Barack Hussein Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu don’t like each other very much

From The Wall Street Journal:

Spy vs. Spy: Inside the Fraying U.S.-Israel Ties

Distrust set allies to snoop on each other after split over Iran nuclear deal; each kept secrets

By Adam Entous | October 22, 2015 9:01 p.m. EDT

President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared at a news conference at the White House on Sept. 10, 2010, a time when both countries began to split over the best means to keep Iran from an atomic bomb. Photo: Jason Reed/Reuters (Click to enlarge)

The U.S. closely monitored Israel’s military bases and eavesdropped on secret communications in 2012, fearing its longtime ally might try to carry out a strike on Fordow, Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear facility.Nerves frayed at the White House after senior officials learned Israeli aircraft had flown in and out of Iran in what some believed was a dry run for a commando raid on the site. Worried that Israel might ignite a regional war, the White House sent a second aircraft carrier to the region and readied attack aircraft, a senior U.S. official said, “in case all hell broke loose.”

The two countries, nursing a mutual distrust, each had something to hide. U.S. officials hoped to restrain Israel long enough to advance negotiations on a nuclear deal with Iran that the U.S. had launched in secret. U.S. officials saw Israel’s strike preparations as an attempt to usurp American foreign policy.

Instead of talking to each other, the allies kept their intentions secret. To figure out what they weren’t being told, they turned to their spy agencies to fill gaps. They employed deception, not only against Iran, but against each other. After working in concert for nearly a decade to keep Iran from an atomic bomb, the U.S. and Israel split over the best means: diplomacy, covert action or military strikes.

There’s more at the original.

Two points:

  1. If the United States launched negotiations on a nuclear weapons treaty with Iran in secret, is it surprising that the Israelis reacted with suspicion?1
  2. Let’s not kid ourselves: the United States and Israel have been spying on each other all along. The only aberration about Jonathan Pollard is that he got caught. We’ve been spying on our allies all along, and, quite frankly, we’d be sloppy if we weren’t.

So, the unstated implication of the article, that the United States and Israel started spying on each other because of the very mutual distrust between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, is deceptive.

The mistrust between the two leaders began early, by their first official meeting in May of 2009, and it has gone steadily downhill from there. Even The New York Times reported that:

Jeremy Bird, the architect of the grass-roots and online organizing efforts that powered President Obama’s presidential campaigns from Chicago, is advising a similar operation in Tel Aviv. But this time it is focused on ousting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. .  .  .  .

American strategists have for decades signed on to work in Israeli political campaigns, with Democrats usually aligned with the Labor Party and Republicans often backing Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud party. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Obama or any of his senior aides had anything to do with the move by his former top campaign official, who has never worked at the White House, to join the effort to defeat Mr. Netanyahu.

But Mr. Bird’s involvement in the elections is drawing attention when tensions between the two countries are so acute that what is usually considered standard practice for American political consultants in Israel is now seen as a provocation.

“There is no evidence to suggest,” huh? And we are supposed to believe that Mr Bird’s work, not for a particular candidate, but simply to unseat Prime Minister Netanyahu, was taken without any impetus or consultation with the White House, while the Administration was already at odds with Israel on several issues, and was negotiating with Iran?

We are already seeing the fruits of President Obama’s foreign policy when it comes to Iran.

Well, perhaps I shouldn’t have included that last one; that seems to be right in line with American policy under President Obama! But, is it any wonder that Israel doesn’t trust President Obama?

  1. “The White House decided to keep Mr. Netanyahu in the dark about the secret Iran talks, believing he would leak word to sabotage them. There was little goodwill for Mr. Netanyahu among Mr. Obama’s aides who perceived the prime minister as supportive of Republican challenger Mitt Romney in the 2012 campaign.”

