Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

In Scarface, when Sosa’s enforcer recognizes Omar as an informant, Sosa decides to have him killed. But that’s not the only reason he wants him dead. In fact, Omar might not have even been an informant at all. Oliver Stone’s original screenplay reveals that there is much more going...

GangsterCinema's profile picture

Gangster Cinema Central

46,611 subscribers

611,376 views • 3 days ago •via X (Twitter)

ArtsEducationNews & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

In Heat, much of Al Pacino’s off the wall performance comes from Vincent Hanna being a high functioning cocaine user. Offscreen he’s secretly “chipping cocaine” - taking small, intermittent hits to stay sharp and on the ball, as Pacino explains in his autobiography Sonny Boy. “Hanna had problems as a human being, problems in his life. He was volatile and edgy and apt to go crazy. He was also chipping cocaine, and I sort of based my entire character on that. We shot a scene where I went into a club, and you actually saw my character taking a hit of coke before he enters. For some reason, Michael kept that scene out of the film.” And Michael Mann had good reason for cutting it. In the scene (which take place within the sequence below), Hanna snorts coke off the blade of a dagger; a highly charged, symbolic image. The dagger is a primitive, lethal tool that fits Hanna’s self-image as a hunter of men. It suggests that the cocaine use isn’t recreational, but tactical; a technique he uses to sharpen his senses for the hunt. Mann felt this image would send “too strong a message” and draw attention to the drug use itself, rather than Hanna’s drive and the professional rivalry between him and McCauley. However, the cocaine use is still hinted at in the film…(1/3)
2:13

In Heat, much of Al Pacino’s off the wall performance comes from Vincent Hanna being a high functioning cocaine user. Offscreen he’s secretly “chipping cocaine” - taking small, intermittent hits to stay sharp and on the ball, as Pacino explains in his autobiography Sonny Boy. “Hanna had problems as a human being, problems in his life. He was volatile and edgy and apt to go crazy. He was also chipping cocaine, and I sort of based my entire character on that. We shot a scene where I went into a club, and you actually saw my character taking a hit of coke before he enters. For some reason, Michael kept that scene out of the film.” And Michael Mann had good reason for cutting it. In the scene (which take place within the sequence below), Hanna snorts coke off the blade of a dagger; a highly charged, symbolic image. The dagger is a primitive, lethal tool that fits Hanna’s self-image as a hunter of men. It suggests that the cocaine use isn’t recreational, but tactical; a technique he uses to sharpen his senses for the hunt. Mann felt this image would send “too strong a message” and draw attention to the drug use itself, rather than Hanna’s drive and the professional rivalry between him and McCauley. However, the cocaine use is still hinted at in the film…(1/3)

Gangster Cinema Central

197,478 views • 4 months ago

Charles Barkley reveals he almost tried cocaine to understand his brother’s addiction “When I talk to young kids about drugs, I tell them it ain’t a matter of if, it’s a matter of when.” “I almost did cocaine one time.” “My brother was in and out of rehab, and I wanted to understand what could be so powerful that you’d give up the NBA and all that money.” “My friend looked at me and said, ‘Charles, you fucking nuts?’” “John Lucas told me, ‘If I put $1 million on the table and a pile of cocaine over there, a junkie wouldn’t think about buying more drugs with the money. He’d go straight for the cocaine.’” “My brother eventually got his life together.” “But he had done so much damage to his body that it gave out.” “He was 40 when he died.” “My mom never got over it.”
1:48

Charles Barkley reveals he almost tried cocaine to understand his brother’s addiction “When I talk to young kids about drugs, I tell them it ain’t a matter of if, it’s a matter of when.” “I almost did cocaine one time.” “My brother was in and out of rehab, and I wanted to understand what could be so powerful that you’d give up the NBA and all that money.” “My friend looked at me and said, ‘Charles, you fucking nuts?’” “John Lucas told me, ‘If I put $1 million on the table and a pile of cocaine over there, a junkie wouldn’t think about buying more drugs with the money. He’d go straight for the cocaine.’” “My brother eventually got his life together.” “But he had done so much damage to his body that it gave out.” “He was 40 when he died.” “My mom never got over it.”

