The Amazing Times

Julia Louis-Dreyfus speaking out at the Screen Actors Guild Awards on Jan. 29. 
CreditMike Blake/Reuters

This is my third go at covering the Oscars as The Times’s awards writer, the Carpetbagger, and heading into the season, I wondered what sort of hullabaloo would erupt this time.

In 2016, there was #OscarsSoWhite: For the second year in a row, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences hadn’t nominated a single minority director or actor, prompting public outcry and demands for greater diversity in the movie business.

This season it was clear after the Venice, Telluride, and Toronto Film Festivals — all litmus tests for awards-minded pictures — that it wouldn’t be another #OscarsSoWhite year. The films that emerged from the festivals as likely Oscar contenders — “Moonlight,” “Fences,” “Lion,” “Loving,” and “Hidden Figures” (the film did not screen at Toronto , but its cast still showed up to promote it) — all starred minorities. And each of these pictures received major nominations, including a directing nod to Barry Jenkins, the director of “Moonlight,” who is black.

Yet for admittedly selfish reasons, I was hoping a new controversy would erupt. I have to produce a Carpetbagger column about the Oscars contest every week, for three months. Absent a fracas, the subject matter can get awfully thin.

Before #OscarsSoWhite, there was always an Oscar-related dust-up to explore. Was “Selma” historically accurate? Did “American Sniper” celebrate American bellicosity? Was Julianne Moore making a feminist statement when she refused to stick her hand into E!’s Mani-Cam?

This year, however, the season had fast become humdrum. At awards show after awards show, the same predictable winners emerged — “La La Land” for picture, Damien Chazelle for director, Emma Stone for actress, Mahershala Ali for best supporting actor, Viola Davis for best supporting actress.

The only audible grumbling was connected to Ezra Edelman’s eight-hour documentary about O.J. Simpson, which ran on television as a mini-series, raising the question of whether it should be considered a film. The Academy decided it should and the documentary has been on a winning streak since.

The Carpetbagger worried there would be little news to report. But then came Donald J. Trump.

Just 12 days shy of the presidential inauguration, Meryl Streep used her acceptance speech for her Golden Globe lifetime achievement award to denounce him as a bully. She drew thunderous applause (and, predictably, an angry tweet from Mr. Trump, who said Ms. Streep — who later landed her 20th Oscar nomination — was “overrated”).

After the Globes ceremony, a few actors told me they thought Ms. Streep had every right to say whatever she wanted; others were more cautious. At HBO’s after-party, I asked Eddie Redmayne, (one of my earliest celebrity interviewees,) what he thought about the question of actors taking the stage to make political statements. “No comment, sorry!” he said. My sense was that when it came to Mr. Trump, Hollywood was still muzzling itself a bit.

This changed swiftly and dramatically on the weekend of Jan. 27 when President Trump tried to impose a travel ban on citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries. His order prompted chaos and protests, and also affected the Oscars. The ban barred the Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi and the Syrian subjects of several nominated documentaries from entering the country. (The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, of course, upheld a decision to block the ban, changing all this, though Mr. Farhadi had previously said he wouldn’t come.)

As it happened, two of Hollywood’s major industry guilds — the producers and screen actors — were holding awards that weekend, and the industry’s aversion to political statements flew out the window.

At the producers’ awards, John Legend said his vision of American “is directly antithetical to that of President Trump.” The next night, numerous actors — including Mr. Ali, Ashton Kutcher, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Lily Tomlin and a star of “Stranger Things” — took aim at the president and his policies.

Clearly, staying apolitical was no longer an option for many Hollywood players, which likely will affect the character of the Academy Awards ceremony. Yet even though I got my wished for Oscar controversy — as well as the subjects for a few more Carpetbagger columns — I can’t say I don’t dream of simpler times. Bring back the mani-cam!

Lionel Messi Biography

Lionel Messi is an Argentinian footballer widely regarded as one of the greatest players of the modern generation. He plays for FC Barcelona and the Argentina national team. He has won FIFA world player of the year four times (a record already). He has often been described as Diego Maradona’s successor because of his prolific goal scoring record and ability to dribble past opponents.

“I have seen the player who will inherit my place in Argentine football and his name is Messi. Messi is a genius and he can become an even better player.”

His potential is limitless and I think he’s got everything it takes to become Argentina’s greatest player.”

– Diego Maradona

Lionel Messi was born, 24 June 1987, in Rosario, Argentina to a working class family. His father was a factory steel worker, and his mother a cleaner.

He began playing from an early age, and his talent was soon apparent. However, at the age of 11, Messi was diagnosed with growth hormone deficiency (GHD). This was a condition that stunted growth and required expensive medical treatment, including the use of the drug Human growth hormone.

