Blog

Le pari ne paraissait pas gagné d’avance, surtout compte tenu du prix astronomique, mais la LF-A s’arrache, obligeant Toyota à prendre des mesures radicales.

 –>Pour ceux qui n’auraient pas suivi, on récapitule. La LF-A est la première supercar de Lexus, marque de luxe de Toyota. Elle est prévue en série limitée, à 500 exemplaires, au prix de 375 000€. Ce tarif est exorbitant, même pour une supercar, et laissait tout le monde dubitatif au départ de l’affaire. D’autant que Lexus, malgré tous ses mérites, n’est ni Ferrari, ni Porsche ou Lamborghini, etc… et avait donc tout à prouver sur ce créneau. La LF-A est dotée d’un V10 4,8 litres de 560 cv. à 8700 tours, et d’une carrosserie en fibre de carbone renforcée ( CRFP ). 0/100: 3,7 secondes et vitesse max de 325 km/h. La production doit s’étaler sur environ 2 ans, à raison de 20 exemplaires par mois.

-Pour Lexus, la LF-A est à la fois une démonstration de savoir-faire et l’occasion de renforcer son image; la marque est encore toute jeune et a son histoire à écrire, contrairement à la plupart de ses concurrentes.

–> Eh bien, le moins qu’on puisse dire à la vue des dernières infos, c’est que Lexus est en train de réussir son pari au delà des espérances, et de déjouer tous les pronostics!

-Lexus a en effet bien plus de clients que de voitures à vendre. Au Japon, tous les exemplaires disponibles ont déjà été reservés. Aux Etats-Unis, qui en recevront 150, il va falloir montrer patte blanche. Tout d’abord, un questionnaire pour chaque client pour essayer d’éviter les achats-revente de spéculateurs. Ensuite, la voiture n’y est pas disponible à la vente, mais uniquement en leasing sur 2 ans. Enfin, la marque choisira parmi toutes les demandes, elle explique: « Les critères de sélection pour acheter la voiture seront du type quelle autre voiture possédez-vous, où habitez-vous, à quelle fréquence vous conduisez… C’est le joyau de Lexus et ils veulent qu’il brille tellement que vous en soyez aveuglé », d’après le manager du Lexus College. « Nous voulons qu’elle soit vue sur les bonnes routes, en face des bons restaurants, etc… et non pas qu’elles ne profitent qu’à des individus au fond de leur garage privé ».

-En Europe, il n’y a qu’un revendeur pour les 100 exemplaires disponibles; Lexus Park Lane, à Londres.

–> Pour la suite, Lexus étudierait une version plus sportive encore de la voiture pour 2012, avec livrée spéciale, mais celle-ci devait être intégrée aux 500 exemplaires et ce ne sera vraisemblablement pas possible. Les choses restent donc floues de ce côté pour l’instant.

-Cette affaire en rappelle une autre; celle de l’Alfa 8C, certes moins aboutie techniquement, et moins chère aussi, mais plus prestigieuse à la base, et qui a connu un destin similaire. Une comparaison qui n’est pas anodine, puisqu’Alfa a ensuite fait ressortir le chéquier des riches aspirants pour une deuxième série, en Spider cette fois, et s’apprête maintenant à produire une version plus sportive, la 8C GTA. Les fans de Lexus apprécieraient sûrement une trajectoire similaire, puisque ça signifierait que les rendus d’un spider, qu’on voit fleurir sur le net, ne seraient pas que virtuels. L’affaire est entre les mains de Lexus, donc de Toyota, qui peut maintenant décider de poursuivre l’aventure sans craintes…

–> La LF-A a été testée il y a peu par Top Gear, l’essai de Richard Hammond est à voir ici, et ci-dessous le tour de piste du Stig:

-La vidéo officielle:

Nouveau: pour profiter facilement et rapidement des notifications de nouveautés sur le site,pensez à vous abonner via Twitter. Chaque modification, nouvel article ou nouvelle vidéo sur notre chaîne Youtube, fait l’objet d’un Tweet immédiat!

