It's become sport for folks to say breathlessly, "I'm sick of Charlie Sheen. Aren't there better stories to discuss? Stories that are more important."

I've got two words: Shut up!

Listen, Sparky, be careful. You just might fall off of that high horse of yours.The sole criterion for story legitimacy is if people are interested in it. That's it. I can't tell you how many times I have to stop myself from discussing a subject that I know is important and critical and worth mentioning but will bore the living ... well, you know. The Fed, implosion of the dollar, fiat currency and SDR's, civil liberties infringement, the systematic softening up and desensitization of the population to increased surveillance. The mainstream media's refusal to do its job. The lies and distortion of Obama. And every POTUS who's ever served. The illusion of the left-right paradigm. The vapid and insipid political discussion that permeates our airwaves. The fact that Obama has either changed his mind (wait, is that the change he was talking about?) or performed a complete about-face about a position he swore to uphold.

Shall I go on?

And do you know how many eyes would fuse shut? Can you imagine the sound of TV sets shut off and channels changed almost in unison? Do you think folks are interested in subjects of substance? Yes, perhaps some are. But not enough, I'm afraid to say. But, dammit, Charlie Sheen is interesting. It's the story of sex, drugs, career implosion. Porn actresses (actresses?) and trashed hotel rooms. Police calls and arrests. Mug shots and lives ruined. A million dollar an episode xanthodontic spoiled brat speaking mile-a-minute gibberish. A logolalic manic cokehead and sot waxing incomprehensible about Tiger blood and Vatican assassins. Custody battles and threatened interventions. Shall I go on?

We live in a sick and voyeuristic world that can't get enough of personal implosion and self-destruction. And that's the way it is. If you see any story on TV for more than a minute it's because its ratings-worthy.This is a society with the collective attention span of a gnat, who can watch hours on end to a duck playing the piano on YouTube. We're a country that loves quick fix, evanescent, now-you-see-it-now-you-don't predigested news stuff.

So keep this in mind. Especially if you're one of these high-falutin' types who loves to lament wall-to-wall Sheen coverage. And, to be completely honest, I've hit critical mass myself.

In my March 4th commentary, I cited three stories that I reference infra as promised. You can't make this up.

Primate Pirates in NOLA

Butts waives hearing in Boob murder case

A happy ending to farmer's anus woes

Zeus bless the Internet.

This is Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal. Today he made it clear that his country rejects any interference in its domestic affairs and would "cut off" any accusing finger. With the Saudis, folks who are most creative when it comes to dispensing judgment via a variety of amputation and beheading methods that I'd rather not detail now, you're never sure if this is just an idiomatic expression or an actual plan to lop off digits.

The Saudi government has beefed up security in preparation for the March 11 ”Friday of Rage” called for by an opposition group on Facebook.Protests and public display of dissent are outlawed in Saudi Arabia. The Financial Times reported that "The Interior Ministry issued a statement . . . reiterating the ban, adding that protests are against Islamic sharia. The ban was backed by statements by the clergy and the shura council, an appointed consultative assembly."

Shi'ite protesters have taken to the streets in recent days demanding inter alia more freedom and democracy (translation: democracy that comports with our sense of democracy), mirroring that seen across the Middle East and North Africa. Remember Saudi Arabia has a Sunni majority. Interesting.

Faisal is the nephew of King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz and he said that Saudi Arabia "rejects any foreign interference in its internal affairs." He warned that protests would not bring reform and urged dialogue with the demonstrators. [Source reference]

Prince Faisal said, "The reform... does not come via protests and [the clerics] have forbidden protests since they violate the Koran and the way of the Prophet," He said change would come from within. Translation: We will crush anyone who dares challenge us. And he means business.

"Change will come through the citizens of this kingdom and not through foreign fingers, we don't need them," he said during a news conference. "We will cut any finger that crosses into the kingdom." There he goes with that fingers being cut reference.

And this is my favorite. Amnesty International has called on the world's largest oil exporter to drop the restriction of peaceful protests, after a brutal crackdown recently on a demonstration in a Shiite region. Ha! Folks, this is the last guy you want to mess with.

I don't mean to sound as though I'm suggesting that protesters back down, but I just want folks to realize that while we think nothing about protesting (whenever we fight torpor and actually protest), Saudi officials have absolutely no compunction about severely crushing anyone or any group who would dare challenge their authority.