Isaac Bassey

188,799 views • 1 month ago

Andrei Tarkovsky on Ingmar Bergman's Shame (1968): "Let us look at Bergman's Shame. The film doesn't contain a single 'actor's piece' for the performer to 'give away' the director's purpose, to play the conception of the persona, his attitude to it, to assess it in relation to the overall idea; and the latter is entirely hidden within the dynamic of the characters' lives, at one with it. The people in the film are crushed by circumstances; they act only in accordance with their situation, to which they themselves are subordinate; they make no attempt to proffer us any idea, any perspective on what is happening, or to draw any conclusion. All of that is left to the film as a whole, to the director's vision. And how superbly it is accomplished! You cannot say in simple terms who amongst them is good or bad. I could never say that von Sydow is a bad man. They are all partly good and partly bad, each in his own way. No judgements are passed, because there is no hint of tendentiousness in any of the actors, and the circumstances of the film are used by the director to explore the human possibilities which they test, and not for a moment in order to illustrate a thesis. Max von Sydow's character is developed with masterly power. He is a very good man; a musician; kind and sensitive. It turns out that he is a coward. But by no means every bold man is a good human being, and cowards are not always scoundrels. Of course, he is weak and irresolute. His wife is far stronger than he, so much so that she can overcome her fear. The hero lacks that strength. He is tormented by his own weakness, vulnerability, lack of resilience; he tries to hide, to cower in a corner, not to see and not to hear; and he does this like a child, naively and with complete sincerity. But when circumstances nevertheless force him to defend himself, he instantly turns into a scoundrel. He loses all that was best in him; but the drama and absurdity of his situation is that as he is now he becomes necessary to his wife, who, in her turn, looks to him for protection and succour instead of despising him as she always had. When he beats her about the face and says 'Get out!' she goes crawling after him. There is something here of the age-old idea of passive good and active evil; but its expression is immensely complex. At the beginning of the film the hero cannot even kill a chicken, but as soon as he has found a way of defending himself he becomes a cruel cynic. He has something of Hamlet: my view is that the Prince of Denmark perishes not as a result of the duel, when he dies physically, but immediately after the 'rat' scene, when he understands how irreversible are those laws of life which have forced him, a man of humanity and intellect, to act like the inferior people who inhabit Elsinore. Von Sydow is now a sinister character, afraid of nothing: he kills; will not raise a finger to save his fellows; pursues only his own interests. The point is that you have to be a person of great integrity to feel fear in the face of the foul necessity to kill and humiliate. And by shedding that fear and apparently acquiring courage, a person in fact loses his spiritual strength and intellectual honesty and parts from his innocence. War is the obvious catalyst for the cruel, anti-human elements in people. Bergman uses the war in this film exactly as he uses the heroine's illness in Through a Glass Darkly: to explore his view of man." — "Sculpting in Time" by Andrei Tarkovsky (translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair, 1987)
0:50

Andrei Tarkovsky on Ingmar Bergman's Shame (1968): "Let us look at Bergman's Shame. The film doesn't contain a single 'actor's piece' for the performer to 'give away' the director's purpose, to play the conception of the persona, his attitude to it, to assess it in relation to the overall idea; and the latter is entirely hidden within the dynamic of the characters' lives, at one with it. The people in the film are crushed by circumstances; they act only in accordance with their situation, to which they themselves are subordinate; they make no attempt to proffer us any idea, any perspective on what is happening, or to draw any conclusion. All of that is left to the film as a whole, to the director's vision. And how superbly it is accomplished! You cannot say in simple terms who amongst them is good or bad. I could never say that von Sydow is a bad man. They are all partly good and partly bad, each in his own way. No judgements are passed, because there is no hint of tendentiousness in any of the actors, and the circumstances of the film are used by the director to explore the human possibilities which they test, and not for a moment in order to illustrate a thesis. Max von Sydow's character is developed with masterly power. He is a very good man; a musician; kind and sensitive. It turns out that he is a coward. But by no means every bold man is a good human being, and cowards are not always scoundrels. Of course, he is weak and irresolute. His wife is far stronger than he, so much so that she can overcome her fear. The hero lacks that strength. He is tormented by his own weakness, vulnerability, lack of resilience; he tries to hide, to cower in a corner, not to see and not to hear; and he does this like a child, naively and with complete sincerity. But when circumstances nevertheless force him to defend himself, he instantly turns into a scoundrel. He loses all that was best in him; but the drama and absurdity of his situation is that as he is now he becomes necessary to his wife, who, in her turn, looks to him for protection and succour instead of despising him as she always had. When he beats her about the face and says 'Get out!' she goes crawling after him. There is something here of the age-old idea of passive good and active evil; but its expression is immensely complex. At the beginning of the film the hero cannot even kill a chicken, but as soon as he has found a way of defending himself he becomes a cruel cynic. He has something of Hamlet: my view is that the Prince of Denmark perishes not as a result of the duel, when he dies physically, but immediately after the 'rat' scene, when he understands how irreversible are those laws of life which have forced him, a man of humanity and intellect, to act like the inferior people who inhabit Elsinore. Von Sydow is now a sinister character, afraid of nothing: he kills; will not raise a finger to save his fellows; pursues only his own interests. The point is that you have to be a person of great integrity to feel fear in the face of the foul necessity to kill and humiliate. And by shedding that fear and apparently acquiring courage, a person in fact loses his spiritual strength and intellectual honesty and parts from his innocence. War is the obvious catalyst for the cruel, anti-human elements in people. Bergman uses the war in this film exactly as he uses the heroine's illness in Through a Glass Darkly: to explore his view of man." — "Sculpting in Time" by Andrei Tarkovsky (translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair, 1987)