Aliens vs. Predator looks awesome, but how does it compare to the original release from ten years ago? Developer Rebellion Developments gives us a glimpse of how the upcoming game stands up against 1999’s Aliens vs Predator

Despite dooms-day scenarios from music executives and all manner of reports showing just how hard the music industry is having it, it turns out that there are actual, viable ways of making money with the new tools the digital landscape has provided. What’s more, they can still make money from actually selling music, and this comes from a major label e… (read more)

If you followed the entire Brock Lesnar sickness saga, you know the guy doesn’t want people messing with his personal life. Information trickled out through Dana White from time to time and then there were the little leaks to certain blogs. Clearly, someone in Lesnar’s camp couldn’t keep their mouth shut. Lesnar takes this seriously.

"It was difficult [to keep things] private when my own camp comes out and says things when they’re not authorized to say anything. It pissed me off."

Lesnar has a terrible temper so imagine if you’re the guy who crossed him?

"It pissed me off. Automatically I want to get rid of those people because them are the people I trust."

The leaks actually changed the way the Lesnar return announcement went down this week. The UFC was going to hold a big press conference in Las Vegas but the promotion scrapped the idea when leaks emerged last week indicating that he was coming back. Lesnar’s trainer Greg Nelson went on ESPN’s MMALive and took away much of mystery by saying Lesnar was coming back without spilling the beans on a date.

Al-Shabab fighters have taken control of large sections of territory in the Horn of Africa nation of Somalia.
Originally uploaded by Pan-African News Wire File Photos

Shabab group threatens attack on Nairobi

Web posted at: 1/21/2010 1:56:28
Source AFP

NAIROBI: Members of Somalia’s Islamist Shabab group yesterday released a song threatening to march on Nairobi in retaliation for a deadly Kenyan police crackdown on Muslims.

“We have reached the border, we will enter Kenya, Inshallah we will get to Nairobi. Inshallah we will get to Nairobi,” says the insistent six-minute piece of a capella singing, interspersed with speeches and the sound of gunfire.

“When we reach there, we will fight, we will kill, we have weapons, enough weapons. The army of faith is on the way, slowly we are advancing, Inshallah we will get there,” it goes on.

The tinny recording, with a melody modelled on the nasheed (Islamic songs of praise) often posted on the Internet by jihadi groups, also mentions Shabab leader Sheikh Mukhtar Abu Zubeyr, who recently proclaimed his allegiance to Al Qaeda supremo Osama bin Laden.

“Abu Zubeyr, let’s move foward, we will not retreat. Allah is with us. Abu Zubeyr we love you. Allah preserve you. Abu Zubeyr move on until we’re inside Rome,” says the song. The Shabab, who control large swathes of Somalia and have been engaged in a bruising insurgency against the internationally-backed transitional government, have repeatedly expressed their displeasure with Kenya’s stand on the conflict. Kenya, which shares a long and porous northeastern border with Somali and has offered assistance to government troops battling the insurgents, has frequently expressed fears that Shabab suicide bombers would strike in Kenya.

On January 15, Muslims outside Nairobi’s main mosque demonstrated to demand the release of a radical Jamaican imam detained by police and were confronted by security forces.

At least five people were killed in the ensuing riots.

Kenyan Interior Minister George Saitoti accused the Shabab of infiltrating the demonstration and ordered a security sweep among the large Somali community during which hundreds were arrested.

An introduction to the song posted on a website close to the Shabab said the song was motivated by the arrest three weeks ago of Jamaican preacher Abdulla Al Faisal, who has served time in Britain for inciting racial hatred. Kenya then attempted and repeatedly failed to deport him. “The mujahedin in Somalia were angered by the deportation of a renowned religious person,” the text explains.

“After that incident took place, Muslims were displeased and took action. Then the non-Muslims massacred the angry Muslims,” it added.