Keep an eye on this one.

You don't have to know the first thing about seismology or nuclear physics to know that what your about to see is catastrophic.

As a result of the fires and damage to the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex, nuclear experts have concerns that localized winds are blowing the radiation towards Tokyo prompting evacuation.

But what many fear is that the longer term trajectory of upper atmosphere prevailing winds will still send any potential radiation cloud towards the U.S. west coast. [Global Jet Stream Map for March 13-21]

And one more thing. Remember, to take cum grano salis anything your government tells you. When the BP disaster was breaking, clarity and transparency were shelved. And when those brave 9/11 first responders were told that all was safe . . . well, you know what happened.

This is an excerpt from an article contained in The Australian. It puts into perspective the dangers Japan now faces from radiation being emitted from the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear reactors and introduces many to a most (now) dreaded scientific unit, the millisievert (mSv). A sievert (Sv) is defined as follows.

a unit of ionizing radiation absorbed dose equivalent in the International System of Units, obtained as a product of the absorbed dose measure in grays and a dimensionless factor, stipulated by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, and indicating the biological effectiveness of the radiation.

Some reports have stated that radiation levels at the reactors have reached 400 millisieverts an hour - enough for experts to urge a rapid rotation of emergency crews, to limit their exposure to its DNA-destroying energy.

Tilman Ruff, a public health physician at the University of Melbourne's Nossal Institute for Global Health, said this intensity of radiation was far above the maximum safe level for the general public, of just 1 millisievert per annum, and much higher even than the limit for workers in occupational settings, of 20 millisieverts annually.

At these levels, the 50 workers still on site ran the real risk of developing acute radiation sickness if not given proper protection, said Associate Professor Ruff, while the general population faced separate but no less real risks from chronic exposure to any lower-level contaminants released into the environment.

Symptoms of acute radiation poisoning start at doses above half to one sievert (500 to 1000 millisieverts), with symptoms such as nausea, headache and fatigue.

Doses of between 2 and 4 sieverts can cause bleeding, nausea and ulceration of the intestinal tract, and can cause a horrible death, either within a few days of exposure, or after a more lingering illness such as anaemia, infection and blood loss take their toll.

Higher doses can damage the brain and central nervous system directly, causing coma and death within days or hours.

However, the bigger potential threat facing Japan lies in a repeat of the Chernobyl accident, in which radioactive contamination was blown over the surrounding area and into the atmosphere.

While this has not yet occurred in Japan, the health effects in this situation would be caused by a more insidious and chronic exposure to radiation of a different type.

Intense bursts of radiation that cause rapidly fatal cases of acute poisoning are often caused by gamma rays, a type of ionising radiation that, like X-rays, damages cells and DNA by stripping atoms of some of their charged particles.

However, radioactive isotopes often emitted in nuclear accidents in many cases emit a different type of radiation called alpha particles.

Outside the body, these are not usually a problem, because they do not travel long distances and cannot penetrate the skin or even a sheet of paper.

But swallowed or inhaled, they can do great damage.

"The lethal dose for a human can be no more, in energy terms, than the heat in a cup of coffee," Professor Ruff said. "It's not that it's a particularly large amount of energy - it's just packaged in such a way that's particularly damaging to the large molecules that are key to how we work."

The isotope iodine-131 - which accounts for about 3 per cent of the products of uranium fission - is easily absorbed by the thyroid gland, which produces hormones essential for cell metabolism. Once there, there is little to protect surrounding DNA from the particle bombardment that alpha radiation involves.

While doctors could give people non-radioactive iodine as a preventative measure to saturate the thyroid and prevent it taking up any radioactive molecules, this had to be taken within 36 hours of exposure.

Professor Ruff said reactors contained a "complex soup" of radioactive isotopes, and caesium-137 was a particular threat as it behaved in chemical terms like potassium and was readily taken up by cells throughout the body.

Likewise, strontium-90 behaved like calcium, leading to its accumulation in bones and teeth.

Iodine-131 has a half-life of just eight days, which means that after this time half the substance has decayed, in this case into the inert gas xenon. But many other radioactive compounds persist for much longer.

Strontium-90 and caesium-137 both have half lives of about 30 years, while plutonium-239 - another product of the Japanese reactors, which Professor Ruff describes as "probably the most hazardous substance in existence" - has a half-life of 24,200 years.

