Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 206

The People vs. O.J. Simpson and the Mess of History

The O.J. Simpson murder trial is often spoken of as a saga, a turning point, a defining moment: something that summed up an essential truth. But what was that truth? Was it about the justice system? Race? Media, celebrity, and bias? Or, more simply, was it about the brutal deaths of two innocent people?

The answer, of course, includes all of those things. But it’s important to be careful when saying real history is about anything at all. The trial wasn’t a myth or fable with a moral to impart on mankind. It was real life: Things happened in relationship to one another, and many of those relationships remain irreducible to abstract concepts or, even, language. Whatever else the O.J. Simpson trial may have been, it was a collection of facts and events. It was data.

Eight episodes in—with two more to go—FX’s The People vs. OJ Simpson: American Crime Story has done as successful a job as anyone could hope, given its medium, in presenting this data as complicated and multivalent. This week, by shifting for one hour to a vantage point that viewers haven’t yet inhabited—that of the jury—Tuesday night’s excellent installment further underscored just how tangled real history can be. It was almost a bottle episode, but not quite, which suited the subject matter: No one element can be wholly separated from another.

The irony is that separation is exactly what Judge Lance Ito set out to achieve in sending 12 jury members and 12 alternates into extreme sequestration for eight and a half months. "We will try to make this something less than ... an experience of incarceration, but it won't be a picnic," Ito told those citizens at the outset, according to press accounts at the time. By now, the show has made obvious why such drastic measures were taken. The ubiquity of the case meant that a glance at a TV, an encounter with a neighbor, or a flip through a Reader’s Digest could contaminate members of the jury pool (who, perhaps more for logistical reasons, were also banned from their hotel’s actual swimming pool).

But even after they were removed from the world, could the jury really be thought of as pure? The bulk of the show’s intrigue, after all, is about the attempts by both the prosecution and the defense to manipulate the people in the jury box, in ways that go beyond the strict presentation of evidence. The selection process earlier in the season, where race and gender played a huge role, highlighted how the two sides sought jurors not for their open-mindedness but for their predispositions. And in this episode, we saw how sequestration itself might represent a kind of jury-tampering: It messed with their heads. Locked in a hotel with a handful of others, the jurors began to form bonds with guards, even holding a “strike” when Ito rotated likable ones out. Forbidden from arguing with one another about the case, they argued with each other about which VHS to put on—Martin or Seinfeld?

Even in that latter, banal debate, one of the Great Themes of the whole case seeped in: race. The series opened with images of the Rodney King beating and L.A. riots, a reminder of the context that may have swung the verdict in Simpson’s favor. The show has since preceded with remarkable nuance on the topic, nailing some of the essential ways that skin color makes a material difference in peoples’ lives. Prejudice is part of the picture, but not its entirety. Race, viewers are reminded, relates to social networks, which relates to culture, which relates to worldview. It can influence which sitcom you prefer, which discount retailer you prefer, and whether you expect justice from institutions or not. Of course, on the show as in life, no single attribute determines a person’s complete identity. Turns out, O.J. likes Seinfeld a lot.

Scott Alexander, Larry Karaszewski, Ryan Murphy, and the rest of the show's writing and directing team work the show’s many motifs—including the media’s amorality, the court’s corruptibility, and the lawyers’ petty humanity—like symphony composers: Themes surge, recede, and work in counterpoint. It certainly helps that the material’s richness continues to astound. This latest episode mined yet another fascinating subplot, the fact that the case introduced DNA evidence to a national audience. And the jury strike, a nearly unprecedented act that has been mostly forgotten today, was handled deftly. On another show, it might have been used to symbolize some big idea about the state of the case as it dragged on. But its portrayal here was grounded in the specific circumstances of the jury’s sequestration. Again: Data, not abstraction.

Often, the show will underplay the most tawdry elements.

The involvement of the American Horror Story and Nip/Tuck guru Ryan Murphy initially seemed like an omen that American Crime Story would be all frothy, freaky sensationalization. Turns out that it’s partly that, but probably not more so than the spectacle of the trial actually was. Often, the show will underplay the most tawdry elements: Marcia Clark’s leaked nude photo is barely mentioned and never shown in mock-up; Jay Leno’s “Dancing Itos” are onscreen in front of the real Ito for only a second. The fact that the ephemera is only glimpsed rather than gazed at helps remind the audience of just how enormous the cultural impact of this case was—and paradoxically, how relatively tasteful FX’s rendering of it has ended up being.

Perhaps the most queasy fact about the show is how, when watching it, it’s easy to forget about the grizzly loss of innocent life that precipitated it all. This too, mirrors reality to an extent. Queue up the aforementioned “dancing Itos” segment from 1995 and you’ll see it was preceded by a lighthearted parody of the trial set to the tune of Gilligan's Island, with no mention of Nicole Brown Simpson or Ronald Goldman. On The People vs. O.J. Simpson, their fates seem front-of-mind only to David Schwimmer’s Robert Kardashian, the dazed, impressionable conscience of the defense. This latest episode’s emotional climax came when he told his ex-wife Kris that he can barely look at O.J. anymore. She advised him to quit the case; he replied by listing all the consequences that doing so would entail personally and publicly, for him and for his family, because of the media and because of the courts. The clean question of right and wrong was complicated by small, inescapable truths for him, as it was for so many others in this case.

Why Did Jeb Bush Endorse Ted Cruz?

A little over a month after Jeb Bush suspended his presidential campaign, he endorsed Ted Cruz— yet another establishment figure backing the self-proclaimed outsider.