The website, an unofficial mouthpiece of the Shabab movement, made it clear the song was performed by Shabab members but it was not accompanied by an official statement from the group.

As the character Juliet in William Shakespear’s Romeo and Juliet argued “[w]hat’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Despite this romantic sentiment declaring the importance of the object itself, rather than the name by which it is called, many individuals throughout the State of Connecticut and elsewhere demonstrate the perceived importance of a name by requesting a name change. There are many reasons why an individual may request a legal name change, including divorce, adoption, and personal preference.

Connecticut courts have held that in most circumstances “a person is free to adopt and use any name he sees fit” Shockley v. Okeke, 48 Conn. Supp. 647, 653 (2004), cert. granted 277 Conn. 923, appeal dismissed 280 Conn. 777. Courts in Connecticut have went on to reaffirm this notion by stating that “[o]rdinarily, an application for a change of name should be granted unless it appears that the use of the new name by the applicant will result in injury to some other person with respect to his legal rights, as, for instance, by facilitating unfair competition or fraud.” Id.; see also Don v. Don, 142 Conn. 309, 311-312 (1955).

Recognizing this right to a name, many states allow common law mechanisms for the change of an individual’s name, without the requirement of a judicial proceeding. In fact, according to a formal opinion issued by the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut in 1941, in the absence of statutory restriction, one could lawfully change his name without resort to any legal proceedings and for all purposes the name assumed would constitute his legal name. 22 Op.Atty.Gen. 249 (Oct. 17, 1941).

In the case that an individual wishes to utilize a judicial proceeding to change his/her name, there are three different proceedings that may be used to effectuate a change of name in Connecticut. The first is a petition to the Superior Court civil docket under Connecticut General Statute § 52-11 for a change of name. This statute grants the “superior court in each judicial district . . . jurisdiction of complaints praying for a change of name, brought by any person residing in the judicial district” and allows the Superior Court to “change the name of the complainant, who shall thereafter be known by the name prescribed by said court in its decree.” C.G.S. § 52-11.

The second judicial proceeding that may be employed to change a name in Connecticut is the filing a complaint for a change of name as a family relations matter before the family docket of the Superior Court under Connecticut General Statute § 46b-1 (6). This mechanism is oftentimes used to restore the birth name of an individual as a result of divorce. § 46b-63 allows the Superior Court presiding over a complaint for a dissolution of marriage to “[a]t the time of entering a decree dissolving a marriage, the court, upon request of either spouse, shall restore the birth name or former name of such spouse.” The word shall in this statutory provision has been interpreted by the courts to indicate that a name restoration following a divorce is an automatic entitlement. The jurisdiction of the Superior court to grant a name change after a divorce is not limited to a name restoration at the time of divorce, but also allows a spouse to enter a motion to modify a divorce judgment at any time after a decree dissolving the marriage is granted in order to restore a birth name. C.G.S. § 46b-63(b).

The third judicial device that may be used to change an individual’s name within Connecticut, is an application for a change of name to the Probate Court for the district where the minor child and the plaintiff reside under § 45a-99. This section of the law grants the probate court “concurrent jurisdiction with the Superior Court, as provided in section 52-11, to grant a change of name.” Thereafter, an individual who applied for a change of name in the Probate Court may appeal the decision to the Superior Court under § 46b-1.”

By whichever mechanism an individual chooses to change their legal name, it is important to consult a qualified attorney to explain the differences associated with each process, counsel on the preferential mechanism for effectuating a change in the individual’s specific circumstances, and ensure that all of the requirements of the individual court are complied with.

The Supreme Court today overturned a century-old restriction on corporations using their money to sway federal elections and ruled that companies have a free-speech right to spend as much as they wish to persuade voters to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the White House.

In a 5-4 decision, the court’s conservative bloc said corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals and, for that reason, the government may not stop corporations from spending freely to influence the outcome of federal elections.