RadiantFilm

27,723 views • 7 months ago

Mike Benz is worried the case against Nicolas Maduro may end up getting dismissed He says the CIA is who setup the cocaine trafficking networks in Venezuela and to make sure details of this don’t get released the CIA will want the DOJ to drop it “The cocaine networks in Venezuela were set up by the CIA, not by Maduro. The fact is, you can simply watch the 1993 60 Minutes episode where Mike Wallace broke that the CIA had set up an anti-cocaine warehouse in Venezuela and then struck a secret agreement with the Venezuelan National Guard to traffic 1,500 tons of cocaine into Miami against the protestations of DEA That was all sold on the streets of Miami to support CIA, Black Operations, paramilitary groups. The opposition backed by the US inside of Venezuela in 2019 is deeply affiliated with the CIA cocaine networks. There are probably international crimes that Maduro committed, but the idea of charging him with running a cocaine conspiracy, which Venezuela inherited from the Central Intelligence Agency itself, has made this case very tenuous. I'm concerned that this case could get dismissed because there's going to be so much last minute craziness going on inside the DOJ as the CIA is going to be constantly leaning on the DOJ to try to limit discovery.”
1:02

Mike Benz is worried the case against Nicolas Maduro may end up getting dismissed He says the CIA is who setup the cocaine trafficking networks in Venezuela and to make sure details of this don’t get released the CIA will want the DOJ to drop it “The cocaine networks in Venezuela were set up by the CIA, not by Maduro. The fact is, you can simply watch the 1993 60 Minutes episode where Mike Wallace broke that the CIA had set up an anti-cocaine warehouse in Venezuela and then struck a secret agreement with the Venezuelan National Guard to traffic 1,500 tons of cocaine into Miami against the protestations of DEA That was all sold on the streets of Miami to support CIA, Black Operations, paramilitary groups. The opposition backed by the US inside of Venezuela in 2019 is deeply affiliated with the CIA cocaine networks. There are probably international crimes that Maduro committed, but the idea of charging him with running a cocaine conspiracy, which Venezuela inherited from the Central Intelligence Agency itself, has made this case very tenuous. I'm concerned that this case could get dismissed because there's going to be so much last minute craziness going on inside the DOJ as the CIA is going to be constantly leaning on the DOJ to try to limit discovery.”

Wall Street Apes

183,384 views • 7 months ago

Chud The Builder continues to be selective in who he harasses and calls the N-Word. In this clip he challenges a journalist, who’s much smaller than him, to a fight and threatens to put rounds in him. So I have an opportunity for Chud. I have someone who is willing to “Chimp Out” on him. I have someone willing to accept his challenge in an exhibition MMA or Boxing match… he can choose. I’ll fly him to a safe location, put him in a nice Airbnb, give him some spending money to enjoy himself, and even put up some prize money if he can win a THREE ROUND exhibition bout… but I choose the opponent. The offer is there… and the opponent is chosen… all he has to do is say yes.
1:14

Chud The Builder continues to be selective in who he harasses and calls the N-Word. In this clip he challenges a journalist, who’s much smaller than him, to a fight and threatens to put rounds in him. So I have an opportunity for Chud. I have someone who is willing to “Chimp Out” on him. I have someone willing to accept his challenge in an exhibition MMA or Boxing match… he can choose. I’ll fly him to a safe location, put him in a nice Airbnb, give him some spending money to enjoy himself, and even put up some prize money if he can win a THREE ROUND exhibition bout… but I choose the opponent. The offer is there… and the opponent is chosen… all he has to do is say yes.

Robbie Harvey

1,399,792 views • 4 months ago

🚨 A French man addresses the people of Gabon 🇬🇦. “Hey Gabonese, no kidding, I have nothing against you. But there, we have our President Macron who is in your country, and no kidding, look at how you applaud him! If he is over there, it’s not for nothing. It’s surely to loot you again, to loot Africa. He is not there per adventure for a little visit huh, he is there because he’s got something up his sleeve. And no kidding, now that he has been rejected pretty much everywhere in Africa, he is trying to scrap a few countries. And no kidding, when I saw how you applauded him, honestly, personally, I don’t think this President deserves to be applauded anymore. That’s my opinion! But, I would not go to applaud him. Have you seen the mess he put us in? Have you seen the mess they are preparing for us ? No kidding, if he is there, it’s not for nothing, it’s because he has an ulterior motive (he literally said an interest in the back of his head).”
1:05

🚨 A French man addresses the people of Gabon 🇬🇦. “Hey Gabonese, no kidding, I have nothing against you. But there, we have our President Macron who is in your country, and no kidding, look at how you applaud him! If he is over there, it’s not for nothing. It’s surely to loot you again, to loot Africa. He is not there per adventure for a little visit huh, he is there because he’s got something up his sleeve. And no kidding, now that he has been rejected pretty much everywhere in Africa, he is trying to scrap a few countries. And no kidding, when I saw how you applauded him, honestly, personally, I don’t think this President deserves to be applauded anymore. That’s my opinion! But, I would not go to applaud him. Have you seen the mess he put us in? Have you seen the mess they are preparing for us ? No kidding, if he is there, it’s not for nothing, it’s because he has an ulterior motive (he literally said an interest in the back of his head).”