No treatments exist that can reverse the damage involved in radiation poisoning, although doctors can try to treat symptoms, for instance by giving antibiotics to prop up a failing immune system.

Professor Ruff said any large radiation leak could have serious consequences over a wide area, as the Chernobyl blast had resulted in radiation hotspots in areas as far-flung as northern Sweden, southern Greece and other parts of Europe.

It was unlikely to affect Australia, as the separation of climate systems in the northern and southern hemispheres would make it difficult for airborne contamination to cross the equator.

But for those in Japan, increases in cancer rates could be expected to follow a significant radiation leak - as had already been seen in the 23 years since the Ukraine accident. "At Chernobyl, 42 workers died from acute radiation sickness, all within the first month," Professor Ruff said.

"But it's estimated that somewhere between 10,000 and 60,000 people in total will die from fall-out, and from cancer, over a period of decades."

Rates of thyroid cancer around Chernobyl rose within five years of the accident, Professor Ruff said, while rates of childhood leukemia rose within 10 years.

"Then the various solid tumours - lung, stomach, ovary, breast, colon - (have started to rise after) 10 years and onwards," he said.

"The incidence of cancer in Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors is still going up.

"You can't put a name on it and say, 'That cancer is due to that radiation exposure', because cancer caused by radiation doesn't look any different to cancer caused by smoking, or anything else. But overall, it could be a very significant increase in rates."

Other experts yesterday sought to tone down the health concerns.

Peter Burns, former chief executive of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, said radiation releases so far in Japan were "I suspect . . . a million times, probably several million times, less" than in Chernobyl, where basic prevention measures would have greatly lessened the health impacts.

"The problem at Chernobyl (was that) people still drank the milk and ate the vegetables," he said.

To bad no one cares.

Constitutional watchdog. Especially with a Dem in the White House. Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett, a supporter of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, disagrees with Operation Odyssey Dawn (sounds like a stripper) and is describing POTUS's decision to deploy force again Libya without first seeking congressional authorization “an affront to the Constitution.” Interesting.

Dr. Bartlett, a Western Maryland Republican, chairs the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces. In a statement Monday, he said “The United States does not have a King's army.” Here is his statement.

Washington, Mar 21 - Congressman Roscoe Bartlett released the following statement today concerning the situation in Libya. Congressman Bartlett represents Maryland’s Sixth District and he is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the House Armed Services Committee.

“The United States does not have a King's army. President Obama's unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution. President Obama's administration has repeated the mistakes of the Clinton administration concerning bombing in Kosovo and the George W. Bush administration concerning invading Iraq by failing to request and obtain from the U.S. Congress unambiguous prior authorization to use military force against a country that has not attacked U.S. territory, the U.S. military or U.S. citizens. This is particularly ironic considering then-Senator Obama campaigned for the Democratic nomination based upon his opposition to President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

“Moammar Qadhafi is a tyrant despised throughout the Middle East and North Africa. His brutal and merciless attacks against his own citizens are horrific. It is self-evident that the tragic situation in Libya is not an emergency since the Obama administration sought and obtained support from both the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council to authorize military force against Qadhafi. The Obama administration also had time to organize a 22-nation coalition to implement a no-fly zone with military attacks led by U.S. Armed Forces against Qadhafi’s forces. Nonetheless, the Obama administration failed to seek approval from the American people and their elected legislators in the Congress. Failing to obtain authorization from the U.S. Congress means that President Obama has taken sole responsibility for the outcome of using U.S. military forces against Qadhafi onto his shoulders and his administration."

Does anybody care? No, Ringo. Nobody cares.There is nothing more "American" than rooting for any military endeavor against anyone or any country or any people. You'd think that after Vietnam we'd be rather chary about engaging in ill-defined, nebulous military actions couched and phrased conditionally and in absolute contravention and violation of the Constitution.

You'd think.

If Bush 43 pulled this, the media and commentators, especially of the professional left, would be all over him. And rightly so. The Hill, in a piece entitled White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission by Sam Youngman and Jordan Fabian, reported the following. And it must be read in its entirety.