The decision is probably the most sweeping and consequential handed down under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. And the outcome may well have an immediate impact on this year’s mid-term elections to Congress.

Until now, corporations and unions have been barred from spending their own treasury funds on broadcast ads or billboards that urge the election or defeat of a federal candidate.

This restriction dates back to 1907 when President Theodore Roosevelt called on Congress to forbid corporations, railroads and national banks from using their money in federal election campaigns.

After World War II, Congress extended this ban to labor unions.

In today’s decision, the high court struck down that restriction and said the 1st Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to spend their own money on political ads.

“The 1st Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the court.

Two significant prohibitions on corporations were left standing. Corporations, and presumably unions, cannot give money directly to the campaigns of federal candidates.

These “contribution” restrictions were not challenged in the case decided today. And secondly, the court affirmed current federal rules which require the sponsors of political ads to disclose who paid for them.

Most election-law expert have predicted a court decision freeing corporations will send millions of extra dollars flooding into this fall’s contests for Congress. And they predict Republicans will be the main beneficiaries.

Today’s decision was supported by five justices who were Republican nominees. They include Kennedy and Roberts along with Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The dissenters included the three Democratic appointees: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. They joined a dissent written by 89-year old Justice John Paul Stevens.

Speaking from the bench, he called today’s decision “a radical change in the law..that dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions — and the narrow interests they represent — in determining who will hold public office.”

The decision today, though long forecast, displayed a deep division of opinion on the court about the meaning of the 1st Amendment and the freedom of speech.

The majority said the Constitution broadly protected discussion and debate on politics, regardless of who was paying for the speech.

Chief Justice Roberts said he was not prepared to “embrace a theory of the 1st Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern.”

But Stevens and the dissenters said the majority was ignoring the long-understood rule that the government could limit election money from corporations, unions and others, such as foreign governments.

“Under today’s decision, multi-national corporations controlled by foreign governments” would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections. “Corporations are not human beings.

They can’t vote and can’t run for office,” Stevens said, and should be subject to restrictions under the election laws.

Today’s opinion dealt only with corporations, but its logic would suggest that unions will also have the same right in the future to spend unions funds on ad campaigns for federal candidates.

– David G. Savage

Read the original article from Tribune News Services.

Desde el día de hoy, Audi ya acepta pedidos del nuevo Audi S5 Sportback, la versión más potente de toda la gama actual. Su precio base es de 64.250€. Esta disponible con cambio automático de siete velocidades y tracción a las cuatro ruedas.

hace uso de un motor 3.0 TFSI de 333CV. Gracias a estas prestaciones, puede acelerar de 0 a 100 km/h en solo 5,4 segundos y su velocidad máxima es de 250 km/h.

En el exterior podemos destacar distintos elementos como las llantas de 18 pulgadas, neumáticos de medidas 245/40, pinzas de freno traseras y delanteras de color negro con una inscripción “S5″.

Related posts:

1. Fotos espía del Audi A5 Sportback
2. Imagen oficial del Audi A5 Sportback
3. Vídeo del Audi A5 Sportback

YouTube has just launched a new experimental HTML5 video player, which would replace their Flash player for supported videos. Flash has long been seen (with good reason) as a resource hog, so switching to the HTML5 browser should show a dramatic performance increase. One user reported a resource drop of over 50% when using the HTML5 player when compared to the Flash version. You can get in on the action, as long as you are using either Google Chrome or Safari 4.0 or above (although we’ve heard that it also works with recent versions of Firefox.) The only catch here is that videos with ads, annotations, and captions will still play in the older Flash player, and you won’t get fullscreen support. Of course you can try it out, and if you don’t like it, you can just turn it off.