On Wednesday, Bush said in a Facebook post, “Ted is a consistent, principled conservative who has demonstrated the ability to appeal to voters and win primary contests, including yesterday’s Utah caucus.” He added: “Washington is broken, too many families are stuck in poverty and Western civilization is under attack from radical Islamic terrorists, as evidenced by the horrific attack in Brussels, which was preceded by attacks in Paris and California.”

The endorsement reiterates a point that Cruz had made consistently on the campaign trail—that he is the only one who has won contests against Donald Trump. Bush himself struggled to do so in his pursuit for the White House, failing to win any of the first three nominating contests. In his statement Wednesday, the former Florida governor continued to express his distaste for the Republican front-runner.  

“For the sake of our party and country, we must overcome the divisiveness and vulgarity Donald Trump has brought into the political arena or we will certainly lose our chance to defeat the Democratic nominee, most likely Hillary Clinton, this fall,” Bush said.

The endorsement reflects a new level of confidence in Cruz from the establishment—or at least, resigned acceptance. Months ago, Trump and Cruz were paired as the outsiders in the race. But Trump’s commanding lead likely played a key role in Bush’s decision. Notably, John Kasich was left out of the statement. The Ohio governor, who won his home state last week, plans to stay in the race. His continued presence has become a point of contention as Cruz looks to garner support from the same mainstream conservatives Kasich is courting.

Cruz welcomed Bush’s endorsement, saying it is “further evidence that Republicans are continuing to unite behind our campaign to nominate a proven conservative to defeat Hillary Clinton in November, take back the White House, and ensure a freer and more prosperous America for future generations.”

Bush’s decision to delay his endorsement until after Florida’s primary is, in part, a blow to Marco Rubio. (Rubio has since exited the race.) But Bush’s backing may still help Cruz consolidate support.

A slew of endorsements have come Cruz’s way as of late, including from former rivals Lindsey Graham and Carly Fiorina. Graham originally backed Bush after his exit from the 2016 race, but conceded last week he had picked his poison and would fundraise for Cruz. Bush’s brother Neil also decided to join Cruz’s finance team earlier this month. Add to the list Mitt Romney, who said he planned to vote for Cruz in the Utah caucuses on Tuesday—though he’s also expressed support for Kasich. But whether a list of endorsements from these figures can sway the race against Trump, who has thrived off resentment among voters with the establishment, remains to be seen.

How Belgium Tried and Failed to Stop Jihadist Attacks

“What we feared has happened. We were hit by blind attacks.”

That’s how Belgian Prime Minster Charles Michel described Tuesday’s attacks in Brussels. They point to the paradox at play in the tiny, divided Low Country nation: Ever since the Paris attacks in November 2015, Belgian counterterrorism officials have been on high alert, and yet they correctly worried that deadly violence was inevitable. While the details of the attacks remain to be discovered and reconstructed, there are still some hints of why it was so hard to prevent an attack. Belgium has long been a center for Islamist terrorism, but certain aspects of the state’s structure and relationship with Europe also made it difficult for the government to fight back.

Related Story

What We Know About the Explosions in Brussels

Thomas Joscelyn, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and senior editor of The Long War Journal, echoed Michel’s point on Fox News Tuesday morning.

“If you talk to any Belgian counterterrorism or intelligence officials, no one—no one—is surprised by this,” he said. “You can go all the way back to 2014 to Belgian authorities saying this was coming. They’ve launched a series of counterterrorism raids because they know that known terrorists are operating on their spoil. This is the least surprising outcome that you could see.”

The Paris attacks were carried out by a team that included Belgian nationals and residents. Belgium has a sizable Muslim population—roughly on par with that of other Northern European countries—but by some tallies has sent more fighters to join ISIS per capita than any other country in Europe. In Brussels’s Molenbeek neighborhood, the epicenter of Belgian jihadism, there’s high unemployment, an isolated Muslim population, poor education, and a lack of government services.

These problems were not unknown before the Paris attacks. Belgium has grappled with Islamist terrorism since as far back as the 1980s, and various observers had voiced concerns about jihadism in Molenbeek and lack of policing prior to last November. In January 2015, for example, following attacks on Paris offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, Belgian authorities launched a series of terrorism-related raids, sweeping up suspects. “The Belgian police may claim today to have ‘averted a Belgian Charlie Hebdo,’ but it’s clear that the country’s radicalization problem is much larger, and will take more than police raids to address,” Slate’s Joshua Keating warned at the time.

After the Paris attacks of November 13, Belgium further stepped up its counterterrorism efforts, with police police launching raids in Molenbeek in the days immediately afterward. “You have a very high concentration in Molenbeek and that could well be the essence of the story,” said Interior Minister Jan Jambon at the time. “Moreover, local authorities have been rather lax in this respect for many years.”

From November 21 to 25, the enforcement expanded to the entirety of the city, with the capital effectively on lockdown. Schools and public transit closed. NATO and the European Union, both of which are based in Brussels, found their operations disrupted. A reported 1,000 officers combed the city in search of Salah Abdeslam, a suspect in the Paris attacks. But the dragnet failed to ensnare Abdeslam, who would not be caught until March 18.

After that, officials eased up a bit on the visible enforcement. Local tourist authorities launched campaigns to convince would-be visitors that the capital was still safe and vibrant. At the same time, behind the scenes, Belgium was playing catch-up. The government worked to beef up its intelligence services, adding personnel and cash. The state’s intelligence community is believed to be smaller than those of its neighbors, accounting for size, despite the large jihadist problem, Reuters reported.

