August 31, 2005


New Hampshire has high income, lowest poverty rate, census says (Katharine Webster, August 30, 2005, Boston Globe)

New Hampshire had the highest median household income and the lowest average poverty rate in the nation from 2002 through 2004, according to data released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau. [...]

The median household income averaged over three years was $57,352 in New Hampshire, compared to the national average of $44,473 and the low in West Virginia of $32,589, the report found. Four other states had high household incomes that were not "statistically different" from New Hampshire's: New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut and Minnesota.

The percentage of New Hampshire residents living in poverty was 5.7, compared to the national average of 12.4 percent and the high in Mississippi of 17.7 percent.

"New Hampshire, you're lucky we let you visit."

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 31, 2005 2:35 PM

You're like the Scandanavia of America.

Posted by: Timothy at August 31, 2005 2:40 PM

I guess thats why its so easy for OJ to spout all his Republican propaganda; he's surrounded by like minds and insulated from the problematic portions of the United States. Must be nice to be so sheltered.

Posted by: Kim at August 31, 2005 2:42 PM

Poor Mississippi. Things just got worse.

Posted by: jdkelly at August 31, 2005 2:48 PM

Earth to Kim:

I really don't think that New Hampshire is exactly a Republican bastion. If you'd like, you could visit a Democratic voting state that I live in, Wisconsin. You could come here and smell our dairy-air.

Posted by: AllenS at August 31, 2005 2:50 PM


It's one of the reddest states in America.

Posted by: oj at August 31, 2005 2:52 PM

Earth to Allen:

Rich people from NY retire and move to New Hampshire and Connecticut. In all honesty, it is a very beautiful state, along with Conn. and VT, I think I would very much like to live there as well.

Posted by: Kim at August 31, 2005 2:56 PM

Kim/Rupert/Ken/Keith/Ted or whoever you are today:
Why don't you pick one screen name and stick with it?

OJ: if NH is as red as you say, why did it turn blue in the 2004 election?

Posted by: Name Nazi at August 31, 2005 3:05 PM

What is the single parent rate compared to

Posted by: tgn at August 31, 2005 3:17 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't NH vote Dem. in the last election? Rich people retire and move to Conn.? Huh? Didn't they vote Dem. as well? NE America is not, and hasn't been a red area.

Posted by: AllenS at August 31, 2005 3:24 PM

I forgot, Earth out.

Posted by: AllenS at August 31, 2005 3:25 PM

Rich people from NY retire and move to New Hampshire and Connecticut.

And rich people from MA. Then those rich people promptly vote Democratic. That's what happened to VT; the old Yankee spirit in New England is very much limited-government conservatism.

Posted by: John Thacker [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 31, 2005 3:46 PM

I guess thats why its so easy for OJ to spout all his Republican propaganda; he's surrounded by like minds and insulated from the problematic portions of the United States.

. . . wrote the person who gets all of his/her news and information from either DailyKos or Democratic Underground.

The echo chamber effect is a risk for anyone who spends time in the blogosphere, but more so for the folks in the left half. OJ frequently links to commentary from the opposition, and gives the loyal (and even disloyal) opposition pretty free rein in the comments section.

This is not unusual. It seems to me that most other conservative bloggers are far more likely to engage the left rather than shut them out. Express a dissenting opinion on Kos or DU, no matter how politely, and you're a "Freeper troll wingnut" who gets banned in a New York minute.

Posted by: Mike Morley at August 31, 2005 3:56 PM

New Hampshire: Sucking Massachusetts dry for more than twenty-five years.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 31, 2005 4:02 PM

Mike: OJ is in the left half of the blogosphere.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 31, 2005 4:04 PM

Um - didn't NH go for Clinton both times as well? I think that's why the mountian man fell.

NH may be red but only in contrast to its surroundings.

Posted by: Shelton at August 31, 2005 4:05 PM

"New Hampshire, you're lucky we let you visit."

I'd love to come but the Time Zone Rule keeps me at home, admiring the cornfields.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at August 31, 2005 4:41 PM

A bad GOP governor took down Bush, but the entire congressional delegation, both houses of the legislature and the unique executive council (more powerful than the governor in some ways) are all GOP.

Posted by: oj at August 31, 2005 4:48 PM


The rule requires that one never leave the Eastern Time Zone of the United States.

Posted by: oj at August 31, 2005 4:49 PM

David Cohen:

I'm not sure why you keep saying that. Mr. Judd might be a bit heterodox but a self-declared Republican who regularly denigrates the Democratic party can't be considered leftist by any stretch.

