Dennis Loo

Sometimes asking for the impossible is the only realistic path

Dennis Loo

Dennis Loo
Los Angeles, California,
December 31
Professor of Sociology
Cal Poly Pomona
Author of Globalization and the Demolition of Society; Co-Editor/Author of Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush and Cheney, World Can't Wait Steering Committee Member, co-author of "Crimes Are Crimes, No Matter Who Does Them" statement, dog and fruit tree lover. Published poet. Winner of the Alfred R. Lindesmith Award, Project Censored Award and the Nation Magazine's Most Valuable Campaign Award. Punahou and Harvard Honor Graduate. Ph.D. in Sociology from UC Santa Cruz. An archive of close to 500 postings of mine can be found at my blogspot blog, Dennis Loo, link below. I publish regularly at, (link below) and also at OpEd News and sometimes at Counterpunch.

JANUARY 25, 2012 2:24PM

Obama's SOTU Speech 2012

Rate: 6 Flag

I'm going to comment on just a few things about Obama's SOTU speech last night. So many lies, so little time!

First, obviously absent the Occupy Movement, there would have been no talk in his speech about making the rich pay their fair share. This indicates the significance of social movements' impact, even if what Obama proposes to actually do about his fine sentiments is virtually nothing. It's important, nonetheless, to note this in more than passing that had people not risen up in the Occupy Movement and changed the discourse from "I've got mine, aren't you jealous?" to "1% v. 99%" and instead said to themselves and others: "Well, I can't stand the GOP so I guess I have to support Obama, even if he has broken every promise he's made," this reframing even though only rhetorical in Obama's hands would never have occurred. It's interesting to see how this is playing out in the GOP race too as Gingrich is going after Romney for his plutocratic ways and Gingrich is taking heat for his rich consulting fees for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac of $1.6 million.

Now we have to not only change the discourse, we have to change this system that is producing these awful outcomes.

Second, this speech exemplifies the "middle ground" that Obama is so marked by: an attempt to have it both ways while really siding with the wrong side.

Third, as the NY Times reported recently, when Obama asked Steve Jobs (note the irony of his last name!) if the jobs that Jobs has exported abroad for Apple could come back to the U.S., Jobs' response was: "Those jobs aren't coming back." This is the true nature of globalization. Obama's role is to make it appear to the people that this isn't what's necessarily going to happen and to make people believe that he's going to do something about it. Exactly what he's been doing since taking office in 2009, yes?

As I point out in Globalization and the Demolition of Society:

"The socialist camp’s collapse by the late 1980s opened up the formerly socialist and quasi-socialist world of more than a billion and a half people to capitalist exploitation. In one fell swoop, whole sectors of the US population were thereby rendered disposable from the perspective of capital, especially transnational capital. For blue-collar workers and those in the broken sections of the proletariat for whom steady work is nearly impossible and who must survive at the margins in the gray and underground economies and through hustling, compliance with the status quo becomes increasingly problematic. What is to be done with these people?

"For those most oppressed within the US, jail and prison are the short answer. Prisons and jails have, since at least the early 1990s, been the biggest supplier of public housing and public services to US youth.[i] The US leads the world in imprisoning its own people: every fourth prisoner in the world is behind bars in the US even though the US accounts for less than 5 percent of the world’s population. In 2006, two million people were behind bars and another four and one-half million were under some form of custody—probation or parole. By 2010 those numbers reached 2.4 million behind bars with a total of more 7.5 million under some form of correctional supervision. Even when South Africa was under apartheid, the US imprisoned more blacks both in absolute numbers and per capita.[ii] Criminal justice expenditures have been rising since the mid-1970s, rising an additional 95 percent by states in the 1980s, compared to a decline in state spending on education of six percent.[iii] In California, spending on criminal justice now exceeds its spending on higher education, with ten percent of its general fund going to prisons versus seven percent going to higher education. This has happened even while index crime rates have been falling in California and nationally since the early 1990s.

"For the middle class, the answer to keeping them in line in this game of ever-ruthless musical chairs has been deception and fearmongering, about which I have more to say in Chapters Two and Six. This explains what some have observed as otherwise ironic about the GOP’s rhetorical stance with regard to government: while they rail against the alleged waste of “big government” and seek to slash government programs, they have constantly bolstered state expenditures for coercion and security and moved to bail out and protect the behemoth corporations, throwing hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars at them when they are/were in danger of bankruptcy. Moreover, by continually outsourcing formerly governmental activities to private companies, the two major parties can continue to claim that they are reducing government while actually expanding governmental spending, except now under the auspices of private, for-profit companies." (Pp. 54-56)

Fourth, Obama has the nerve to say: "Over the last three years, we've opened up millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I'm directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources." If you haven't seen the excellent new documentary Gasland, then go see it, quickly. It shows how this so-called "clean" fuel of natural gas exploration has been a disaster for those who live in proximity to the drilling and that it has produced horrid leakages of toxic chemicals into the water table, including causing some homeowners' water faucets' water to catch fire when a flame is put to their water. Obama says he's going to require the companies to list all of the chemicals that they are using in the exploration. As if that would change the situation! Note from the documentary Gasland where the existing sites for this natural gas exploration is and where they are planning to put more, including in some of the most populous areas in the country such as the NY/NJ metro area.