Are all Republicans RINOs? They have all agreed with the underlying premise of the Affordable Care Act

One of the fundamental differences that conservatives have with the left is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This 2010 monstrosity legislation effectively put the federal government in charge of insuring that all Americans had access to health care, whether they could afford it or not. Not one single Republican voted for it, not even the most “moderate” of the Republicans In Name Only, but the abysmal results of the 2008 elections left the Democrats with a filibuster-proof majority for a few months, enough time to get it through the Senate. Deals had to be made — and then later broken — such as the “Cornhusker kickback” and the “Louisiana Purchase” to get the last couple of Democrats on board, but the deal was passed. I said, back in February of 2010, that I opposed any of the health care plans being considered, because, “Whatever form it takes, whether single payer or private insurance based, in the end it is an attempt to transfer the ultimate responsibility for your health care from you to the federal government.”

And that is exactly what has happened. The GOP opposed the PP&ACA, but left’s ultimate goal, making the federal government responsible for everyone having access to health care, was achieved.

So, what are the Republican presidential candidates’ positions? They all want to repeal the ACA, but, interestingly enough, they all want to replace it with something. Many of them have been less than specific about just how they would replace the ACA, but none of them is challenging the underlying principle that the government will guarantee everyone access to health care. I have omitted some of the snowball’s chance in Hell candidates, but here are the Republicans’ positions:

Let me be very blunt here: the Republicans have surrendered, completely, on the principle, and are simply arguing about how to achieve the goal. Is the Obysmalcare legislation poorly crafted? Certainly it is! Does the Obaminablecare foul up our health care system? Absotively, posilutely it does! But all that the Republicans are arguing is how to improve the delivery of socialized health care, and not whether health care should be socialized in the first place.

And I’ll be blunt again: our choice is between two fundamental positions:

  1. The government, at some level, is ultimately responsible for insuring that every American has access to health care; or
  2. The government is not responsible for seeing to it that everyone has access to health care, which necessarily includes the consequence that some people who need health care and cannot afford it will not get it.

Now, I am an [insert slang term for the rectum here], and I am perfectly willing to return to a system in which those people who cannot pay for their health care do not receive it, even if that means they will die in the street due to the lack. That is the natural result of not guaranteeing health care for everyone, and I am willing to both admit it and support that.

But the Republican candidates don’t seem to be willing to take that position — at least, not publicly — and thus they have been left with agreeing with the premise of the Affordable Care Act, but simply differing on how to achieve the objective. Doesn’t that make all of them RINOs?

Bad news for Hillary Clinton Which is good news for America!

From The Wall Street Journal:

Hillary Clinton Sees Continued Weakness With White Voters

By Peter Nicholas| 6:15 am ET | Oct 21, 2015

Hillary Clinton is riding a wave of encouraging poll numbers coming off her performance at the Democratic debate last week, shoring up her status as the Democratic presidential front-runner.

However well-positioned she may be in the Democratic field, a deeper look at the numbers shows some potential vulnerabilities for Mrs. Clinton in a general election in November 2016.

Consider white voters.

The latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll shows that 64% of white men have an unfavorable view of Mrs. Clinton, compared with just 26% who see her in a favorable light. Those numbers are moving in the wrong direction for Mrs. Clinton. In September, the Journal poll showed 59% of white men had a negative view of her.

If Mrs. Clinton looks at President Barack Obama’s 2012 election victory as a benchmark to emulate, she has some work to do. Exit polls in the 2012 race showed Mr. Obama captured 35% of the white male vote.

Mrs. Clinton might be expected to make up the difference by out-performing Mr. Obama among white women. She is, after all, a white woman and she has made a point of emphasizing that if she were to win she would become the nation’s first woman president.

Here, too, she is showing some weakness.

The Journal poll showed that 38% of white women see Mrs. Clinton in a favorable light, versus 49% who hold a negative view of her. Mr. Obama’s exit poll numbers suggest he enjoyed more robust support among white women, with 42% saying they voted for him over Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

There’s more at the original.

Mrs Clinton’s path to the Democratic nomination just got easier, with Vice President Biden’s decision not to enter the race, but her path to victory in the general election is getting more and more difficult. Her problem is two-fold, and fundamental:

  • Mrs Clinton is a fundamentally dishonest person. While all politicians are seen as having questionable honesty, successful politicians — like her husband — can counter that with being genuinely likable people; but
  • Mrs Clinton is not a naturally likable person.