Sy Marcus Herve Traore

190,123 views • 9 months ago

Oliver Stone based Alejandro Sosa in Scarface on Roberto Suárez, one of the most powerful drug lords of the 1980s. In early drafts, Stone went into far more detail about Sosa’s power and political connections, but the final film only hints at it. Stone explains: "At that time there was a man in Bolivia embodied by that drug lord in the movie, Suarez…I think that was his real name. Suarez was known at that time to have a large ring inside Bolivia. He was a big deal, Suarez—he was politically connected. He had his own state: The whole goal is to get your own state, like the Al Qaeda got their state in Afghanistan? Well, Suarez had his own state. The DEA was trying to take him down, but he was protected, I think, by the CIA. That was the whole point with the scene [in Bolivia]—which was misread by De Palma when he filmed it, so people missed it—Suarez was being protected by another [U.S.] government agency of some kind." Oliver Stone's quote comes from Ken Tucker's book Scarface Nation. Notice in the clip below, when Tony visits Sosa over his “tax troubles,” he’s deliberately framed through gated bars, symbolizing the threat of imprisonment hanging over him. The camera pans away from the bars right as Sosa enters the frame, suggesting he represents Tony’s only way out.
4:25

Oliver Stone based Alejandro Sosa in Scarface on Roberto Suárez, one of the most powerful drug lords of the 1980s. In early drafts, Stone went into far more detail about Sosa’s power and political connections, but the final film only hints at it. Stone explains: "At that time there was a man in Bolivia embodied by that drug lord in the movie, Suarez…I think that was his real name. Suarez was known at that time to have a large ring inside Bolivia. He was a big deal, Suarez—he was politically connected. He had his own state: The whole goal is to get your own state, like the Al Qaeda got their state in Afghanistan? Well, Suarez had his own state. The DEA was trying to take him down, but he was protected, I think, by the CIA. That was the whole point with the scene [in Bolivia]—which was misread by De Palma when he filmed it, so people missed it—Suarez was being protected by another [U.S.] government agency of some kind." Oliver Stone's quote comes from Ken Tucker's book Scarface Nation. Notice in the clip below, when Tony visits Sosa over his “tax troubles,” he’s deliberately framed through gated bars, symbolizing the threat of imprisonment hanging over him. The camera pans away from the bars right as Sosa enters the frame, suggesting he represents Tony’s only way out.

Gangster Cinema Central

99,470 views • 3 months ago

Asked Nuggets coach David Adelman about the season that Jaylen Brown has had, and he gushed about Brown as both a player and a person. "The the elite shooting from mid range is such a big deal in our game, it's the late-clock ability, his overall size, his ability to play in the middle of the floor, which is really hard to come double people and not give up the three point line to a team like they have, I would just say his continued evolution in his game. "He's an elite, All-Star player, two-way player. I just watched him grow over the years, not just the championship year, but with Jayson Tatum, obviously out, more responsibility falls into his hands, and I thought they did a great job building around him for this particular season, with all the shooting that surrounds him." "He's a problem. He's not fun to watch on tape when you have to play against him. I'm a fan of his, just as a pure basketball person, not just as a coach. Actually got to spend some time in Africa, he was such an impressive person. He's good for the NBA. He's going to be a probelm for us tonight." "There was an Africa game that I coach in, that he played in. They used to do that yearly in South Africa. It's an amazing event. He came down there for that. And some of the events that we had to do -- humanitarian stuff, you go out and you see these communities, and just to see his investment in it was really impressive. And he was at a much younger age then. And I remember him in the bubble, speaking up at meetings and things like that." "Some people are born to lead. He definitely stands out as one of those people."
1:36

Asked Nuggets coach David Adelman about the season that Jaylen Brown has had, and he gushed about Brown as both a player and a person. "The the elite shooting from mid range is such a big deal in our game, it's the late-clock ability, his overall size, his ability to play in the middle of the floor, which is really hard to come double people and not give up the three point line to a team like they have, I would just say his continued evolution in his game. "He's an elite, All-Star player, two-way player. I just watched him grow over the years, not just the championship year, but with Jayson Tatum, obviously out, more responsibility falls into his hands, and I thought they did a great job building around him for this particular season, with all the shooting that surrounds him." "He's a problem. He's not fun to watch on tape when you have to play against him. I'm a fan of his, just as a pure basketball person, not just as a coach. Actually got to spend some time in Africa, he was such an impressive person. He's good for the NBA. He's going to be a probelm for us tonight." "There was an Africa game that I coach in, that he played in. They used to do that yearly in South Africa. It's an amazing event. He came down there for that. And some of the events that we had to do -- humanitarian stuff, you go out and you see these communities, and just to see his investment in it was really impressive. And he was at a much younger age then. And I remember him in the bubble, speaking up at meetings and things like that." "Some people are born to lead. He definitely stands out as one of those people."