Fifth, Obama ratcheted up and won't remove from the table any options to use against Iran in the name of stopping them from producing a nuclear weapon. And this is after Leon Panetta recently admitted that Iran isn't producing a nuclear weapon. Past is prologue. See next item #6 below:

Sixth, and relatedly, Obama starts his speech by lauding the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, wars which are war crimes in and of themselves since they were pre-emptive invasions of these countries upon nations that had not threatened and had not attacked the US first.

The state of the union is as fragmented and fractured as before while our lead speechifer papers over the deep divisions and tries to conceal a fundamental fact:

“To grasp what is going on we have to probe beneath the surface to the underlying forces at play. The problems of capitalism that are now being expressed are not simply the product of a few (or even a lot of) greedy, corrupt, and shortsighted business figures. They are not primarily the result of poor monitoring by the Federal Reserve and the federal government. They did not arise principally because of an inattentive media. They are not fixable through a set of adjustments or through electing one party over the other, or installing into power one individual or another. They are not mainly the fault of a mall-obsessed, savings-allergic public. These are systemic problems. Life will never again be the same as the life Americans have known for the last few generations. The limits of consumption are upon us if we will only recognize them. But recognizing what is up is not so easy. Systems do not change just because you put a new face in the White House and new faces in Congress.” (p. 74)

[i] As Currie put it in Elliott Currie, Reckoning: Drugs, the Cities and the American Future (New York: Hill and Wang, 1994), 19:

Under the impact of the drug war, indeed, the correctional system has become our principal public agency for disadvantaged young men – their chief source of publicly supported housing and one of their most important sources of employment, nutrition, and medical care. We now spend considerably more on institutional housing for the poor via the jail and prison systems than we do on ordinary public housing for low-income people: eight times as much is spent on corrections as on low-rent public housing, for example, and nearly twice as much as on public housing and rent subsidies for the poor combined.

[ii] Becky Pettit and Bruce Western, “Mass Imprisonment and the Life Course: Race and Class Inequality in US Incarceration,” American Sociological Review, April 2004, 151:

Combining administrative, survey, and census data, we estimate that among men born between 1965 and 1969, 3 percent of whites and 20 percent of blacks had served time in prison by their early thirties. The risks of incarceration are highly stratified by education. Among black men born during this period, 30 percent of those without college education and nearly 60 percent of high school dropouts went to prison by 1999. The novel pervasiveness of imprisonment indicates the emergence of incarceration as a new stage in the life course of young low-skill black men.


[iii] Tara-Jen Ambrosio and Vincent Schiraldi, “From Classrooms to Cell Blocks: A National Perspective,” Justice Policy Institute, 1998, abstract cited at the National Criminal Justice Reference Service online,, accessed February 6, 2011.

Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
I applaud you Dennis for doing such a fine time with this.
I watched the sppech too and pondered long and hard on it. What was said and what was not.
'Tis a very sad state of affairs when the choice for progressives is choosing the kind face we know over the ukind face wel remeber from the last disasterour administration.
I so want to protest by voting for anyone else. But we truly, as I see it, have little else to choose from.
Watching the complete disaster of fracking and drinking water issues is a scary thought. To lure people into signing away their rights to gain a few relative dollars to some corporate entity and pollute drinking water over a widespread area is completely revolting. Stopping it seems impossible.
Writing and speaking out is the only clear thing to do. For this I commend you.
i know it's all obama's fault. why don't u run? when u get to earth, that is.

Thank you Mission. You're one of the people who makes what I do worthwhile. Speaking out in all the various ways we can - writing, art, actions, talking to those you know and to strangers - is extremely important. Voting isn't a choice. Voting is a trap and a deception. You can't vote out a system and it's the system that is the problem. I keep saying this but some people like Ben Sen refuse to hear it. They can't get outside of the proverbial box of thinking that the only choice we have is to vote for A or B or to run ourselves. What they'd benefit from is opening up their minds a little to see that systems have systems logic and you can't change system logic even if you were personally in charge of it. Even if Obama were the good guy that he pretends to be, if he were to do the right thing, which he could and should do and would do if he really were on the side of angels, he'd not remain in office for long. What could he do if he were really a good guy? He could have, first of all, refused to do most of the things he voluntarily did when he assumed the office such as, most recently, vetoing or simply not signing the NDAA. He could have, for example, not demanded that Congress insert American citizens into the bill as subject to its provisions (inasmuch as Congress had not included that, even though the bill itself either way is fascist in nature). He could have not banned the morning after pill for girls citing fabricated grounds. He could have declined to carry out the ubiquitous surveillance. He could have released the rest of the torture photos which would have created such a public outrage that prosecutions of the torturers like Bush and Cheney would have been relatively easy and he could have by that single act alone damaged the GOP's electoral chances for years to come. Etc. Etc. But he's done none of these things. And people like Ben Sen continue to keep their heads in the sand...
Just realized that there was a second point I was going to make. Here it is:

Obama, if he really wanted to do the right thing, could hold a live national speech. In that speech he could reveal what is really going on and the truth behind the lies that he has been so willing a participant in. He could also arrange beforehand to have a voluminous document with supporting documentation released via the Internet because once it became clear that he was saying the truth about what's going on, the TV cameras would suddenly lose power. Thus, he'd probably get in over the air live about 5-10 minutes of telling people the whole truth but the documentation via the Internet could go out to the whole world and couldn't be stopped from distribution.

He could do that. He'd probably get killed for doing it but he'd have done an extraordinary service to all of humankind and the planet and would be hailed by most of humanity for eons.
If the liberals of this country would finally come to grips with reality…with what can and cannot be done in the current toxic political environment…maybe they could at least stem the downward spiral the liberal brand has managed to engender.

Conservative candidates continue to battle among themselves about who is the most conservative; who has been the true conservative for the longest time; and who will govern from the most conservative perspective—they proudly proclaim their conservatism. Liberal candidates don’t even mention the word—they shrink from it because it has become the kiss of death in our society!

Voters who call themselves staunch conservatives do anything and everything in their power to enable conservatives and ridicule liberals; their intent is to defeat liberals and liberalism.

Voters who call themselves staunch liberals do anything and everything in their power to find fault with anyone who is not insane…who is not willing to alienate him/herself from the vast majority of the American public and pursue policies that are inherently unattainable at this time. Voters who call themselves staunch liberals piss on opportunities to further progressive initiatives incrementally and pragmatically…and seem intent on helping their most vocal political enemies.

Liberals live in a world of fantasy…and do as much to tarnish the liberal/progressive brand as the most ideological conservatives.

I will happily vote for Barack Obama’s re-election…and live with what I see as the inevitable consequences of the shortsightedness of the liberal base. I suspect we will all find out if the brilliant liberal plan of abandoning Obama will lead to a better, fairer, more decent climate for America when this dazzling strategy results in someone of Newt Gingrich’s ilk gaining the Oval Office.
I don't think the apisabot even read Your post, AGAIN, Dennis.

In fact, this time, he cut and pasted the same post on three different blogs, already, this morning.

I think ben and fRANK should start a third party and call it "rational" people in support of lies, torture and genocide.

Your blog post opens You up to the (gasp) apisa accusation of being like a "professional liberal," Dennis.

I have decided to pollute your blog after all. Delete me, don't answer me, but I will have my say. I finally understood what you meant last time when you said you do support the idea of elections, just not any kind of elections within the context of the present political system. You envision an Occupy movement of such depth and breadth sweeping the country that tens of thousands of grass roots local General assemblies will come into existence, drawing perhaps millions of supporters via the Internet, resulting in elections within the context of a Federation of General Assemblies. The resulting elected leaders will lead a continuingly growing Occupy movement which, in time, will supplant the present corrupted establishment electoral process. There may be violent clashes between a growing Occupy movement and reactionary forces but you are confident Occupy will prevail over time. You are insane Dennis...come back to Planet Earth like Ben-Ben suggests and you can be treated with anti-psychotic medications...wink
The tide of growing class consciousness in the US will fuel the organic genesis of tens of thousands of local General Assemblies throughout the schools, workplaces, office buildings, industrial works and parks, apartment buildings, etc., etc. Workers will clash with capitalist business owners and their fascist police lackeys but gradually even the police/security forces will be imbued with a growing class awareness of their best interests and begin defecting to the General Assemblies. This utopian revolutionary Communist vision of Amerika in the near future qualifies you for accommodation in a lunatic asylum, without doubt...dubble wink
Frank -

I'm not a liberal.
Frank - I'm not a liberal.

I understand, Dennis. You’ve mentioned that several times.

I am not a liberal either, as I have mentioned several times.

The comment I made about how liberals might strengthen the “liberal brand”—which might aid in getting politicians more interested in pursuing liberal initiatives and stopping them from continuing policies set by conservative politicians (in good part the subject of your comments)…were aimed at liberals.

Even though I accept that you are not a liberal, it appeared to me that you were aiming your comments, in part, at a liberal audience.

I am not a liberal…and I was aiming my response to the same audience—and you, of course.