Most of us will never meet the presidential candidates personally, and certainly not in any way which really allows us to get to know them, but great politicians can project that likability even over television; Mrs Clinton does not. In addition, there are plenty of stories and books out there, insider books, noting Mrs Clinton’s behavior with people who have had extensive contact with her.

Mrs Clinton’s inevitable presidency — like her inevitable presidency in 2008 — is founded on the notion that she will draw a large number of votes from women, simply because she is a woman. But when white women, the supposed backbone of her electability, have a 38%-49% favorable/unfavorable view of her, she’s trailing badly with the one demographic which is going to be necessary to put her over the top electorally.

Bad news for Carly Fiorina The best person currently running to become President might not be the best candidate for President

I had noted previously that when I endorse a candidate, that candidate seems to tank. From The New York Times:

Carly Fiorina’s Numbers Plunge in Latest CNN Poll

By Allen Rappaport | October 20, 2015 | 8:43 AM EDT

Carly Fiorina after speaking at a campaign stop in Dover, N.H., last month. Credit Ian Thomas Jansen-Lonnquist for The New York Times (Click to enlarge)

Carly Fiorina‘s swell of support after her strong debate performance last month has collapsed, according to a new CNN/ORC poll that showed rivals Donald J. Trump and Ben Carson benefiting from her waning popularity.

The survey found Mr. Trump and Mr. Carson leading the crowded field with support of 27 percent and 22 percent of registered Republicans. The poll, released on Tuesday, had a margin of error of 5 percentage points.

The numbers were bad news for Mrs. Fiorina, the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, who stood up to Mr. Trump during the last Republican debate and won accolades for her crisp, forceful performance. However, her bounce in the polls appears to have been ephemeral and her support has dropped from 15 percent in September to just 4 percent, the poll showed.

Mr. Trump’s support seems to have stabilized after showing signs of leveling off in recent weeks and Mr. Carson continues to see his prospects improve after provocative remarks he made about Muslims and gun control.

There’s more at the link, but I had expected this, as soon as I saw the rather disappointing numbers on how much money she had raised in he third quarter.1

What Messrs Trump and Carson do that Mrs Fiorina does not is throw out the red meat remarks; that simply isn’t her style, but it’s clearly what is energizing the potential Republican voters these days. Trouble is, you cannot govern with red meat; you have to actually do something, and I am unconvinced that either of those fine gentlemen could come anywhere close to achieving what they are promising to achieve even if they are elected. There is no way on God’s earth that Donald Trump, short of being crowned Tsar and Autocrat2 of America, could detain and deport all of the illegal immigrants in our country.

Mrs Fiorina is the best person running right now to actually be President of the United States, and I still support her, but there is some question as to whether she can be the best candidate for President. Were she to win the nomination, she would beat anyone the Democrats chose to nominate — and much of her recent campaign has been running against Hillary Clinton rather than against her Republican rivals — but unless she picks up the pace, she won’t get that nomination.

The next Republican debate is October 28th in Boulder, Colorado. It was Mrs Fiorina’s performances in the two previous debates3 which dramatically increased her name recognition and approval ratings; she’ll need to do at least that well eight days from now to have any hope of staying alive in the campaign.

  1. $50.00 of which came from me.
  2. A verbal formulation deriving from the official titles of the Russian Emperors from 1721 to 1917.
  3. In the first debate, she was relegated to the junior varsity debate.

Going green doesn’t always put much green in your wallet

If you think that the government is here to help you, think again!

Californians upset that they can’t sell their green energy homes

posted at 12:01 pm on October 19, 2015 by Jazz Shaw

A tale of woe comes to us from the Left coast. Trouble has reared its head for Californians who enrolled in a special government program designed to allow them to use taxpayer funds to upgrade their homes with solar panels, wind turbines, unicorn flatulence converters and any number of other green energy improvements. Tens of thousands of Californians signed up for the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing program which provided them with funding for installing such energy efficient goodies over the past several years, but now they’re finding their homes stalled on the market when they want to sell them. Apparently buyers aren’t too enthused about picking up the tab for the assessment. (Yahoo News)

More than 50,000 California households have signed up for Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing since state legislators passed a law in 2008 allowing residents to borrow money for such things as solar panels and energy-efficient windows. The financing method, authorized by cities and counties, and funded by venture capital-backed startups like Renovate America Inc, Renew Financial LLC and Ygrene Energy Fund Inc, is then paid off through special assessments on property tax bills.