Tags:
chrome,
flash player,
google,
google chrome,
html5,
safari,
youtube,
youtube html5,

Quick and unmistakable reaction to ‘Glass Steagall 2’ from the financial sector…

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Good News: We’re Getting Glass-Steagall Back, Now Here’s How To Make It Work For The 21st Century
• Kyle Bass: Bring Back Glass-Steagall, Eliminate Off-Balance Sheet Assets, And Cap Leverage At 10X
• Volcker: Grab Wall Street By The Balls, But Deregulate Normal Banks

When Google announced an upgrade to their Google Docs service earlier this month, a company blog post also mentioned several third-party applications which can help make the transition to the online service easier. With these apps, you can transfer and synchronize your local files to Google Docs without having to upload them one-by-one. But which application is right for you?

We took a look at the options Google suggested and have summarized the features, drawbacks and pricing information below. In addition, we also reviewed one other application not specifically mentioned in the Google blog post that may be of use to those moving to the cloud-based service.

Sponsor

1. Memeo Connect for Google Apps

Memeo Connect is a desktop application available for both Mac and PC (XP and higher) which lets you view files on both your desktop and within Google Docs. In the software program, files and folders already online are downloaded to your computer. Local files not yet online can then be moved to the appropriate Google Docs folder via drag-and-drop. The service is relatively simple to use as it presents your documents in an easy-to-navigate window while also incorporating Google’s online features like starred files and shared folders.

One major drawback to Memeo Connect is that there’s no automatic synchronization option. That means you can’t monitor a local folder or folders for new files or changes and then have those documents seamlessly synced to Google’s online service. This feature should arrive in a future update, however, so don’t let its lack of inclusion be a deal breaker for you if the service fulfills all your other needs.

For personal users of Google Docs, the biggest drawback to Memeo is that the service is only available to users of Google Apps Premier edition, a business-level version of the service which also offers calendaring, groups, Web site creation tools, and video sharing to corporate users for $50 per user per year. Memeo Connect itself costs an additional $9/year.

2. Syncplicity

Syncplicity allows a Google Docs user the ability to access, manage, sync, share, and backup their files online. The downloadable software program seamlessly integrates with Windows Explorer for file management purposes. (The Mac software beta program was discontinued in July of last year but the company tells us they’re working on an entirely new version right now.) The Explorer integration is a decidedly helpful feature for those who don’t want to change the way they already work.

In addition, unlike Memeo Connect, automatic synchronization is possible. And that synchronization isn’t only with Google Docs – the software can also sync files to its own website as well as other computers running the Syncplicity software. That means your files are not only available on other machines, they’re backed up in multiple places online too. Another benefit to Syncplicity’s service is its “restore” feature which lets you undelete files using their Web application. Those accidentally deleted files are immediately restored to your PC’s hard drive with a click of a button.

Syncplicity is available in multiple versions for anyone using Google Docs. A free personal edition provides 2 GB of online storage for up to 2 computers while a $15/month personal edition offers 50 GB of storage for up to 5 computers. Businesses can sign up for a separate plan which starts at $45/month for 3 users and goes up from there.

3. Offisync

Offisync is a Microsoft Office plugin which integrates Google Docs directly within your Office software. (See our earlier review here). This is useful for those who only want to upload specific files to Google Docs instead of automatically syncing entire folders. Once installed, the plugin adds an additional menu to Office’s software (either Office 2003 or 2007) where you are provided with buttons which allow you to open, save, search, collaborate, and email your Google Docs files.

The software works on Windows PCs and is available for personal users of Google Docs or Google Apps. An Enterprise version provides the same functionality to business users by providing integration with Google’s website building software, Google Sites, a service which provides a simplified alternative to SharePoint.

With any one of the three tools above, you can easily transition from a desktop-based computing environment to one where your Office documents are created, managed, and maintained in the cloud. However, it’s important to note that Google Docs isn’t the only online office suite available. Companies like Zoho, Adobe, ThinkFree, and others also provide online alternatives to Microsoft Office. In addition, Microsoft itself recently launched its own Office Web Applications into beta.