Noa Dalzell 🏀

98,397 views • 7 months ago

The targeting foul against Zack Orr of NCC Football has been overturned, and he will be eligible to start in Saturday's #d3fb National Semifinal vs. Susquehanna Football at 3:30pm EST / 2:30pm CST. I spoke with Steve Shaw, the NCAA's National Coordinator of Officials, about the overturn this morning. Note that the provision in question is whether or not Springfield Football QB Drew Heenan qualified under the rules as a "defenseless player," as the following is one such definition in the NCAA Football Rulebook: "A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped." If a defenseless player is hit in the neck or head region by an opponent, then targeting is a proper call under the rules. Steve said: “We’re very clear that he's not defenseless until he is down. And if you go back and look at the video on the play…he's wrapped up and he's going down. And the contact is with [the] runner just as he's going to the ground. So he really has not transitioned to a defenseless player yet. You know, you can make the argument that, well, if he's wrapped up, he's defenseless and he can't really defend himself. But from a replay perspective, we needed a bright line that that was not a judgment, but a bright line. And that is, [he] has to be down, considered down before he's defenseless….He's just beginning to go down and be down. And so we wouldn't consider him down at the time that he's hit. And there's no crown of the helmet involved. The helmet is clearly to the side. And so, from a replay perspective, rules are very clear. You've got to be able to confirm all aspects of targeting for it to be targeting. You couldn't confirm that he was down and then hit. So we didn't give him defenseless status....And that's why the targeting was overturned.” Steve also taught me about something that is important. While regular replay reviews can come out as "confirmed," "overturned," or "stands" (which means that there is not conclusive evidence to overturn, but there isn't a full confirmation of the original call either), targeting calls do not have a "stands" option when they are reviewed. In other words, they are viewed anew and either every element necessary for targeting must be confirmed, or it is overturned. Think of it as being innocent until proven guilty in the review process for targeting. In this case, he was clear to underscore that the elements could have been argued to have existed, but it would have, at best, been a "call stands" decision, which is not sufficient to uphold a targeting call. Steve also expressed the hopes that the instant replay model that has been developed and used in Division 2 will become more utilized in Division 3, related to more-universal instant replay using a coaches' challenge approach (except for targeting), much like we saw in the Centennial Conference this year. He understands the challenges, but he also feels that having two HD camera angles plus the normal web stream (basically at least three cameras) is sufficient to embrace the needs of instant replay. He is not in favor of a D1 type of replay at the lower levels because of the desire to not have constant game interruptions and more technological challenges at the lower levels than we see at D1 -- he stressed his support of a coaches' challenge system in our conversation multiple times. In The (D3FB) Huddle and I give thanks to Steve for his transparency, which is always on display in the CFO training videos he releases on YouTube. I always learn something when I watch his videos, and today was no different in our conversation.
0:38

The targeting foul against Zack Orr of NCC Football has been overturned, and he will be eligible to start in Saturday's #d3fb National Semifinal vs. Susquehanna Football at 3:30pm EST / 2:30pm CST. I spoke with Steve Shaw, the NCAA's National Coordinator of Officials, about the overturn this morning. Note that the provision in question is whether or not Springfield Football QB Drew Heenan qualified under the rules as a "defenseless player," as the following is one such definition in the NCAA Football Rulebook: "A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped." If a defenseless player is hit in the neck or head region by an opponent, then targeting is a proper call under the rules. Steve said: “We’re very clear that he's not defenseless until he is down. And if you go back and look at the video on the play…he's wrapped up and he's going down. And the contact is with [the] runner just as he's going to the ground. So he really has not transitioned to a defenseless player yet. You know, you can make the argument that, well, if he's wrapped up, he's defenseless and he can't really defend himself. But from a replay perspective, we needed a bright line that that was not a judgment, but a bright line. And that is, [he] has to be down, considered down before he's defenseless….He's just beginning to go down and be down. And so we wouldn't consider him down at the time that he's hit. And there's no crown of the helmet involved. The helmet is clearly to the side. And so, from a replay perspective, rules are very clear. You've got to be able to confirm all aspects of targeting for it to be targeting. You couldn't confirm that he was down and then hit. So we didn't give him defenseless status....And that's why the targeting was overturned.” Steve also taught me about something that is important. While regular replay reviews can come out as "confirmed," "overturned," or "stands" (which means that there is not conclusive evidence to overturn, but there isn't a full confirmation of the original call either), targeting calls do not have a "stands" option when they are reviewed. In other words, they are viewed anew and either every element necessary for targeting must be confirmed, or it is overturned. Think of it as being innocent until proven guilty in the review process for targeting. In this case, he was clear to underscore that the elements could have been argued to have existed, but it would have, at best, been a "call stands" decision, which is not sufficient to uphold a targeting call. Steve also expressed the hopes that the instant replay model that has been developed and used in Division 2 will become more utilized in Division 3, related to more-universal instant replay using a coaches' challenge approach (except for targeting), much like we saw in the Centennial Conference this year. He understands the challenges, but he also feels that having two HD camera angles plus the normal web stream (basically at least three cameras) is sufficient to embrace the needs of instant replay. He is not in favor of a D1 type of replay at the lower levels because of the desire to not have constant game interruptions and more technological challenges at the lower levels than we see at D1 -- he stressed his support of a coaches' challenge system in our conversation multiple times. In The (D3FB) Huddle and I give thanks to Steve for his transparency, which is always on display in the CFO training videos he releases on YouTube. I always learn something when I watch his videos, and today was no different in our conversation.