Because the improvements stay with the home, and subsequent owners will reap the benefits of them, the assessments are intended to remain with the property in the event of a sale.

But some homeowners trying to sell their houses have found potential buyers scared off by the higher tax assessments. And now realtors in the state are organizing against PACE, saying it makes getting new mortgages much tougher and can leave sellers stuck in their homes.

This is a program which President Obama has been touting all across the country. (More on that below) But the trouble these homeowners are facing is just the tip of the iceberg. First of all, they knew (or should have known) what they were getting into when they signed up for the program. They received money up front for the improvements, but it had to be repaid somewhere along the line. They had their homes assessed at a higher rate which makes the tax bill a bit higher. With real estate still being something of a buyer’s market across much of the country, who wants to sign on for a new home that’s going to have a built-in take hike on it? It’s hard to have too much sympathy on that score.

There’s more at the original, but the money line is here:

They received money up front for the improvements, but it had to be repaid somewhere along the line.

The government is just awash in programs to help homeowners go green, but the green about which the government is mostly concerned is money.

It is a perfectly reasonable argument to say that these homes are more valuable, justifying the higher tax assessments, because they will save the homeowners in the long run on energy costs, but the way that the housing market is working these days is not demonstrating that the current homeowners are being able to sell that part of the deal.

Not mentioned in the Hot Air article is something which might be daunting to homeowners, the maintenance of solar panels:

Solar panels generally require very little maintenance since there are no moving parts. A few times a year, the panels should be inspected for any dirt or debris that may collect on them. Always make sure you are safety conscious when inspecting panels and don’t take any needless risks! If your panels are too high up on the roof to see very well from the ground, use caution with ladders.

For a general cleaning, simply use a standard garden hose to wash the face of the panels during either the early morning or in the evening. Avoid spraying cold water onto hot panels or you could risk cracking them!

There are also automated cleaners that work similar to sprinklers, such as the Heliotex system, which can be programmed to clean your panels as needed – a good choice if you are in an especially dusty area.

The Solar Company offers solar panel cleaning services – please contact us to schedule an appointment with one of our professional cleaners. This is a better choice for panels that are too high to reach well with a garden hose or if you want a more thorough cleaning.

The source is The Solar Company, a business wanting to sell solar panels, and solar panel cleaning services. And while the company is saying that about the only maintenance required is seasonal cleaning, most people who have solar panels installed have them installed on the roof, and there are a whole lot of people who simply cannot get to the roofs of their houses, or work up there is they could get on them. If a homeowner has to hire someone to clean the panels, that is an additional cost for the panels.1 Regrettably, I was not able to find a realistic cost estimate online — most of the sources are people who sell solar panels — but a recent shingle repair on my home cost me $275, the vast majority of it labor.2 If sending a professional onto your roof costs just half of that, and it has to be done four times a year, that would be $550 a year; how many months of savings on your electric bill would be required to make that up?

Well, the solar panel companies don’t really tell you that, and the government is always willing to help you install solar panels, but it seems to me that having solar panels installed could well be a negative, rather than a positive, when it comes to selling your home. Yes, your electricity bills should be lower, but simply the sight of solar panels could dissuade buyers who are afraid of the maintenance costs, and the point of the original article, that houses with the panels are sitting on the market, not moving, would emphasize that point. Yes, the taxes are higher, but it might not be just the taxes which are keeping some green homeowners from seeing much green in their wallets.