If you’re a user of any of the programs mentioned here, let us know about your experiences. Would you recommend one program over another? Are there features you would like to see added? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Discuss

Luray, Virginia | Subterranean Sites

Deep in the Luray Caverns of Virginia sits the largest musical instrument in the world. The Great Stalacpipe Organ appears at first to be a normal looking organ, but instead of pipes, the organ is wired to soft rubber mallets poised before stalactites. When the keyboard is played, the entire subterranean landscape becomes the instrument.

In order to achieve a precise musical scale, the chosen stalactites of the organ range over 3.5 acres, but due to the enclosed nature of the space, the full sound can be heard anywhere within the cavern. The organ was invented and built in 1954 by Leland Sprinkle, a mathematician and electronic scientist. It took him over three years to complete it.

Though we have previously warned startups to tread carefully when building their businesses on third party APIs, there are still plenty of successful businesses that rely on them for their day-to-day operation. For application developers, if you’ve found yourself repeatedly visiting Downforeveryoneorjustme.com to check on the status of a site or API, one company may just have the perfect solution.

A product of Dutch website monitoring service WatchMouse, API-status is an easily-interpreted heads-up display of 26 popular third party APIs. The big boys like Facebook, Twitter and Flickr are all present and accounted for, and other services like Salesforce, and Posterous are supported also.

Sponsor

The site has two main windows, one for the current status, and another containing a matrix of the history over the past week. Clicking one of the API names in the current status list opens a page containing further detailed stats for that service. Included is a graph of average daily performance for various parts of the API, a map displaying the current status by country, and graphs of availability over both the last week and the last day.

As you can see in the screenshot above, the service shows some poor performance currently in South Africa and was also able to track this morning’s downtime in Twitter’s friend timeline API.

Some features we would love to see implemented would be the ability to compare two or more APIs on the various charts, as well as the support for looking further back than a week. Allowing a user to subscribe to alerts for particular APIs would also go a long way in helping those using the APIs to be instantly aware of any outage.

Discuss

Republic of Angola President Jose Eduardo dos Santos. The southern African state has changed its constitution to have the president elected by parliament as opposed to a direct vote. The oil-rich nation is the largest exporter of oil on the continent.
Originally uploaded by Pan-African News Wire File Photos

Angola stops presidential polls

Angola’s parliament has approved a new constitution which abolishes direct presidential elections.

The head of state will now automatically be the leader of the party with the parliamentary majority.

The main opposition, Unita, boycotted the vote, accusing the government of trying to destroy democracy.

President Jose Eduardo dos Santos has been in power for more than three decades and the next polls are not expected until 2012.

The oil-rich nation is recovering from a long civil war which ended in 2002.
————————————————————————–
JOSE EDUARDO DOS SANTOS
In power since 1979 – Africa’s second-longest serving leader
Joined the MPLA’s guerrilla army at the age of 19
Trained in oil engineering and radar technology in the former Soviet Union
—————————————————————————-
The change was approved by 186 out of the 220 members of parliament, and drew loud applause and chants of “Angola, Angola!” from MPs in chamber, AFP news agency reports.

The BBC’s Louise Redvers in the capital, Luanda, says under the new constitution, a president can only serve two five-year terms but he would start from scratch in 2012, meaning Mr dos Santos could remain in office until 2022.

Our reporter says the vote on the new constitution had been expected in March.

Angola is currently hosting the Africa Cup of Nations football tournament and some say the government deliberately rushed through the vote in a bid to avoid wider public debate, she reports.

The new constitution also abolishes the role of prime minister, allowing the president to chose his own deputy to take on that role.

The extension of the president’s powers has come in for criticism.

“The ruling MPLA says the constitution will increase democracy, but by abolishing the presidential ballot and concentrating all the power on the president it will do exactly the opposite,” political analyst Fernando Macedo told Reuters news agency.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/8472127.stm
Published: 2010/01/21 13:05:44 GMT

Article Tags: ClimateGate, Godfrey Bloom, NZ Climate Scandal, UK Independence party (UKIP), YouTube

Debate: Council and Commission statements – Outcome of the Copenhagen summit on climate change

Speaker: Godfrey Bloom MEP, UKIP (Yorkshire & Lincs.), EFD group.