Local club, River Plate were interested in signing Messi but didn’t want to pay for his medical treatment. However, Messi was given a trial with Barcelona, and coach Carles Rexach was impressed – offering Messi a contract (written on a paper napkin!) which included paying for Messi’s treatment in Spain. Messi moved to Barcelona with his father and became part of the prestigious FC Barcelona youth academy.

“I made a lot of sacrifices by leaving Argentina, leaving my family to start a new life. But everything I did, I did for football, to achieve my dream. That’s why I didn’t go out partying, or do a lot of other things.”

– Lionel Messi

WHAT MATTERS: Women rate the appearance of your todger over the size


*** Is YOUR penis normal? Most embarrassing questions answered ***

1. Bella Hadid embarrassing wardrobe malfunction at Cannes 2016


2. Jennifer Garner flashing spanx at Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day premiere in Hollywood


3. Emma Watson’s nip slip at the premiere of Perks of Being a Wallflower


4.  Zaina Dridi wind shows knickers while walking the red carpet for ‘Carol’


5. Sofia Vergara flashing her bum at the Emmys 2012



6. Taylor Swift flashing spanx… oopsie


7. Pregnant Kim Kardashian competing for looks with a killer whale

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday lashed out at federal judges considering a challenge to his executive order banning travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, as his Supreme Court nominee called Mr. Trump’s attacks on the independent judiciary “demoralizing” and “disheartening.”

Mr. Trump escalated his public feud with the courts over his immigration order, saying that he had found a federal appeals court hearing on his executive order Tuesday night “disgraceful,” and that the judges had failed to grasp concepts even “a bad high school student would understand.”


The comments were a remarkable show of disdain by a sitting president for an independent judiciary, and they came at an awkward time for Mr. Trump, just as his newly selected nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch of the federal appeals court in Denver, was meeting with senators on Capitol Hill in the hopes of gaining support for his confirmation.

Judge Gorsuch told Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, that he objected to Mr. Trump’s harsh criticism of the courts, including his attack over the weekend on a Seattle district court judge who temporarily blocked his immigration order. In a Twitter posting on Saturday, the president called Judge James L. Robart, a “so-called judge” whose ruling was “ridiculous” and would be overturned.

Mr. Trump’s invective toward judges is a jarring break from a tradition observed by presidents of both parties. Presidents have usually tried to refrain from even appearing to intervene in court cases that concern them or their policies, or from impugning the jurists charged with deciding them, according to judges and legal experts from across the political spectrum.

“I don’t ever want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased,” Mr. Trump told a gathering of sheriffs and police chiefs on Wednesday in Washington. “But courts seem to be so political, and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right.”

Mr. Trump, who opened his remarks reciting the passage of the United States code that gives the president the power to restrict immigration whenever he deems the influx of foreigners detrimental to the country, said he had watched “in amazement” Tuesday night as a three-judge federal appeals panel heard arguments on his executive order and the limits of presidential power in cases of national security.

“I listened to a bunch of stuff last night on television that was disgraceful,” Mr. Trump said. “I think it’s sad. I think it’s a sad day. I think our security is at risk today.”

“This is highly unusual,” said Michael W. McConnell, a former federal judge who directs the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University. “Mr. Trump is shredding longstanding norms of etiquette and interbranch comity.”

“It’s partly good manners, but more importantly, the separation of powers works better when the branches aren’t in a spitting match,” added Mr. McConnell, who was nominated to his judicial post by President George W. Bush.


Mr. Trump appears bent on engaging in just such a confrontation with independent judges who hold the fate of his travel ban in their hands.

His comments came the morning after a lively, roughly hourlong hearing — the audio of which was carried live on national television — during which three judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit expressed skepticism about the arguments of a Justice Department lawyer defending Mr. Trump’s order.

A federal judge in Seattle blocked the travel ban on Friday, and the appeals court is considering whether to uphold that action. The panel said Tuesday that it would rule as soon as possible. Mr. Trump on Wednesday appeared incensed about the challenge, saying, “It’s really incredible to me that we have a court case that is going on so long.”

At one point during Tuesday’s arguments, August E. Flentje, the Justice Department lawyer, appeared to acknowledge he was making little headway with the judges, commenting, “I’m not sure I’m convincing the court.”

Mr. Trump took aim at one of the judges without specifying which one, saying, “I will not comment on the statements made by, certainly one judge.” The panel was made up of Judge William C. Canby Jr., appointed by Jimmy Carter; Judge Richard R. Clifton, named by George W. Bush; and Michelle T. Friedland, nominated by Barack Obama.

