Come Back New Hampshire

Yvonne Abraham had a great rant in the Boston Globe this weekend about the key role New Hampshire has traditionally played in the presidential primaries. I hope I can capture the essence, but if not please read the original article.

There is a constant debate about whether it is a good idea to have two small and unique states such as Iowa and New Hampshire with such as important role in the primaries.  Winning in one of these two states can snowball into more media attention, more big money contributions, jumps in the polls, which then leads to wins in the next few states, more media attention, more big money, higher poll numbers, and so on.  On the other hand, losing in these states can do the same thing in reverse.

But Yvonne has a good point in favor.  Historically, New Hampshire has required candidates to go small town by small town, meeting with individuals and very small groups who were relentless in interrogating them on their positions.  They would press and press until they got the real scoop on the candidate.  They cut through the bullshit pretty effectively.  You could never have this in California, Texas, or New York – just too many people and neighborhoods.  A small state like New Hampshire is perfect for this.

But I did say it was a rant, didn’t I? She laments that they have abandoned this key role.  They have allowed candidates like Donald Trump to jet in, bluster in his unique demogogic way, and jet out. No interrogation.  No real scoop.  Now, they are doing the opposite of their traditional role.  A candidate can spend just a little money to convince some key influencers and win the state. They get that snowball effect at bargain basement prices.  This makes it easy for a candidate to fake his or her way to the nomination with a good façade.

So to paraphrase Yvonne – Shame on you New Hampshire!!!  You have a key role to play in the primaries. Get on it before it’s too late !!

Responsa

There is a Jewish tradition called “Responsa” in which a lay Jew asks a rabbi or panel of rabbis for advice on a particular question about religious law or practice that is either too nuanced for him/her to figure out or is related to a modern situation that isn’t covered. The answers are published in sets kind of like the Federal Register so everyone can benefit from the answers. 

I love reading these for a variety of reasons. 

1. As a religious person, I benefit directly by learning from the answers. 
2. As a closet philosopher, I enjoy parsing the logical arguments to see how they come up with the answers.
3. As a policy wonk, I am curious to see how they craft the answers to be true to the core principles of the religion while also adapting to the realities of the modern world, the decreasing religiosity of the population, and the desire (for some rabbis at least) to be inclusive.

The question this week asked what parts of religious practice can non-Jews participate in, particularly during a religious service.  My gut reaction to hearing the question was “Uh-oh, here is a chance for some rabbi to circle the wagons and keep the non-believers out.”  But I was pleasantly surprised.

First, the rabbi noted that the answer should depend on contextual nuances such as whether the non-Jew was someone who was in the process of converting to Judaism, a non-Jewish spouse of a mixed marriage who is supporting the Jewish spouse by attending service, a random visitor, or someone with a strong interest in a limited topic but not the rest.

Then, he gave an answer based on a generalizable framework rather than just saying this or that. This approach really resonated with the policy wonk in me.  What he boiled it down to is whether the particular activity is something that Jews are religiously obligated to do.  In that case, a non-Jew doing it would take the spot away from someone who needs that spot.  That would be unfair. But for anything else, it should be permitted (if not encouraged). This would include leading prayers that are not part of the core service, participating in a social or charitable activity – even bringing sacrifices to the Temple (if it is ever rebuilt) excepting the mandatory sacrifices of the major holidays.

Interesting thoughts. A great example of why I like following these.

This Week in EID - Episode 85

Can’t argue with the topics we covered on EID this week.  Food, user experience, convenience, teams, thinking types, falling for bullsh*t, self-delusion, design . . .  all some of my favorites.

If you missed any, feel free to browse.  And even better, leave us some comments.  We love to hear from you.

Have a very happy holidays.