Frank Rossi

29,476 views • 1 year ago

"He has written an open letter to the president that he fears for his life. Someone has to be alive before justice is heard in his case and if he's not alive... I cannot reach my client, I have not seen him in over a month. It's sad, you know, but that is the reality of the situation." — Genesis Francis, counsel to PFIPC’s Adeniyi Adeyemi
0:53

"He has written an open letter to the president that he fears for his life. Someone has to be alive before justice is heard in his case and if he's not alive... I cannot reach my client, I have not seen him in over a month. It's sad, you know, but that is the reality of the situation." — Genesis Francis, counsel to PFIPC’s Adeniyi Adeyemi

TheCable

56,724 views • 1 month ago

“Iran is not going to declare an end to the war while Israel is still attacking Lebanon. It has to be part of the deal. And of course, Bibi won’t play ball because he doesn’t want the war to end. And Trump is just waking up to that fact three months into the war, and he’s not happy about it.” “A lot of what he’s saying is that Bibi should do everything that he says. And now he’s learning that that’s not the way the world works. So constantly over the past three months, Trump is confronted by reality, which totally contradicts the made up story he has about the Iran war in his head. And guess what? In the end, reality is winning out.” “And that’s why we’re in the quagmire we’re in. Because Trump won’t accept the reality. He only wants the world to bend to what’s in his head. In this case, he’s not getting what he wants, so he’s throwing a tantrum.”
0:41

“Iran is not going to declare an end to the war while Israel is still attacking Lebanon. It has to be part of the deal. And of course, Bibi won’t play ball because he doesn’t want the war to end. And Trump is just waking up to that fact three months into the war, and he’s not happy about it.” “A lot of what he’s saying is that Bibi should do everything that he says. And now he’s learning that that’s not the way the world works. So constantly over the past three months, Trump is confronted by reality, which totally contradicts the made up story he has about the Iran war in his head. And guess what? In the end, reality is winning out.” “And that’s why we’re in the quagmire we’re in. Because Trump won’t accept the reality. He only wants the world to bend to what’s in his head. In this case, he’s not getting what he wants, so he’s throwing a tantrum.”

Josh Rogin

13,279 views • 3 months ago

Arteta on Martin Odegaard: “I think he had a very difficult season in terms of the days that he's missed, the amount of games, which is very unusual. “He's a player that needs that rhythm, that needs to be very connected with the team. And not only that he's missed that opportunity, but the team as well has missed him. “So much for what he brings, that some things that are probably unnoticed to the public or in general are not in those stats, but it's much more profound within the team and the identity of this team. “We need him at his best, we need him constantly with us because we are a much better team with Martin in and around the team. Isaan Khan: “What is it the public don’t notice?” Arteta: “He’s the one that connects everybody, that glides everybody together, that makes the team flow in a way that nobody else can do that, and that's a huge quality to have.”
1:23

Arteta on Martin Odegaard: “I think he had a very difficult season in terms of the days that he's missed, the amount of games, which is very unusual. “He's a player that needs that rhythm, that needs to be very connected with the team. And not only that he's missed that opportunity, but the team as well has missed him. “So much for what he brings, that some things that are probably unnoticed to the public or in general are not in those stats, but it's much more profound within the team and the identity of this team. “We need him at his best, we need him constantly with us because we are a much better team with Martin in and around the team. Isaan Khan: “What is it the public don’t notice?” Arteta: “He’s the one that connects everybody, that glides everybody together, that makes the team flow in a way that nobody else can do that, and that's a huge quality to have.”

Connor Humm

173,568 views • 4 months ago

In Scarface, when Tony is first offered the job to pick up cocaine, when he hears he’ll be dealing with Colombians, a look of contempt flashes across his face. Later, when Manny presses him on it, Tony says, “I don’t like Colombians,” but never explains why. Here, Oliver Stone is tapping into a very real prejudice many Cuban criminals held towards Colombians in Miami at that time. Before the late 1970s, the cocaine pipeline into South Florida was largely controlled by Cuban criminal networks. But that all changed with the rise of Pablo Escobar and the Colombian Medellín Cartel. Colombian traffickers began pushing out the Cubans, which led to all‑out warfare in the streets of Miami and an unprecedented rise in homicides. The Colombians operated with a level of barbarism far beyond anything the Cubans were used to. They had a reputation for double‑crossing outsiders, especially Cubans. They were willing to kill civilians, wipe out entire families of rivals. There were even reports in the press of victims being dismembered with chainsaws – which was incorporated into the film. That moment when Tony hears he’ll be doing the pickup with “Colombians”, that look of distrust and contempt is one of recognition. He’s aware of their reputation, and it’s why he’s so vigilante and suspicious when he goes into the deal.
1:51

In Scarface, when Tony is first offered the job to pick up cocaine, when he hears he’ll be dealing with Colombians, a look of contempt flashes across his face. Later, when Manny presses him on it, Tony says, “I don’t like Colombians,” but never explains why. Here, Oliver Stone is tapping into a very real prejudice many Cuban criminals held towards Colombians in Miami at that time. Before the late 1970s, the cocaine pipeline into South Florida was largely controlled by Cuban criminal networks. But that all changed with the rise of Pablo Escobar and the Colombian Medellín Cartel. Colombian traffickers began pushing out the Cubans, which led to all‑out warfare in the streets of Miami and an unprecedented rise in homicides. The Colombians operated with a level of barbarism far beyond anything the Cubans were used to. They had a reputation for double‑crossing outsiders, especially Cubans. They were willing to kill civilians, wipe out entire families of rivals. There were even reports in the press of victims being dismembered with chainsaws – which was incorporated into the film. That moment when Tony hears he’ll be doing the pickup with “Colombians”, that look of distrust and contempt is one of recognition. He’s aware of their reputation, and it’s why he’s so vigilante and suspicious when he goes into the deal.