“If these judges wanted to, in my opinion, help the court in terms of respect for the court, they’d do what they should be doing,” Mr. Trump said. “It’s so sad.”


By contrast, he lavished praise on a federal judge in Boston who last week ruled that the travel ban could stay in place. “Right on — they were perfect,” Mr. Trump said of that judge’s comments.

“It’s not illegal, it’s not a violation of the law to do these things, but it’s bad policy because it raises questions about the independence of the courts, and it raises questions about the judicial system as a whole when the president says this,” said Peter Wallison, who served as White House counsel to President Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Trump defended the process that yielded the executive order, saying he had initially wanted to wait a week or even a month before issuing the travel ban. But the president said he was told by law enforcement officials that doing so would prompt a flood of people, including some with “very evil intentions,” to rush into the United States before the restrictions took effect.

“We do things well; we did things right,” Mr. Trump said. “I suggested a month, then I said, ‘Well, what about a week?’ They said no, you can’t do that because then people are going to pour in before the toughness goes on.”


That account appears to be at odds with the one given by several senior officials, who have said they were not fully briefed on the details of Mr. Trump’s order until the day the president signed it at the Pentagon.

The president told the law enforcement officers that he was acting solely out of a concern about terrorism, a threat he said had deepened since he took office and gained access to information about the risks facing Americans.


“Believe me, I’ve learned a lot in the last two weeks, and terrorism is a far greater threat than the people of our country understand,” Mr. Trump said. “But we’re going to take care of it. We’re going to win.”

WASHINGTON — Republicans seized her microphone. And gave her a megaphone.

Silenced on the Senate floor for condemning a peer, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, emerged on Wednesday in a coveted role: the avatar of liberal resistance in the age of Trump.

Late on Tuesday, Senate Republicans voted to halt the remarks of Ms. Warren, already a lodestar of the left, after she criticized a colleague, Senator Jeff Sessions, the nominee for attorney general, by reading a letter from Coretta Scott King.

Instantly, the decision — led by Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, who invoked a rarely enforced rule prohibiting senators from impugning the motives and conduct of a peer — amplified Ms. Warren’s message and further inflamed the angry Senate debate over Mr. Sessions’ nomination. He is expected to be confirmed later on Wednesday.


In the meantime, some of her peers from the Democratic caucus, including Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, have read Mrs. King’s letter without facing any objection, prompting some activists to raise charges of sexism.

Ms. Warren’s moment swiftly rekindled the gender-infused politics that animated the presidential election and the women’s march protesting Mr. Trump the day after his inauguration last month. For her supporters it was the latest and most visceral example of a woman silenced by men who do not want to listen.

The subsequent explanation from Mr. McConnell — “She was warned, she was given an explanation, nevertheless, she persisted” — seemed made for a future Warren campaign ad. After an unsuccessful effort to draft her for the 2016 presidential race, she is considered a very early front-runner in 2020, should she choose to run. 

Mr. McConnell’s coda has already been repurposed as a sort of rallying cry. Across social media, Ms. Warren’s allies and supporters posted “#ShePersisted,” calling to mind some Democrats’ embrace of the term “nasty woman” after Mr. Trump deployed it to describe Hillary Clinton during a debate. Appearing with Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire in October, Ms. Warren reminded Mr. Trump that “nasty women vote.”


Ms. Warren has long displayed an instinct for capitalizing on highly visible fights. After she was barred from speaking on the Senate floor late Tuesday, she began reading the 1986 letter from Mrs. King on Facebook. By Wednesday afternoon, the video had attracted more than seven million views. In the letter, Mrs. King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr., took aim at Mr. Sessions’ record on civil rights as a United States attorney in Alabama, saying he had used “the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens.”

On Wednesday morning in a conference room in the Capitol — the rule only prohibits Ms. Warren from speaking about the nomination from the Senate floor — Ms. Warren addressed civil rights leaders, recounting her long night.

“What hit me the hardest was, it is about silence,” she said. “It’s about trying to shut people up. It’s about saying, ‘No, no, no, just go ahead and vote.’”

She went on.

“This is going to be hard,” she said. “We don’t have the tools. There’s going to be a lot that we will lose. But I guarantee, the one thing we will not lose, we will not lose our voices.”

At a time when Democrats are straining to navigate the early presidency of Mr. Trump, weighing the merits of the blanket opposition that many in their base seem to crave, the latest rancor appeared to raise the likelihood of further confrontation in the Senate chamber.

Some left-leaning groups appeared comfortable with that outcome.


“What the public needs to see from Democrats right now is more backbone and more standing on principle,” said Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “Elizabeth Warren continues to be the model for good behavior.”