Mike Morley:

Check out some of the comments directed at banned pro-Reagan posters in this (hyper-profane) DU thread right after Reagan died. As you might expect, the majority of posters were popping champagne corks over the news.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at August 31, 2005 4:51 PM


Yes, we don't care who governs you lot--we elect Republicans to run our state.

Posted by: oj at August 31, 2005 4:52 PM


It's awfully wet.

Posted by: oj at August 31, 2005 4:53 PM


Your rule does.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at August 31, 2005 4:54 PM


I'm anti-libertarian and pro liberty which does indeed make me a Leftist as far as the blogosphere is concerned. The Right, as far as blogs are concerned, is that small group of white males over 20 who still envy Alan Greenspan for being Ayn Rand's boy toy.

Posted by: oj at August 31, 2005 4:58 PM


Posted by: oj at August 31, 2005 5:02 PM

Matt: I think I say it only in particular circumstances: Kyoto will lead to a increased economic growth; the President is a moron; W is a "third-way" president (and that's a good thing); and there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 31, 2005 5:20 PM


I think that may be the shortest response by OJ yet, otherwise, it goes back to, "OJ wept."

Posted by: Mike Beversluis at August 31, 2005 5:44 PM

I'm sure he has posted just the word 'it' sometime. Or 'is'. But I've only been visiting here for about 18 months.

Posted by: jim hamlen at August 31, 2005 5:54 PM


Posted by: oj at August 31, 2005 5:58 PM

As I've said before, in addition to being a leftist oj is also a Klingon:

oj: K'PLAGH!

Confused Commenter #1: "K'plagh"?! What the heck does "k'plagh" mean?

Helpful Commenter #2: I think it means that rationalists can't derive Judeo-Christian morality independently. Either that or Eric and Julia Roberts are the same person.

oj: Yes, k'plagh.

Posted by: joe shropshire at August 31, 2005 6:06 PM

Joe: My theory is that the person that wrote the Chomskybot script created an inverse function and called it OJ. The results do have a certain koan-like appeal.

Posted by: Mike Beversluis at August 31, 2005 6:24 PM

Ever consider the possibility that you're just slow, joe?



Your rule does.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at August 31, 2005 04:54 PM



Posted by: oj at August 31, 2005 05:02 PM

Posted by: oj at August 31, 2005 7:54 PM

I'm way past you on that one, Matt.

Posted by: joe shropshire at August 31, 2005 8:05 PM


Posted by: jim hamlen at August 31, 2005 9:17 PM


Posted by: joe shropshire at August 31, 2005 10:21 PM


Posted by: oj at August 31, 2005 11:09 PM


Posted by: Dave W. at August 31, 2005 11:21 PM


Re: Time Zone Rules. I have one and so do you. "The" is correct when I refer to mine, "your" when I mention yours.

Many libertarians actually hate Alan Greenspan because he supposedly sold them out. But they think Murray Rothbard is the soul of reason.

I was using real-world political categories in describing your views. As a general rule, I don't use the blogosphere as a point of reference. That way lies madness.

David Cohen:

One of those examples is doubtful because we have to take Perlstein's word for it that OJ referred to Bush (in all seriousness) as a "moron." OJ's past opinions appear to indicate that he actually thinks the president quite shrewd.

Another example ("Third Way") makes OJ out as a centrist, not a leftist.

Another example ("no right to keep/bear arms") is a view propounded by Robert Bork.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at September 1, 2005 1:53 AM

Plus, if Orrin sells out the 2nd Amendment, that sets precedence for selling out the 1st Amendment and getting rid of wicked pornography like the Victoria's Secret catalogue and the Sears Sunday bra ads.
Like someone around here once said, "Orrin hides more cards than Miss Cleo."

Posted by: Governor Breck at September 1, 2005 7:34 AM

You don't need to sell them out, just acknowledge they aren't absolute, as Madison did.

Posted by: oj at September 1, 2005 8:13 AM

Matt: No need to be more Catholic than the Pope. OJ admits to being a leftist, if something of a special purpose leftist. (I didn't even mention his working on Democratic campaigns.)

It is important that we all remember that the "Third Way" is what socialists started calling socialism after it became clear that socialism was untenable.

Posted by: David Cohen at September 1, 2005 9:29 AM

"You don't need to sell them out, just acknowledge they aren't absolute, as Madison did."

So now you've gone from wanting them repealed to saying only that "they aren't aboslute." Trying to follow your politcal logic is like being on that mine car ride in Temple of Doom.