Gangster Cinema Central

524,267 views • 2 months ago

A pilot put a passenger jet down on a river and got every person on board off alive. Within days, investigators were asking him what he had eaten for lunch. He told them a tuna sandwich. Then they asked whether he had had a candy bar. Whether he had had a soda. That is not small talk. There is a precise reason those 2 questions could have ended his career, and Tom Hanks lays it out in about 4 sentences. The pilot is Chesley Sullenberger. Hanks played him, spent time with him first, and says the man walked him through the entire script telling him which parts never happened. As Hanks was told it, the stake was money. If the board could establish that the pilot did 1 thing wrong, the insurance on an airplane he puts at 17 million dollars would not have to be paid out. Every question in that room was built for that. It went on for the better part of a year. In the film it takes days, because films cannot afford a year. What was happening to him has a name in psychology. Baruch Fischhoff described it in 1975 and called it creeping determinism. Once you know how something ended, the ending looks like it was always coming, and every road you did not take looks like it was sitting right there, clearly marked, the whole time. Which is why the question "why did you not do this instead" is close to unanswerable. It is asked by people who know the ending, to a person who did not have it. There is a second effect underneath, well documented in aviation and in medicine. The person at the centre of the investigation frequently comes out of it in worse condition than the people he saved. Researchers gave that person a name. He is the second victim. Hanks is 67 when he says this, and what he admires is not the landing. It is a distinction he makes in 1 sentence near the end, and it is the whole reason he told the story at all. He saved everyone on that plane. Then he spent a year proving he had not eaten a candy bar.
12:36

A pilot put a passenger jet down on a river and got every person on board off alive. Within days, investigators were asking him what he had eaten for lunch. He told them a tuna sandwich. Then they asked whether he had had a candy bar. Whether he had had a soda. That is not small talk. There is a precise reason those 2 questions could have ended his career, and Tom Hanks lays it out in about 4 sentences. The pilot is Chesley Sullenberger. Hanks played him, spent time with him first, and says the man walked him through the entire script telling him which parts never happened. As Hanks was told it, the stake was money. If the board could establish that the pilot did 1 thing wrong, the insurance on an airplane he puts at 17 million dollars would not have to be paid out. Every question in that room was built for that. It went on for the better part of a year. In the film it takes days, because films cannot afford a year. What was happening to him has a name in psychology. Baruch Fischhoff described it in 1975 and called it creeping determinism. Once you know how something ended, the ending looks like it was always coming, and every road you did not take looks like it was sitting right there, clearly marked, the whole time. Which is why the question "why did you not do this instead" is close to unanswerable. It is asked by people who know the ending, to a person who did not have it. There is a second effect underneath, well documented in aviation and in medicine. The person at the centre of the investigation frequently comes out of it in worse condition than the people he saved. Researchers gave that person a name. He is the second victim. Hanks is 67 when he says this, and what he admires is not the landing. It is a distinction he makes in 1 sentence near the end, and it is the whole reason he told the story at all. He saved everyone on that plane. Then he spent a year proving he had not eaten a candy bar.

Stefan.

209,430 views • 2 days ago

When he say’s ‘he feels like he’s on cocaine he’s so high and happy!’ 🙌🏼 I loved seeing that pure elation in his eyes, he’d have let me do anything to him in that moment. This is why you need to trust your play partner, he could’ve consented to anything, but would it have really been consent if he was high on all the yummy brain chemicals? I know my thoughts on it.
1:47

Sensitive content

When he say’s ‘he feels like he’s on cocaine he’s so high and happy!’ 🙌🏼 I loved seeing that pure elation in his eyes, he’d have let me do anything to him in that moment. This is why you need to trust your play partner, he could’ve consented to anything, but would it have really been consent if he was high on all the yummy brain chemicals? I know my thoughts on it.

Miss Masha Blues

39,206 views • 1 year ago

Today’s Verse: 2 Timothy 4:6–8 (NKJV) “For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing.” Paul knew his time was short, but his confidence in Christ was unshaken. He could look back and say he had fought faithfully, finished well, and kept the faith. His eyes were not on what he was leaving behind but on the crown of righteousness that awaited him in the presence of Jesus. This same promise is yours. One day, your race will end, but if you are in Christ, it will end in victory. The crown is not only for Paul but for all who love His appearing—for you, if you keep your eyes on Him and endure in faith. So today, live with eternity in view. Fight the good fight, run with endurance, and keep the faith. Let every step point toward the day when you will see Jesus face to face and receive the crown that He has prepared for you.
18:37

Today’s Verse: 2 Timothy 4:6–8 (NKJV) “For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing.” Paul knew his time was short, but his confidence in Christ was unshaken. He could look back and say he had fought faithfully, finished well, and kept the faith. His eyes were not on what he was leaving behind but on the crown of righteousness that awaited him in the presence of Jesus. This same promise is yours. One day, your race will end, but if you are in Christ, it will end in victory. The crown is not only for Paul but for all who love His appearing—for you, if you keep your eyes on Him and endure in faith. So today, live with eternity in view. Fight the good fight, run with endurance, and keep the faith. Let every step point toward the day when you will see Jesus face to face and receive the crown that He has prepared for you.