Some analysts blamed the overstretched capabilities of Belgian counterterrorism officials for not catching and disrupting the Paris plot, even though many of the attackers were known to be linked to terrorism and had had scrapes with the law before last November. Then, in the wake of the November lockdown, Belgian authorities “made a series of seemingly contradictory announcements about the security situation,” The Guardian reports. “Belgian security services appeared—despite the quality of many individual officials‚ overwhelmed. It was revealed that a few hundred agents were supposed to watch over thousands of potential militants. ‘We are simply exhausted,’ one senior security official said in an email.” Belgian security officials told BuzzFeed’s Mitchell Prothero that practically every possible detective and investigator in the country was detailed to investigating jihad.

But the problem is larger than simple staffing. Within Belgium, longstanding ethnic fractures create barriers to effective policing. And beyond Belgium’s borders, failures to share intelligence between European governments, and the staggering amount of intelligence noise related to possible terrorist plots, make policing extremely difficult.

First, there’s the domestic dynamic. Not unlike the Middle Eastern states set up after World War I, Belgium is a a fragile artificial creation, riven between French- and Flemish-speaking citizens. A consequently weak federal government and distrust among different law-enforcement authorities are said to impede communication, investigation, and apprehension of suspected terrorists. It is also unusually easy to acquire guns in Belgium compared to its neighbors.

Second, police agencies in different European countries do not cooperate effectively among each other. This creates special challenges, not only because terrorism is transnational but because Europe’s Schengen system makes it possible for people—including attackers—to cross borders with ease. Belgian officials had questioned some of the men involved in the Paris attacks prior to last November, but that information was never shared with French authorities. Since those attacks, European officials have been working to improve communication.

Finally, as Joscelyn noted, there’s so much information reaching counterterrorism officials that it’s nearly impossible to sort through it all. “You talk about chatter, there’s just too much of it now, so you have all these officials across the world that are trying to neutralize these persistent threats,” he said.

After months of relative quiet in Europe, there was suddenly fevered action on the terrorism front in mid-March. On March 15, police launched a raid in Brussels, apparently seeking Salah Abdeslam. After they came under fire, police shot and killed another man, who was later identified as Algerian Mohamed Belkaid. But Abdeslam once again escaped capture, although his fingerprints were detected in the raided flat.

Three days later, police finally caught up with Abdeslam, trapping and wounding him in Molenbeek. Foreign Minister Didier Reynders said the only remaining participant in the Paris attacks was cooperating with investigators. Then, on Tuesday, twin attacks at the airport and a metro station struck Brussels, with ISIS claiming responsibility.

Terrorism is an effective tactic around the world because it allows small groups of people to spread hysteria with relatively little manpower, and because it is impossible to prevent entirely, even in a police state. Where a devoted terrorist group exists, it is nearly inevitable its members will eventually succeed to some degree. But in Belgium, jihadists found a society that was unusually susceptible, and exploited it to bloody effect.

What We Know About the Explosions in Brussels

Updated on March 22 at 6:52 p.m. ET

Here’s what we know so far:

—There were two explosions at Brussels’s Zaventem airport at about 8 a.m. local time (3 a.m. ET) and one on the city’s metro system.

—The Belgian government’s Crisis Center said a dozen people were killed at the airport and about 100 wounded. Twenty people were killed in the subway attack and 13 wounded, it added. The numbers are provisional and are likely to increase.

—Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel, in a televised news conference, said “dozens” are dead and wounded in the blasts. He said the blast at the airport was caused by a suicide bomber. The Belgian federal prosecutor added that both attacks were terrorist acts.

—Belgium raised its terror-alert system from three to four, its highest level. Police issued a wanted notice for a man suspected of involvement in the attacks at the airport.

—Security has been stepped up across Europe in the wake of the attacks.

—The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attacks, according to a group that monitor terrorist groups.

Two men “very likely” blew themselves up at Brussels airport Tuesday, and police are looking for a third person, the Belgian federal prosecutor said. The city’s subway system was also targeted at rush hour on Tuesday. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks, which killed at least 32 people and wounded more than 200 others.

Frederic Van Leeuw, the federal prosecutor, told a news conference the Islamic State’s claim of responsibility hadn’t been verified. But, he said, raids were being conducted across Belgium.

Speaking at the same news conference, Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel announced three days of national mourning in response to the attack. He said blasts were an attack on freedom, comparing Brussels to Paris and, before it, London and Madrid.

“It is a common fight,” Michel said. “It is a fight without borders.”

Speaking to the nation on television, King Philippe said Belgians would “continue to work together calmly, surely, and with dignity.”

“We must continue to trust ourselves,” he said. “This is our strength.”

Here’s what happened this morning:

There were two explosions at Zaventem airport at about 8 a.m. local time (3 a.m. ET) near the check-in desks at the departure terminal. The Belgian government’s Crisis Center said 12 people were killed and 100 wounded. Lodewijk De Witte, the provincial governor of Brabant Flanders, said security services had found and detonated a third bomb at the airport. Police later issued an image of a man in light-colored clothing donning a dark hat who they said was a suspect in the attack on Zaventem.

Then, at 9 a.m., during rush hour, a blast hit a train at Maelbeek station, which is near the main European Union buildings. The crisis center said 20 people were killed here and 130 wounded.

Other news organizations are reporting other tolls based on quotes from Belgian officials. All the numbers are provisional and are likely to increase.  

ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack—in Arabic, English, and French—through its Amaq News Agency, according to the SITE intelligence group and others who monitor terrorist activity.  

2) #Amaq's statement identifies Belgium as "a country participating in the international coalition against the Islamic State."