  1. As an example, if a 4 kW system cost $4/watt, the total would be $16,000 before incentives or $11,200 after the 30% federal income tax credit that is available through 2016. Using the example of a 4 kW system costing $11,200 after the federal tax credit, the Georgia Power calculator shows that the payback could be 18 years. Since a solar system should continue to produce power for 25 years or more, in this example the cost per kilowatt hour of the solar power over the life of the system should be less than the cost of buying the same power from the utility. Thus, a homeowner would have to stay in his current home for 18 years just to break even, and that estimate does not include maintenance.
  2. My roof is pitched at 60º, and is three stories high.

Go away, Kathleen, just go away!

The Democrats’ one time “It Girl” has now acquired two letters before the “it.”

Chief justice: Kane’s suspended license no bar to staying in office

By Angela Couloumbis, Philadelphia Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau | Posted: September 30, 2015

HARRISBURG – Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane can remain the state’s highest law enforcement official even with a suspended law license, Pennsylvania’s top jurist said Monday.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor said the high court’s decision to suspend Kane’s license “is in no way constitutionally disabling.” He said Kane remains a member of the bar in Pennsylvania – a requirement, under the state constitution, for anyone to be attorney general.

“An attorney who is the attorney general, and is suspended, is still a member of the bar of the Supreme Court, because the suspension is just temporary,” Saylor said during a speech at the monthly press club luncheon in Harrisburg. “That could be dealt with very quickly. . . . There could be a reinstatement, and a member could be again able to practice law.”

Saylor would not say whether he believed Kane should remain in office.

“I have absolutely no view on that,” he said. “I think that’s a purely personal matter.”

Saylor noted that the state constitution contains provisions for removing a public official from office. They include a never-used process in which an official may be removed by the governor “for reasonable cause,” after a hearing and a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Senate Republican leaders have said they are researching the option in Kane’s case.

Last week, the Supreme Court suspended Kane’s license as a result of the criminal charges she faces, reviving debate over whether she should resign.

Kane, 49, the state’s first woman and first Democrat elected attorney general, was charged last month with conspiracy, perjury, and other crimes, accused of leaking confidential grand jury information to the Philadelphia Daily News. She did so, prosecutors say, in an attempt to embarrass a former top prosecutor in her office with whom she was feuding.

She has pleaded not guilty and is fighting the charges. Kane has vowed to remain in office, although last week, she signaled for the first time that she might not be able to run for reelection next year with a suspended license.

There’s more at the original, which continues to note that there are some duties of her office she cannot perform without a valid law license, and thus must delegate to subordinates.

Glamor photo of Attorney General Kathleen Kane (D-PA) from The New York Times. Click to enlarge.

The First Street Journal has run several stories about the silliness of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, (D-PA), who squashed a sting and an investigation into bribery by some members of the Pennsylvania state legislature because, surprise! everyone caught has been a Democrat, an action so egregious that even the editors of The Philadelphia Inquirer complained. Then the lovely Mrs Kane started doing something really radical: she started breaking the law, and she was so stupid about it that she was quickly caught.

Mrs Kane, whom the Democrats initially wanted to challenge Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) in the 2016 election, decided instead that she would run for a second term that year. Pennsylvania law requires an Attorney General candidate to be a sitting member of the bar, something which she no longer is. We will be rid of this clown Attorney General in January of 2017, at the latest, but that is very much too late.
Related Articles from The Philadelphia Inquirer:

Cross-posted on RedState.

The Ivy League and “diversity” Asian-American students can prepare for even more "diversity lock out"

We have noted previously that Asian-American students being discriminated against at Ivy League colleges, all for the sake of “diversity.” And now, from The New York Times:

An Admissions Surprise From the Ivy League

By Frank Bruni, OpEd Columnist | October 17, 2015

As the country struggles to address extreme income inequality and inadequate social mobility, the most venerated colleges are increasingly examining their piece of that puzzle: How can they better identify and enroll gifted, promising students from low-income families, lessening the degree to which campuses perpetuate privilege and making them better engines of advancement?

That discussion just took an interesting turn.

About three weeks ago, a group of more than 80 colleges — including all eight in the Ivy League and many other highly selective private and public ones — announced that they were developing a free website and set of online tools that would, among other things, inform ninth and 10th graders without savvy college advisers about the kind of secondary-school preparation that best positions them for admission.