It's simply amazing. One of the most jaw-dropping examples of duplicity and inconsistent messaging. And it all happened in one day. In one day, less than a day actually, the White House both (a) wanted a regime change in Libya and (b) didn't want a regime change in Libya. It denied wanting a regime change but yet wanted to install a democratic regime.

It is simply amazing. And tragic. It's one thing when an administration is inconsistent about tax policy or spending or some domestic issue. It's quite another thing when the subject matter's war. And be not mistaken, this is about war. It's not about a no-fly zone, one of the most euphemistic terms for war ever; it's about committing this country and its treasure and its children to war and all of the horrors attendant thereto. Another war.

The White House strongly denied Tuesday that regime change is part of its mission in Libya, despite a statement earlier in the day that characterized the goal there as “installing a democratic system.”

Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, issued a statement acknowledging that President Obama would like to see a democratic government in Libya, but explained that the aim of the U.S. military’s intervention there is not to enact regime change.

“We're clarifying, as we’ve said repeatedly, that the effort of our military operation is not regime change, that as we actually say in this readout, it’s the Libyan people who are going to make their determinations about the future,” Rhodes said. “We support their aspirations, their democratic aspirations, and have stated that Gadhafi should go because he’s lost their confidence.”

Earlier on Tuesday, a White House-issued readout of a phone call between Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that installing a democratic system in Libya was a goal of the two leaders.

The statement said Obama and Erdogan had reaffirmed their support for implementation of United Nations security resolutions authorizing force in Libya. After noting that this would require a broad-based international effort, the statement said the two leaders “underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will.”

Rhodes said the unusual White House clarification came after reporting on the initial statement about the Obama-Erdogan call. The Hill had reported that the use of the world “installing” had suggested a U.S. goal in Libya was regime change.

The White House was emphatic Tuesday in insisting there was no change to the U.S. military mission. White House press secretary Jay Carney said in an e-mail earlier Tuesday that the military mission was clearly focused on protecting civilians. He also noted Obama's remark Monday that Gadhafi is no longer fit to lead.

Members of both political parties, including Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), have criticized the president for not clearly stating the aims of the U.S.'s military strikes in Libya and for not articulating those goals to Congress.

The U.N. has approved measures to protect civilians in Libya, and the U.S. has said the mission of its military is to do so. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said it is important for the militaries involved in air strikes in Libya to stay within the boundaries of the U.N. resolution.

At the same time, a strike on Gadhafi’s compound and statements from officials in other nations involved in the operation, have raised questions over the goals of the mission.

From the onset of the strikes against Libya, senior administration officials have said the goal is to create an atmosphere in which Libyan rebels would be able to oust Gadhafi from power.

Lawmakers have demanded that Obama better communicate his aims both with Congress and the public. Some members have even requested that a special session of Congress, which is currently in recess, be held to formally consider the military operation.

To address members' concern and fulfill his obligation under the War Powers act, Obama penned a formal letter to Boehner on Monday explaining those goals.

But Obama has struggled to reconcile the stated U.S. policy of wanting Gadhafi out of power with the U.N. mission of protecting the Libyan people.

As we say in the law res ipsa loquitur, "the thing speaks for itself." Well, let this thing speak. Volumes.

Here's a most limpid, most emphatic (then candidate) Joe Biden raising the specter of impeachment in 2007as he was preparing for his presidential run. He's appearing with MSNBC's hyper-salivating, blathering bloviator Chris Matthews. Here Biden makes it clear that bombing Iran without first securing Congressional approval would indeed be an impeachable offense. But yet as we bomb Libya without so much as a veiled or passing reference to Congress, Joe's apparently forgotten his mighty strong words.

But it's not just Joe. In a 2007 Q&A with the Boston Globe, then-candidate Sen. Barack Obama stated that the Constitution didn't give POTUS the unilateral authority to authorize a military attack unless it is was necessary and required to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.

I guess he forgot.

In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

While we're on the subject of changing one's mind (note I deliberately refuse to use the word lying), what about Presidential signing statements? I'm glad you asked. It's one of my favorite subjects. First, what are they exactly?

A “Signing Statement” is a written comment issued by a President at the time of signing legislation. Often signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs. The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional. Some critics argue that the proper presidential action is either to veto the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to “faithfully execute” the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3). [Source]

Watch Obama the candidate wax emphatic yet again.