— Rita Katz (@Rita_Katz) March 22, 2016

In response to the attacks, Zaventem airport was closed—and will remain closed Wednesday, according to its CEO— and 200 flights in and out of the city were canceled. The city’s public transportation and main train stations were closed, but reopened later in the day with heavy security. Belgium raised its terror-threat level from three to four, the maximum level, and Van Leeuw’s office said the federal prosecutor’s anti-terrorism unit has opened a criminal investigation into the explosions. Police were searching for suspects in the Schaerbeek district, and Van Leeuw said a nail bomb, an Islamic State flag, and some chemicals had been recovered. Additionally, the Free University Brussels (VUB) said it would be closed for the rest of the week. A student there told the BBC the campus was being searched.  

Extraordinary precautions taken after the attacks—such as asking people to stay in place and leave their children at school—were lifted later in the day.

Tuesday’s attacks come four days after the capture of Salah Abdeslam, the accused logistical planner of the Paris attacks, in Brussels. Belgium’s capital has been on edge since the November 15 attack that killed 130 people in Paris, an operation organized by the Islamic State. Many of the attackers were Belgian nationals or residents. As my colleague David Graham has previously noted, Belgium has become Europe’s hub for Islamist radicals. Belgian officials warned their country’s citizens of a serious, imminent threat of terrorism, and later cancelled the New Year’s Eve fireworks in the capital. Those fears now appear realized—though Van Leeuw said it was too early to link the two attacks.

Witnesses to the Explosions

Steve Clemons, the editor of Atlantic Live, was in Brussels at the time of the attacks. He tweeted his observations and interviewed witnesses as he left the city for Amsterdam.

Witness at #Brussels airport bombing. Part 3 pic.twitter.com/0VyFYJArbI

— Steve Clemons (@SCClemons) March 22, 2016

“My ears popped,” Evan Lamos, who was on a metro train that was evacuated after the blast, told the BBC.

Local Reaction

Almost immediately after the attacks, people took to social media to offer help and to identify those unharmed. On Twitter, people offered rides around and out of the city, a home to stay in, and blood donations. Facebook activated its Safety Check feature that allows people in Brussels to tell others they’re safe by enabling a special status update.

#PortesOuvertes, #ikwillhelpen, des hashtags d'entraide à Bruxelles https://t.co/K2CzQGnOfC pic.twitter.com/1MKFFHZZCp

— Libération (@libe) March 22, 2016

Increased Security

Cities across Europe tightened security in the wake of the attacks.

In Britain and in France, officials deployed thousands more police across cities.

“As a precaution forces across the U.K. have increased policing presence at key locations, including transports hubs, to protect the public, and provide reassurance,” said Mark Rowley, the top British Metropolitan police officer in charge of special operations.

Britain was on alert for a follow-up attack, and left its terrorism warning level at severe, deeming London one of the most likely areas for potential attack. Rowley said the additional officers will “carry out highly visible patrols” around the city and its transport system to deter a follow up.

France deployed an additional 1,600 officers to reinforce security at its borders. Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said another 400 officers will patrol Paris, and military will guard public-transport areas.

Reaction Across Europe

The League of Imams in Belgium condemned the attack.  

A statement was issued by Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, who said the attacks “mark another low by the terrorists.” Margaritis Schinas, a spokesman for the European Commission, said: “We stand together, united against terror and in full solidarity with the people of Brussels.” EU leaders, in a statement, called the explosions “an attack on our open democratic society.”  

I am shocked and concerned by the events in Brussels. We will do everything we can to help.

— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) March 22, 2016

French President Francois Hollande, who just days ago had reveled in the capture in Belgium of the man who planned the Paris attacks last November, said Tuesday that though the attack was on Brussels, all of Europe had been hit.

J’exprime mon entière solidarité avec le peuple belge. À travers les attentats de Bruxelles, c’est toute l’Europe qui est frappée.

— François Hollande (@fhollande) March 22, 2016

NATO called the attack “cowardly,” Russian President Vladimir Putin called the attacks “barbaric,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman called it “vile,” and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he was “outraged.”

The U.S. Response

President Obama, who is visiting Cuba, addressed the attacks moments before he spoke to the Cuban people.

“We will do whatever is necessary to support our friend and ally Belgium,” the president said. “This is yet another reminder that the world must unite in fighting against the scourge of terrorism.”

He added: “We can and we will defeat those who threaten the safety and security of people around the world.”

Obama also spoke to Michel to offer his condolences and assistance.

The U.S. Embassy in Brussels asked American citizens to shelter in place and avoid public transportation.

Donald Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, told Fox News:

"We can't have these attacks anymore...It's time to be smart." – @realDonaldTrump reacts to #Brussels terror attackshttps://t.co/WKDL7FmTkd

— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 22, 2016

He also tweeted:

Do you all remember how beautiful and safe a place Brussels was. Not anymore, it is from a different world! U.S. must be vigilant and smart!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 22, 2016

Senator Ted Cruz, Trump’s main rival on the Republican side, reacted in a similar fashion.

Our hearts break for the men and women of Brussels this morning: https://t.co/Z3zl8ArMCG

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 22, 2016

John Kasich, the Ohio governor and Republican presidential candidate, said he was “sickened” by the news. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, the two Democrats running for president, took similar approaches.

For a fuller explanation of the various U.S. reactions, go here.

Three Americans, all Mormon missionaries, were injured in the explosions at the airport. They were identified as Richard Norby, 66, of Lehi, Utah; Joseph Empey, 20, of Santa Clara, Utah; and Mason Wells, 19, of Sandy, Utah. A U.S. service member and his family were also injured.  