What’s more, these colleges plan to use the website for an application process, in place by next fall, that would be separate from, and competitive with, the “Common App,” a single form students can submit to any of more than 600 schools. If colleges in the new group — which calls itself the Coalition for Access, Affordability and Success — have been taking the Common App, they would continue to, but would clearly be encouraging students to explore this alternate route.

There’s more at the original, including noting that high academic achievement closely correlates with family income levels:

>Whatever the case, there’s much about their admissions criteria that runs counter to the enrollment of underprivileged children, and it’s unclear if the new online platform and application process would really fix that.

High scores on the SAT or ACT correlate with high family income, in part because performance on these tests can be improved with the special classes and private tutoring that money buys.

Of course, the author doesn’t include the obvious: that intelligence is at least partially hereditary, and that smarter kids are very often the children of smarter adults, who are higher-earners (generally speaking) because they are smarter adults. And the author very definitely doesn’t include any references whatsoever to the fact that the Ivy League schools are discriminating against Asian-American students, because basing admissions solely on intelligence and achievement would result in “too many” Asian students. Now, the Ivy League schools (supposedly) want to find higher performing students from lower-income families, to diversify, they say, but are going to wind up discriminating even more against the students who have done the most to try to earn admissions.

Hillary Clinton says mandatory gun buy-back programs “would be worth considering” And of course all of the bad guys would comply!

You cannot ever trust Democrats to protect your rights!

Clinton suggests she’d consider mandatory gun buy-backs, sparking fears of ‘confiscation’

Published October 18, 2015

Hillary Clinton said Friday that mandatory gun buy-back programs like ones in Australia are “worth looking into,” sparking criticism that the Democratic presidential front-runner would, if elected, impose gun-confiscation efforts.

Clinton made the comments during a campaign stop in Keene, N.H., when an attendee asked about Australia’s 1996 and 2003 buy-back programs that collected roughly 700,000 banned semi-automatic rifles and other firearms.

“I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged,” Clinton responded.

“This validates what the NRA has said all along,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation.”

Cox said Clinton’s comments echo recent ones by President Obama, making “very clear” that the underlying goal of gun-control advocates is confiscation.

Translation: when Mrs Clinton says that such a program would be “worth looking into,” she means that she has already decided, and would damned well put such a program into play the second she got into office.

Of course, Mrs Clinton herself has been protected by armed guards, from Arkansas state troopers to Secret Service agents, every single day since January 11, 1983, the date of her husband beginning his second stint as Governor of Arkansas. She has spent half of her entire life being protected by armed men, but as for you, as for the common man, well, Hell no, they don’t have any right to own firearms to protect themselves if they believe they are threatened.

Here is the tape of Hillary Clinton saying that she believe that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

The Washington Free Beacon noted that:

The Clinton fundraiser was hosted at the Greenwich Village home of John Zaccaro, a convicted felon. During her remarks, Clinton also proposed the creation of a national infrastructure bank, which she indicated would be modeled on the work done by the Clinton Global Initiative. She did not take questions after her speech.

Consorting with convicted drug dealers, and being surrounded with armed guards; that’s just normal for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Cross-posted on RedState.

Rule 5 Blogging: Americans!

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as putting pictures of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Nicole Kidman in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude. Click any picture to enlarge.

As part of the confidence course training, Construction Electrician Constructionman Whitney Shields of Naval Mobile Construction Battalion (NMCB) 23 carried Builder Constructionman Antonio Mudge on her shoulders as leadership watches on. Seabees were put to the test July 6 through 10 at Naval Air Station Jacksonville as part of the sixth annual Seabee Rodeo competing in over 88 military skills. (U.S. Navy photo taken by Matt Simons, NAVFAC Southeast public affairs assistant.)

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: Americans!’ »

From Around the Blogroll There's a fire in the wood stove edition

It's supposed to get below freezing tonight; can you guess why I don't really care?

It’s supposed to get below freezing tonight; can you guess why I don’t really care?

I’m s’posed to have something worldly and wise to write about to begin this article, but I really don’t, so it’s straight to the blogroll!