Jack Hibbs

25,762 views • 11 months ago

So the discourse around this Dave Ramsey clip is so mixed up that I’ve just decided to upload the whole thing. In the full context of the call, the caller makes it perfectly obvious that: 1. She has been with this man, whom she is now living with, for six years. 2. She is a nurse and can make her own money. 3. She has been out of school for two years, and in that time she has paid off $70,000 of the debt. In the course of the call, Dave never suggests that this man should have to pay for that debt. Indeed, he actively suggests that she leave him, which guarantees he will not pay for the debt. Dave also all but says that, because of her career choice, the caller will be able to pay for the debt on her own, even if she has to take extra hours. All Dave is saying—and this should have been obvious from the original clip—is that the two are not aligned on money and debt at all. It is also clear that Dave thinks the man is stringing her along, which he is. So they simply should not be married at all, because this is a fundamental failure in the relationship. I myself would add that, at this late stage in the relationship, if you do not trust a woman financially, you should simply not be with that woman. And that is perfectly fine. But what you do not do is drag her along for six years when she obviously wants to get married, and then put another two or three years of financial hoops in front of her so that maybe you will propose. It is a waste of everybody’s time.
6:16

So the discourse around this Dave Ramsey clip is so mixed up that I’ve just decided to upload the whole thing. In the full context of the call, the caller makes it perfectly obvious that: 1. She has been with this man, whom she is now living with, for six years. 2. She is a nurse and can make her own money. 3. She has been out of school for two years, and in that time she has paid off $70,000 of the debt. In the course of the call, Dave never suggests that this man should have to pay for that debt. Indeed, he actively suggests that she leave him, which guarantees he will not pay for the debt. Dave also all but says that, because of her career choice, the caller will be able to pay for the debt on her own, even if she has to take extra hours. All Dave is saying—and this should have been obvious from the original clip—is that the two are not aligned on money and debt at all. It is also clear that Dave thinks the man is stringing her along, which he is. So they simply should not be married at all, because this is a fundamental failure in the relationship. I myself would add that, at this late stage in the relationship, if you do not trust a woman financially, you should simply not be with that woman. And that is perfectly fine. But what you do not do is drag her along for six years when she obviously wants to get married, and then put another two or three years of financial hoops in front of her so that maybe you will propose. It is a waste of everybody’s time.

CTrefugees

135,314 views • 3 months ago

They chased him off the property. Even if the teen had a gun, and even if that gun fell during the chase, the bigger question is whether he had reason to fear for his own life once grown men were pursuing him away from the store. From his perspective, he may not have known what they intended to do. He could have believed they were chasing him to beat him, hold him, or even kidnap him. In that situation, it is fair to ask whether he also had a right to defend himself. The focus should not only be on whether he had a gun. The focus should also be on why he was chased off the property in the first place and whether the people chasing him created the danger that led to the shooting.
2:50

They chased him off the property. Even if the teen had a gun, and even if that gun fell during the chase, the bigger question is whether he had reason to fear for his own life once grown men were pursuing him away from the store. From his perspective, he may not have known what they intended to do. He could have believed they were chasing him to beat him, hold him, or even kidnap him. In that situation, it is fair to ask whether he also had a right to defend himself. The focus should not only be on whether he had a gun. The focus should also be on why he was chased off the property in the first place and whether the people chasing him created the danger that led to the shooting.

Arthur Watkins Jr. 🇺🇸

14,383 views • 3 months ago

Fellas… This is an Old School PR push from a team and General Manager that knows they’re on the outside looking in. For context… Kane has an offer from the Sabres. He was not happy with term/money. Chicago has given him exactly what he wants. He wants the Sabres to come up to make his decision easier. Sabres currently have all the leverage as they don’t need him desperately but would love to have him. Once a deal like Tarasenko goes through he and his agent have more leverage to say he’s better than this fella this is how much he should be compensated. At the end of the day a big part of this is going to come down to Mr. Pegula. Because Kane is 35+ Kane can receive performance related bonuses that do not go against the cap. Mr. Pegula would have to take care of the bill. #LetsGoBuffalo
1:15

Fellas… This is an Old School PR push from a team and General Manager that knows they’re on the outside looking in. For context… Kane has an offer from the Sabres. He was not happy with term/money. Chicago has given him exactly what he wants. He wants the Sabres to come up to make his decision easier. Sabres currently have all the leverage as they don’t need him desperately but would love to have him. Once a deal like Tarasenko goes through he and his agent have more leverage to say he’s better than this fella this is how much he should be compensated. At the end of the day a big part of this is going to come down to Mr. Pegula. Because Kane is 35+ Kane can receive performance related bonuses that do not go against the cap. Mr. Pegula would have to take care of the bill. #LetsGoBuffalo

Andrew Heaters

34,044 views • 1 month ago