Expressions of Solidarity

This cartoon from Le Monde was widely shared in the aftermath of the attacks:

13 novembre - 22 mars. L'hommage de Plantu #Bruxelles #Brussels >> http://bit.ly/1T4VUDq <<

A photo posted by Le Monde (@lemondefr) on Mar 22, 2016 at 2:24am PDT

Tributes also featured Tintin, perhaps Belgium’s best-known export...

#Bruxelles

(dessin de Mitch) pic.twitter.com/sv3LvKM0k2

— Bernard Mnich (@BernardMnich) March 22, 2016

...as well as Manneken-Pis, widely seen as emblematic of Brussels’s spirit:

#Life & #Art must go on ... F*** #Terrorism ! #Art #JeSuisBruxelles #Zaventem #MannekenPis #NoAK47 #NoWar pic.twitter.com/IuC40efj4v

— Mazel Galerie (@MazelGalerie) March 22, 2016

A Supreme Deadlock

It only took a nine-word sentence to summarize an eight-justice paralysis: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.”

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 4-4 decision in Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore on Tuesday, its first deadlocked result since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. Senate Republicans have vowed to not confirm any replacement until a new president is inaugurated, meaning that today’s ruling is likely to be the first of many.

The Court did not indicate how the individual justices voted in Hawkins. Scalia’s death left the high court evenly divided between the four liberal and four conservative justices. Most cases on the Court’s docket are not resolved by 5-4 votes along those divisions, but major ones often are. A series of clashes on abortion rights, affirmative action, public-sector unions, and other high-profile issues were likely to be decided along a 5-4 vote.

Hawkins is a low-profile case by comparison. But it signals how that paralysis can extend beyond politically controversial issues and into the mundane workings of American law. The appeal was brought by Valerie Hawkins and Janice Patterson, who sought to challenge a bank’s requirement that they guarantee their husbands’ business loans. This, they said, made them liable for the loans and damaged their credit.

The two women argued they counted as “applicants” for the loan under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, and thus qualified for its protections. The Community Bank of Raymore countered that the Federal Reserve rule enforcing the Act interpreted the statute too broadly, and the lower courts agreed.

The Act forbids creditors from discriminating against “any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction” on a number of grounds, including sex and marital status. Congress enacted the law to stop lenders from denying credit to married women unless their husbands cosigned or guaranteed the loan—a common practice in that era that put women who sought to build their own credit profiles at a disadvantage. The Federal Reserve rule known as “Regulation B,” which implemented the Act, effectively banned the practice by interpreting “applicant” to include guarantors.

But a three-judge panel in the Eighth Circuit ruled against Hawkins and Patterson, noting that the text of the Act itself defines an applicant as “any person who applies to a creditor directly for an extension, renewal, or continuation of credit.” Courts typically give wide deference to a federal agency’s interpretation of federal statutes, but the panel concluded that a person “is an applicant only if she requests credit” under a plain reading of the Act.

The 4-4 split between the justices resolves in favor of the lower court, meaning the Eighth Circuit’s decision becomes the final word in Hawkins. But it only carries weight as precedent within the Eighth Circuit’s jurisdiction. Other courts, including the Sixth Circuit and a few state supreme courts, deferred to Regulation B’s interpretation of “applicant” when hearing similar cases. Those rulings remain intact.

The practical effect of the justices’ deadlock is straightforward. A guarantor in Tennessee, which falls under the Sixth Circuit’s jurisdiction, counts as an applicant under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. A guarantor just across the Mississippi River in Arkansas, where the Eighth Circuit holds sway, doesn’t count as one. As arcane as this might seem, it’s the kind of disagreement in federal law the Supreme Court exists to resolve. And thanks to a single indefinite vacancy, it can’t.

Sarah Palin and the Other ‘Revolving Door’

Electoral politics are, in the best ways and also in the worst, reality shows. They are heavily structured. They thrive on “competition” that’s more accurately framed as “Darwinian struggles for survival.” No one will be there to make friends. Someone will, with a reassuring predictability, get voted off the island. Someone will sing, inevitably. Someone will cry, inevitably. Someone will be there for the right reasons. Someone will be there for the wrong ones. But in the end, finally—because this is how the Founders, which is to say the show’s producers, have declared that it shall be, on our way to our more perfect union—someone will win America’s Final Rose.

Related Story

The Colbert Trump

It’s fitting, then, that one of the characters who emerged from her own time competing on America’s Next Top Candidate might soon be starring in her own reality show. People reports that Sarah Palin, former vice presidential candidate and current Trump supporter, “has been tapped to preside over a new reality court show that would premiere next year.” The show, as People describes it, will be similar to Judge Judy. (The name has not yet been announced; possible contenders, however, courtesy of Atlantic staffers, include Beyond the Palin, Nailin’ (Justice With) Palin, The Palin Comparison, Alaska ‘Bout Justice, Plain Tiffs With Sarah Palin, and—it’s yours if you want it, producers—Palin’ Around With Justice.)

Palin, who studied journalism at her various colleges, does not have a law degree; this seems to matter not all. Because, a source notes, what she does have are a “telegenic personality, wide appeal, and common-sense wisdom,” all of which “make her a natural for this kind of format.”

It’s probably true! And if you are familiar with Sarah Palin and/or with the moral aesthetics of reality TV, nothing about this turn of events will likely be terribly surprising to you. But it’s worth taking a moment to consider why, precisely, it’s unsurprising.