And while we're at it. He's one more "broken promise." And I know that stuff happens, things change, circumstances vary. I know that. But you'd think that pols would always keep in mind that you should only say something or make a promise when you absolutely have to. That everything you say, everything, will be recorded and subject to scrutiny and careful inspection. I'm just saying ... .

Follow my podcasts on the subject at LionelMedia, your one-stop shop for intellectual irrigation.

This handsome devil is Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi. He's the Libyan "rebel" leader and he said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime no allegedly aligned with us, the good guys. Here's what the Telegraph reported just yesterday.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".
Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.

US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996.

Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military's West Point academy has said the two share an "increasingly co-operative relationship". In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG emmbers made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.

Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country.
British Islamists have also backed the rebellion, with the former head of the banned al-Muhajiroun proclaiming that the call for "Islam, the Shariah and jihad from Libya" had "shaken the enemies of Islam and the Muslims more than the tsunami that Allah sent against their friends, the Japanese".

The fall of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi might see the al-Qaeda affiliated Islamic terrorist groups filling up the void, US analysts have said.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) that was branded by the US as a terrorist organisation in May 2010 has been operating from its base in Algeria, and has now extended its reach to the borders of Mauritania, Niger, Mali, Chad and Libya, Fox News reports.

Gaddafi had earlier not only provided intelligence on the terrorists' operations to the US, but has also publicly spoken out against them.

Branding the group members as 'bad Muslims', Gaddafi said: "The security forces found a mosque in al-Zawiya. In a mosque! Weapons, alcohol, and their corpses - all mixed up together."

Now that the Libyan dictator has gone into hiding, many analysts have raised concerns whether southern Libya will become a magnet for jihadist groups.

Cully Stimson, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense who is now a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that the al-Qaeda affiliate might turn out to be an adaptive enemy.

"AQIM has found their niche. They are going to exploit that to the degree they can. They have the ability in the strategic interest in moving and being adaptable. One of the most high-profile cases was a British hostage Edwin Dyer, who was murdered after lengthy negotiations for his release stalled," Stimson added.

US Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz has described the AQIM as a "danger to the region".

If you're having a hard time getting your head around who are the good guys and the bad guys, let's add to that confusion. The Guardian (that's right, Sparky, foreign media) reported this in 2002.

British intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. The latest claims of MI6 involvement with Libya's fearsome Islamic Fighting Group, which is connected to one of bin Laden's trusted lieutenants, will be embarrassing to the Government, which described similar claims by renegade MI5 officer David Shayler as 'pure fantasy'.

The allegations have emerged in the book Forbidden Truth , published in America by two French intelligence experts who reveal that the first Interpol arrest warrant for bin Laden was issued by Libya in March 1998.

According to journalist Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard, an adviser to French President Jacques Chirac, British and US intelligence agencies buried the fact that the arrest warrant had come from Libya and played down the threat. Five months after the warrant was issued, al-Qaeda killed more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Now, in a moment of admitted "I Told You So," this is my March 21st PIX 11 News Commentary. 'Twas three days after the commencement of Operation Here We Go Again. And with great journalistic fanfare I merely read what international media sources and experts said about Libya, thus ignoring altogether anything from the snap-crackle-and-pop form of pathetic and feckless journalism that the impuissant media outlets are forced to produce. Watch at the 1:27 mark, I make it very clear who the rebels are.

You may download the West Point study that I referred to in my March 28, 2011, commentary here.

This December 2007 West Point study examines the background of foreign guerrilla fighters of all ideological stripes — jihadis, mujahedin, suicide bombers, name it — crossing the Syrian border into Iraq in 2006-2007 under the aegis, affiliation and rubric of al Qaeda. The study is based on a review of approxuimately 600 al Qaeda personnel files — you read me right, personnel files — seized by US forces in the fall of 2007, and analyzed at West Point.

And the absolute epicenter of jihadi recruitment is Darnah in the Cyrenaica district corridor of north-eastern Libya.

Oh, and one more question. Where do you think those freedom loving rebels are? Yep, you guessed it.

Two additional perspectives on POTUS's speech last night that will only serve to make you smarter.

The first is my LionelMedia podcast explaining in considerable length innumerable nuances that the nuancer-in-chief may have in fact nuanced.

Also, please enjoy my appearance with my colleague Sukanya Krishnan of the PIX 11 Morning News. She asks great questions and even drops in a Godfather reference.