Posted by: Governor Breck at September 1, 2005 9:37 AM


And what successful Republicans adopted after it became clear conservatism wasn't tenable.

Posted by: oj at September 1, 2005 9:40 AM


Yes, since we aren't ever going to follow them it would be better if they were repealed and the concept of liberty explained more fully, rather than the cancerous assertion of rights willy-nilly.

It is true nevertheless that not a few, particularly in Virginia have contended for the proposed alterations from the most honorable & patriotic motives; and that among the advocates for the Constitution, there are some who wish for further guards to public liberty & individual rights. As far as these may consist of a constitutional declaration of the most essential rights, it is probable they will be added; though there are many who think such addition unnecessary, and not a few who think it misplaced in such a Constitution. There is scarce any point on which the party in opposition is so much divided as to its importance and its propriety. My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. I have favored it because I supposed it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice. I have not viewed it in an important light 1. because I conceive that in a certain degree, though not in the extent argued by Mr. Wilson, the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted. 2 because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of Conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power. One of the objections in New England was that the Constitution by prohibiting religious tests opened a door for Jews Turks & infidels. 3. because the limited powers of the federal Government and the jealousy of the subordinate Governments, afford a security which has not existed in the case of the State Governments, and exists in no other. 4 because experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights on those occasions when its controul is most needed. Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current. Notwithstanding the explicit provision contained in that instrument for the rights of Conscience it is well known that a religious establishment wd. have taken place in that State, if the legislative majority had found as they expected, a majority of the people in favor of the measure; and I am persuaded that if a majority of the people were now of one sect, the measure would still take place and on narrower ground than was then proposed, notwithstanding the additional obstacle which the law has since created. Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is cheifly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. This is a truth of great importance, but not yet sufficiently attended to: and is probably more strongly impressed on my mind by facts, and reflections suggested by them, than on yours which has contemplated abuses of power issuing from a very different quarter. Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful & interested party than by a powerful and interested prince. The difference, so far as it relates to the superiority of republics over monarchies, lies in the less degree of probability that interest may prompt abuses of power in the former than in the latter; and in the security in the former agst. oppression of more than the smaller part of the society, whereas in the [latter] it may be extended in a manner to the whole. The difference so far as it relates to the point in question--the efficacy of a bill of rights in controuling abuses of power--lies in this, that in a monarchy the latent force of the nation is superior to that of the sovereign, and a solemn charter of popular rights must have a great effect, as a standard for trying the validity of public acts, and a signal for rousing & uniting the superior force of the community; whereas in a popular Government, the political and physical power may be considered as vested in the same hands, that is in a majority of the people, and consequently the tyrannical will of the sovereign is not [to] be controuled by the dread of an appeal to any other force within the community. What use then it may be asked can a bill of rights serve in popular Governments? I answer the two following which though less essential than in other Governments, sufficiently recommend the precaution. 1. The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion. 2. Altho' it be generally true as above stated that the danger of oppression lies in the interested majorities of the people rather than in usurped acts of the Government, yet there may be occasions on which the evil may spring from the latter sources; and on such, a bill of rights will be a good ground for an appeal to the sense of the community. Perhaps too there may be a certain degree of danger, that a succession of artful and ambitious rulers, may by gradual & well-timed advances, finally erect an independent Government on the subversion of liberty. Should this danger exist at all, it is prudent to guard agst. it, especially when the precaution can do no injury. At the same time I must own that I see no tendency in our governments to danger on that side. It has been remarked that there is a tendency in all Governments to an augmentation of power at the expence of liberty. But the remark as usually understood does not appear to me well founded. Power when it has attained a certain degree of energy and independence goes on generally to further degrees. But when below that degree, the direct tendency is to further degrees of relaxation, until the abuses of liberty beget a sudden transition to an undue degree of power. With this explanation the remark may be true; and in the latter sense only is it in my opinion applicable to the Governments in America. It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government have too much or too little power, and that the line which divides these extremes should be so inaccurately defined by experience.

Supposing a bill of rights to be proper the articles which ought to compose it, admit of much discussion. I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public; and after repeated violations in extraordinary cases, they will lose even their ordinary efficacy.

Posted by: oj at September 1, 2005 9:47 AM


finding support for this attachment of yours to so-called 'third way' solutions in conservative moves toward the left is so Rockefeller Republican of you. most leftists believe history started with the new deal and it looks like you do too.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at September 1, 2005 2:17 PM


Rockefeller believed in the Second Way as did the Roosevelts, Churchill, Ike, Nixon, Ford, the senior Bush, etc.