It’s a common thing, now, to point out the “revolving door” that filters staffers of presidential administrations to other industries, and vice versa. The revolving door with Wall Street. With Silicon Valley. With lobbying firms. With the “private sector” in general. But there’s also the door that gets less angst-ed about, not because it’s any less problematic than its counterparts, but because it’s so deeply embedded in the logic of an election system that takes so many of its cues from American Idol: the revolving door between politics and television.

Palin, having lost the election but won some hearts, became a commentator on Fox News. So did Mike Huckabee. Van Jones, President Obama’s former Special Adviser for Green Jobs, is a regular on CNN. So is Donna Brazile, a political strategist and the former interim Chair for the Democratic National Committee. And on and on. And, certainly, it makes sense: Who better to offer expert commentary on the daily doings of American politics than the people who have been in the trenches?

But. Now we have Palin, moving not just from politics to talking-about-politics, but from politics to something-that-has-nothing-at-all-to-do-with-politics. Here she is, channeling Reagan and Schwarzenegger and Fred Thompson and Sonny Bono, in a door that filters people not just between campaigns and TV news, but between campaigns and pure entertainment. Palin Judge Judy-ing herself is, of course, only the latest example of candidates, and former candidates, feeding—and feeding from—the reality TV-industrial complex. Tom DeLay on Dancing With the Stars. Donald Trump on The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice.

It’s no surprise, given all that, that The Huffington Post expressed ontological confusion about what Trump, as a candidate, is. Nor is it a surprise that this particular campaign season has given us a series of debates that are so dramatic—and so reliant, for their narrative tension, on the culling of their stars’ own numbers—as to read as installments of Survivor. Palin’s new show is a cashing-out answer to Barack Obama’s appearance on Running Wild With Bear Gryllis, and to Hillary Clinton’s appearance on Broad City: It is recognizing, just as the reality-TV industry does, that screen time—whether it speaks to the American superego or the American id—is its own kind of currency.

In 2012, in The New York Times Magazine, Rob Walker compared electoral politics to reality TV. And yet, he added: “An American presidential campaign isn’t just ‘a reality show’ or even a mere ‘story.’ It is a transmedia meta-narrative. By transmedia I mean that it plays out not only in televised debates but also in ads, books, events, the daily paper, social media, and shouting matches in bars.” And now, an election cycle later, you can add one more place to the mix: a fake courtroom, presided over by a fake judge.

How Jerrod Carmichael Finds His Stories

On Sunday, NBC’s The Carmichael Show aired an episode that would have been a shocking departure for any other sitcom. “Perfect Storm” begins with a couple, Jerrod and Maxine (played by Jerrod Carmichael and Amber Stevens West), going out to buy emergency contraception after a condom breaks during sex. Because of a serious storm, they’re diverted to his parents’ house, and Jerrod’s religious mother, Cynthia (Loretta Devine), objects when she finds out about their plan, prompting a discussion about a woman’s right to choose, family planning, and Jerrod’s own fears about being a parent one day. It’s the kind of episode that could easily feel stagey or polemical, but Carmichael works hard to keep things as natural as possible.

Related Story

The Carmichael Show Proves Sitcoms Can Still Be Provocative

That’s been his goal since creating the series, which premiered last year. Like its obvious classic-sitcom influences (from All in the Family to The Cosby Show), The Carmichael Show tries to dig into topical material every week, while strictly avoiding any sense that it’s talking down to its audience or teaching them a valuable lesson. “I just wanted an adult show, a show that a smart adult would feel comfortable watching,” Carmichael told me. “We have these real conversations every day, and then we turn the television on and it doesn’t reflect that.” Literally and figuratively, The Carmichael Show is a grown-up family sitcom, one that doesn’t look to pander for quick laughs or sanitized moments of togetherness.

In “Perfect Storm,” Maxine can’t get Plan B because the drugstore is closed thanks to the hurricane, so her friend Nekeisha (Tiffany Haddish) brings her the medication, which Cynthia promptly flushes away in a fit of pique. It’s a tense moment and one that plays on the larger discussion about Maxine’s control over her own body. Though the show never devolves into histrionic yelling or crying, it lets the dramatic moments breathe as much as the funny ones—something Carmichael says was a critical component in his approach to the series.

“We always try and build stories that will create the most tension around the topic,” he says. “Perspective is everything for me and the writers.” The subject matter also comes from a “very organic place”—whenever the show’s writers find themselves arguing passionately about an issue, they try to work it into an episode. With Jerrod, Maxine, Cynthia, Nekeisha, Jerrod’s father, Joe (David Alan Grier), and his brother, Bobby (Lil Rel Howery), The Carmichael Show always has several defined voices it can bounce between when a topic is being debated. The forum is almost always Jerrod’s parents’ home in Charlotte, North Carolina, where the series is set; the show rarely spends time anywhere else.

“That’s my favorite thing in the world, talking to my parents,” Carmichael says. “I used to see them every day, usually first thing in the morning ... My mom would be like, ‘Did you hear what Trump said?’ and it’d become a full argument.” He wants the show to reflect those kitchen-table conversations—often funny, sometimes angry or upset, with no topic off-limits as long as a character has a strong opinion about it.

“I just wanted a show that a smart adult would feel comfortable watching.”

Often Jerrod himself will take the more uncomfortable position—in a recent episode about Bill Cosby, his character was the one sticking up for the comedian’s professional legacy, trying to rationalize his enjoyment of Cosby’s comedy while sidestepping the long list of of rape allegations against him. Another episode about a transgender teen saw the family air some less-evolved views while advising Jerrod on how to engage with him. In both cases, the frank lack of political correctness married with the sitcom atmosphere can make the show’s engagement with such issues seem a little flip. That’s part of the gamble of Carmichael’s approach—but it largely succeeds by virtue of how authentic the discussions feel. There are moments that can feel tin-eared, but the candid characterization of the family helps the show justify them.

