Lambert's daughter, a member of her school's safety patrol, even got the chance to meet Michelle Obama.
"She wants to do the right thing and be a leader and not a follower," said Lambert, 33, a Florida State University graduate who lives with her husband and children in Riviera Beach, Fla.
"But she has to sit back and watch me with no voice and no rights," said Lambert, who was incarcerated for six months in 2004 after she was convicted of felony assault with a deadly weapon after a fight with a former friend got out of hand.
Lambert said her attempts to regain her voting rights have failed. Six months ago she went through a clemency program and applied for her voting rights, she said, but was denied.
She said she has done all she can to show that her crime was an aberration, a blip in an otherwise positive and purpose-driven life. She's active in her church and does volunteer work in her community.
Still, she struggles.
Because of her felony conviction, the nursing and cosmetology licenses she'd earned have been taken. And she has yet to find steady employment. Lambert described her situation as "a rock between two hard places."
She can't find a job, she can't vote, and she feels as if she's been relegated to a social and civic abyss. "I'm here with no voice," Lambert said.
"I just want to participate and make the world better," she said. "It's like sitting in a corner: You're stuck and there's nothing to say."
Lambert believes her prospects for restoration are dim. Given the current political climate, she said, it "looks like it'll be 15 or 20 years before I can be recognized for all the positive changes that I've made and the positive influence that I've had on the community."
Back in Richmond, Va., Darryl Williams said he has been waiting on word from the state clemency board about his application to have his voting rights restored.
Back in 1997, when Williams was barely 19, he said the police caught him with a sawed-off shotgun. He was convicted on felony weapons charges and spent two years in a state prison.
Today Williams is 35 and describes himself as a model citizen who hasn't been in any legal trouble in 12 or so years.
"My life changed a whole lot, because back then I was running around, young and dumb, being stupid," Williams said.
Williams laments the difficulty of trying to better himself while the state is "so hard on felons."
"Even after so many years it's hard, but I turned my life around. And if the government decided to give me my rights back, I can keep trying to better myself," Williams said.
He's applied twice to have his voting rights restored. The first time, he said, he was denied because the paperwork wasn't filled out properly. The second time he took his time and went over each page of the application meticulously.
"Now I'm just waiting on everything, being patient. It's nerve-wracking but worth the wait," he said. "I just want to be back in society. Voting lets you do that."

Governo uruguaio ordena fechamento de 74 rádios comunitárias do país




O governo do Uruguai fechou 74 rádios comunitárias em todo o país, informou o jornal El País na quinta-feira, 1 de novembro. A Unidade Reguladora de Serviços de Comunicação (Ursec) disse que 20 das rádios fechadas faziam "proselitismo religioso", o que fere a lei de rádios comunitárias do Uruguai.
O presidente da Ursec, Gabriel Lombide, disse que a decisão foi tomada com base no informe do Conselho Honorário Assessor de Radidifusão Comunitária (Charc) após os resultados do Censo Nacional de Comunitárias, noticiou o jornal La Prensa. Entre as rádios fechadas por proselitismo religioso, estão nomes como "Jesus Cristo é a única resposta do Uruguai", "Aliança de Cristo" e "Tabernáculo o Senhor é meu Pastor".
Junto com o fechamento das rádios, o governo uruguaio abriu um chamado para a concessão de 21 frequências no interior do país. A Associação Mundial de Rádios Comunitárias (Amarc), pro sua vez, reclamou das dificuldades na concessão de frequência, noticiou o El Diario. "Quando acaba o prazo de um chamado, a Ursec demora de três a quatro meses para levar os pedidos à Charc", disse a Amarc em nota à imprensa.