Posted by: oj at September 1, 2005 4:15 PM

How is conservatism not tenable, and when did that become clear. I'll take Ronald Wilson Reagan over George Herbert Walker Bush any day.

Posted by: David Cohen at September 1, 2005 7:14 PM

It became clear when Reagan "saved" Social Security.

Posted by: oj at September 1, 2005 7:31 PM

I'll second David on that one. By the way, when did it become clear that the "Third Way" was tenable?

Posted by: joe shropshire at September 1, 2005 7:46 PM

"New Hampshire, we're not New Jersey (except for that 'New' part)."

Posted by: John J. Coupal at September 1, 2005 7:49 PM

When Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Tony Blair, John Howard, & George W. Bush demonstrated its overwhelming political appeal.

Posted by: oj at September 1, 2005 7:50 PM

I said tenable.

Posted by: joe shropshire at September 1, 2005 8:03 PM

It's winning elections in the three major states of the Anglosphere and has been utilized in places like New Zealand and Chile for years now. There won't be a single Republican seeking the nomination in '08 who isn't running on the Third Way.

Hillary will at least flirt with it and her running mate will be someone like Bill Richardson who's at least nominally associated with it.

Posted by: oj at September 1, 2005 8:08 PM

You're not listening. But I repeat myself. The Third Way is just welfare statism, oj. Of course welfare statism wins elections; and of course welfare states go bankrupt. They bleed out. The Anglosphere may do that slower than the EU but there will come a day when we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us. I'll probably be dead by then but you have kids. This is what you want for their future?

Posted by: joe shropshire at September 1, 2005 8:29 PM


Yes, the point is that the citizenry demands some level of social security, a welfare net of some density or other. The genius of the Third Way is that it uses mandates and market forces to knit the net. Welfare Reform with work requirements, Privatized Social Security, Health Savings accounts, School Vouchers, personal unemployment accounts, Faith Based Initiative, etc. essentially force the populace to fund its own welfare. That's very much the kind of future we should leave our kids and will.

More important, there's never going to be a successful national candidate who proposes undoing any of the net--that argument was lost.

Posted by: oj at September 1, 2005 8:36 PM


I'm not sure "Third Way" is the correct designation, though. All of those ideas are to the right of the status quo and are essentially reliant on free-market principles. Even the purist libertarians who complain about the Bush administration frequently fail to see that we're at least moving things in their direction.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at September 2, 2005 4:37 AM


Yes, the Third Way moves the Left to the Right of the New Deal/Great Society status quo and requires the Right to recognize they can't go back to the pre-New Deal. Libertarians can never accept it because of the mandates.

Posted by: oj at September 2, 2005 6:56 AM

If Reagan falls within your definition of the Third Way, then fine. You're saying more or less the same thing I mean when I say that modern conservatism envelopes the entire range of late 19th and early 20th century politics. Once we marginalize the socialists, we can start to fight amongst ourselves, where the interesting questions are.

Nonetheless, the term "Third Way" is what socialists are now calling socialism. No conservative uses that term.

Posted by: David Cohen at September 2, 2005 9:37 AM

No, Reagan was basically a New Dealer as president. He was too much a child of the Depression to really challenge the traditional welfare state.

Yes, conservatives make up other names for it, but it's still just the Third Way--a welfare safety net by capitalist means.

Posted by: oj at September 2, 2005 9:55 AM

That's not a difference you can split, oj. There is no such thing, in the long run, as a welfare state by capitalist means. Sooner or later the welfare state will win, and both right and left know this. There is no significant question to which Bill Clinton is the answer. The only one who believes otherwise is you.

Posted by: joe shropshire at September 2, 2005 1:12 PM


No, you misunderstand. The issue has already been decided--democratic peoples demand a welfare state. The question that remains is whether it should be structured along the statist lines that have prevailed since its inception, with a central government controlling every aspect of it and doling out the checks, or whether that system can and should be replaced by a series of mandates and a loose framework, which requires individuals to essentially fund their own welfare net. So, for instance, no one proposes that Social Security be done away with and that we return to the 20s. But the Third Way suggests that individuals could fund and control their own accounts within uniform parameters established by the federal government. Other states are more advanced than we in this regard, but it seems reasonably likely that this is where we're headed. As you and David point out, this could easily be considered just another form of socialism. It's also the most extreme Rightwards shift that any conservative party anywhere proposes.

Posted by: oj at September 2, 2005 2:00 PM