He insists he’s looking to discuss topics that he or his writers have a clear perspective on. “We have a really great staff: people who have experienced these things before, who know where the lines are, what the rules are,” he says. “It’s like stand-up, I don’t say things to rile people up. We’re trying to make people feel something.”

Along with the Cosby episode, The Carmichael Show has already talked about marital infidelity and the death of a family member this year. Upcoming topics include depression, Islamophobia, and gentrification. It’s all part of the “real conversation” Carmichael constantly refers to—a strenuous effort to avoid any zany sitcom hijinks, even if it means a whole episode takes place in the same living room. “I want to give you something you can agree with and you can disagree with, genuinely disagree with,” he says. “That’s the thing that excites me the most.”

Obama in Cuba: Time to 'Leave the Past Behind'

President Obama used his speech Tuesday at El Gran Teatro in Havana to urge the Cuban people—and more pointedly, their leader, Raúl Castro—to “leave the past behind” and embrace democratic elections, open markets, human rights, and the reconciliation between two neighboring nations that have feuded for half a century.

“I have come here to bury the last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas,” Obama declared as he spoke to an audience that included Castro as well as American diplomats and lawmakers. The 30-minute address came on the second day of Obama’s historic visit to Cuba, the first by a sitting U.S. president since 1928 and the culmination of his effort to normalize relations with the island nation.

The speech was a lengthy balancing act for the president: He offered praise both for Cuban artists and innovators and the Cuban government, and he wrapped criticism of America’s own flaws into a broad defense of its open society and democratic values. “There’s still enormous problems in our society. But democracy is the way that we solve them,” Obama said.

At the heart of his address was an exhortation for the Castro regime to allow the Cuban people more freedom—a polite but direct push that Obama tried to deliver as a new friend rather than an old adversary. “I've made it clear that the United States has neither the capacity nor the intention to impose change on Cuba,” he said. “What changes come will depend upon the Cuban people.”

We will not impose our political or economic system on you. We recognize that every country, every people must chart its own course and shape its own model. But having removed the shadow of history from our relationship, I must speak honestly about the things that I believe, the things that we as Americans believe.

Obama received some of his biggest applause when he called on the U.S. Congress to lift the decades-long embargo on commerce with Cuba. But Castro and much of the crowd sat quietly through what followed. “Even if we lifted the embargo tomorrow, Cubans would not realize their potential without continued change here in Cuba,” the president said.

It should be easier to open a business here in Cuba. A worker should be able to get a job directly with companies who invest here in Cuba. Two currencies shouldn't separate the type of salaries that Cubans can earn. The Internet should be available across the island so that Cubans can connect to the wider world and to one of the greatest engines of growth in human history.

There’s no limitation from the United States on the ability of Cuba to take these steps. It’s up to you. I can tell you as a friend that sustainable prosperity in the 21st century depends on education, health care, and environmental protection. But it also depends on the free and open exchange of ideas. If you can’t access information online, if you cannot be exposed to different points of view, you will not reach your full potential. And over time, the youth will lose hope.

Obama continued with a recitation of human rights that he said were universal. Among them:

I believe that every person should be equal under the law … Every child deserves the dignity that comes with education, health care, food on the table, and a roof over their heads … I believe citizens should be free to speak their mind without fear … to organize and to criticize their government and to protest peacefully, and that the rule of law should not include arbitrary detentions of people who exercise those rights … I believe that every person should have the freedom to practice their faiths peacefully and publicly … And yes, I believe voters should be able to choose their governments in free and democratic elections.

In a nod to the critiques that both Raúl and Fidel Castro have leveled against the United States for years, Obama acknowledged that America has struggled with income inequality, racial bias, and “wars abroad.” But he held up his own election and the tumultuous campaign to replace him as examples of “what’s possible in America.”

Now, there’s still some tough fights. It isn’t always pretty, the process of democracy. It’s often frustrating. You can see that in the election going on back home. But just stop and consider this fact about the American campaign that’s taking place right now.

You had two Cuban Americans in the Republican Party running against the legacy of a black man who was president while arguing that they're the best person to beat the Democratic nominee, who will either be a woman or a democratic socialist.

Who would have believed that back in 1959?

Notably, Obama made no reference to the Republican front-runner, Donald Trump.

For most of the speech, the president directed his remarks to the Cuban people, injecting occasional lines of Spanish and references to cultural touchtones in a bid to wash away the suspicions of the past. But at one point, he addressed Castro specifically: “I want you to know, I believe my visit here demonstrates that you do not need to fear a threat from the United States,” Obama said. “And given your commitment to Cuba’s sovereignty and self-determination, I’m also confident that you need not fear the different voices of the Cuban people and their capacity to speak and assemble and vote for their leaders.” A day earlier, Obama prodded Castro to take questions from reporters at a joint press conference, a rarity for the Cuban leader that he punctuated awkwardly by trying to lift up Obama’s arm in a victory embrace.

Critics of the president’s Cuba rapprochement had mixed reactions to his speech, noting that for all of his attempts to speak directly to Cubans, it will be a repressive dictator who decides whether to allow change on his watch. Responding in real time on Twitter, Representative Mario Díaz-Balart said that although Castro was in the balcony for the address, Obama’s words were “falling on deaf ears.” Before leaving Cuba, the president planned to meet with dissidents at the U.S. Embassy and attend a baseball game between the Cuban National Team and the Tampa Bay Rays.

Tuesday’s speech came at a difficult moment for Obama, who began his remarks by commenting on the terrorist attacks that killed more than two dozen people in Brussels hours earlier. “We will do whatever is necessary to support our friend and ally Belgium in bringing to justice those who are responsible,” Obama said. “And this is yet another reminder that the world must unite. We must be together, regardless of nationality or race or faith in fighting against the scourge of terrorism.”

Rob Ford Remembered

Rob Ford, the colorful, larger-than-life former mayor of Toronto, died on Tuesday, his family said in a statement:

With heavy hearts and profound sadness, the Ford family announces the passing of their beloved son, brother, husband, and father, Councillor Rob Ford, earlier today at the age of 46. A dedicated man of the people, Councillor Ford spent his life serving the citizens of Toronto.

Though the subject of frequent ridicule, Ford’s brash and unpolished demeanor is in part what drove him to power. In 2010, Ford rode to the mayor’s office on a wave of anti-elitist sentiment, propelled by voters beyond the cosmopolitan center of the Toronto. Writing in The Atlantic in 2013, Naheed Mustafa noted that Ford’s message “resonated among those people who see themselves as the most marginalized: the non-white suburban poor.”

Once in office, scandal after scandal befell Ford—instances of casual bigotry, public drunkenness, sexism, incompetence, threats of violence and, of course, the admitted use of crack cocaine. This surreal fusillade led to satire, hand-wringing, and impeachment threats, but also yielded Ford instant international celebrity and a boost in his popularity.

In 2014, Ford ultimately withdrew his re-election bid for mayor, citing poor health. It was later disclosed that he was suffering from malignant liposarcoma, described as “a rare, aggressive form of cancer.”

He is survived by his wife and their two children.

A Southpaw in Havana

In 1947, the soon-to-be dynastic Brooklyn Dodgers moved their spring training camp to Havana, Cuba. As a venue, it made good sense—Havana offered warm winter weather and stellar baseball facilities. But what made Havana most attractive was its isolation; Jackie Robinson, recently promoted from the minors, was just weeks away from breaking American professional baseball’s color barrier, and Branch Rickey, the team’s president and general manager, sought to shield the outfielder from untoward attention as he trained with the team.

The scheme actually worked too well. At the time, the talent on display in the Cuban League, racially integrated for decades by then, was such that the presence of American pros did little to inspire crowds to turn up for games. (Poor attendance that spring actually caused one preseason series between the Dodgers and the St. Louis Browns to be canceled.)

Last Sunday, nearly 70 springs and an embargo later, when Barack Obama, the No. 42 of American presidential politics, boarded Air Force One for his historic sojourn to Cuba, he did so with two guests of honor—Rachel and Sharon Robinson, the widow and daughter of Jackie. The symbolism wasn’t subtle: The Robinsons and the Obamas embody the cause and effect of the effacing of generations-old biases. Or, failing all of that, the United States and Cuba share a historic love of baseball.

Like most everything, the genesis story of baseball in Cuba is disputed. Writing in The Atlantic in 1984, Bruce Brown tells of the mythical 1866 arrival of an American ship at Matanzas Bay seeking to load up on Cuban sugar and unload American baseball. “Cubans joke that the Americans were motivated at least in part by a desire to sell baseball equipment,” he wrote, “nonetheless, they helped build a baseball diamond at Palmar del Junco, where the first baseball games in Cuban history were played.”

Another recasting of baseball’s origins characterize its debut not as a byproduct of cultural imperialism, but rather in subversive relief to the staid bullfighting rituals of the island’s colonial rulers. For a time under Spanish rule, the sport was actually banned in Cuba.

On Tuesday, when President Obama heads to Havana’s Estadio Latinoamericano to watch the Tampa Bay Rays, the Calvin Coolidge of MLB squads, take on the Cuban National Team, it will serve as the grace note to a visit designed to minimize the differences that have long set the two countries at odds.

Many of those ideological divisions can be discerned through the lens of their shared pastime. In contrast to the United States, Cuban baseball has long been beset by the issues of gambling and corruption while the scourge of performance-enhancing drugs have remained more of a footnote. The American analogue is marked by high ticket prices and astronomical player contracts while even the best Cuban sluggers make a petty salary and admission to a game costs pennies for fans.

In one telling incident, U.S. officials came under scrutiny after initially banning the Cuban team from participating in the 2006 World Baseball Classic held in California. Writing in The New York Times, Roberto González Echevarría, a literature professor at Yale and Sagua La Grande-born expert on Cuban baseball, offered this scathing retort:

I appreciate the fans' desire to see some of the finest players in the world, but it hardly stretches the truth to say that those who want Cuba to participate are asking to be entertained by a team of slaves.

Consider this: the option not to play in the tournament, which has been exercised by the Yankees' Hideki Matsui among others, is not available to Cuban players - if the government tells them to play, they must. On the other hand, the regime can suspend a player from "Team Fidel," as the national team is often called, simply out of suspicion that he might defect. This happened to Orlando Hernández, before he managed to escape in a boat and eventually find fame with the Yankees.

Cuba, long a dominant force in international play, was eventually allowed to participate and won the silver.

When the Rays arrived in Havana over the weekend, several baseball emissaries accompanied the team, including MLB commish Rob Manfred and retired Yankees star Derek Jeter. Among the most notable dignities, however, was a player almost no one has ever heard of: Dayron Varona from Tampa’s minor-league affiliate.

The Cuban-born outfielder defected from the island in 2013 to pursue his dreams in the majors. Upon arriving in Havana on Saturday, Varona saw his family for the first time in three years.