H/T ClimateGate.com Godfrey Bloom: When are you all going to wake up? Scam, scam, scam!

Godfrey Bloom, a Member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire and the Humber for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), let the EP members now how he really feels about the climate change scam. At a debate in Strasbourg yesterday on the outcome of the Copenhagen, he calls Al Gore a snake oil salesman and crook, East Anglia’s Phil Jones a crook, and in a new charge, calls the New Zealand National Climate Database “all fraudulent.”

Source: climategate.com

Read in full with comments »   

“We are on the precipice of an achievement that’s eluded congresses and presidents for generations.”

– President Barack Obama, Dec. 15, on health care legislation

Precipice, 1. a headlong fall or descent, esp. to a great depth.

– Oxford English Dictionary

Trying to guarantee Americans the thrill of the precipice, the president dashed to Massachusetts on Sunday, thereby conceding that he had already lost Tuesday’s Senate election, which had become a referendum on his signature program. By promising to cast the decisive 41st vote against the president’s health care legislation, the Republican candidate forced all congressional Democrats to contemplate this: Not even frenzied national mobilization of Democratic manpower and millions of dollars could rescue one of the safest Democratic seats in the national legislature from national dismay about the incontinent government expansion, of which that legislation is symptomatic.

Because the legislation is frightening and unpopular, Democrats have had to resort to serial bribery to advance it. Massachusetts voted immediately after the corruption of exempting, until 2018, union members from the tax on high-value health insurance plans. This tax was supposedly the crucial component of what supposedly was reform’s primary goal: reducing costs.

The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., thought Bill Clinton’s presidency was crippled by the 1993 decision to pursue health care reform rather than welfare reform. So slight was public enthusiasm for the former, Clinton’s program never even came to a vote in either the House or Senate, both controlled by Democrats. There was such fervor for welfare reform that in 1996, after two Clinton vetoes, he finally signed the decade’s most important legislation.

The Democrats’ sole remaining reason for completing the damn thing is that they started it. They seem to have convinced themselves that Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994 because they did not pass an unpopular health bill in 1993.

Actually, their 1994 debacle had more to do with the arrogance and malfeasance arising from 40 years of control of the House of Representatives (e.g., the House banking scandal), a provocative crime bill (gun control, federal subsidies for midnight basketball), and other matters.

With one piece of legislation, Obama and his congressional allies have done in one year what it took President Lyndon Johnson and his allies two years to do in 1965 and 1966 – revive conservatism. Today conservatism is rising on the stepping stones of liberal excesses.

Today, Democrats worrying about a reprise of 1994 should worry more about a rerun of the 1966 midterm elections, which began a Republican resurgence that presaged victories in seven of the next 10 presidential elections.

The 2008 elections gave liberals the curse of opportunity, and they have used it to reveal themselves ruinously. The protracted health care debacle has highlighted this fact: Some liberals consider the legislation’s unpopularity a reason to redouble their efforts to inflict it on Americans who, such liberals think, are too benighted to understand that their betters know best. The essence of contemporary liberalism is the illiberal conviction that Americans, in their comprehensive incompetence, need minute supervision by government.

Last week, trying to buttress the bovine obedience of most House Democrats, Obama assured them that if the bill becomes law, “the American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like.”

Suddenly? If the Democrats’ congressional leaders are determined to continue their kamikaze flight to incineration, they will ignore Massachusetts’ redundant evidence of public disgust. They will leaven their strategy of briberies with procedural cynicism – delaying certification of Massachusetts’ Senate choice, or misusing “reconciliation” to evade Senate rules, or forcing the House to swallow its last shred of pride in order to rush the Senate bill to the president’s desk. Surely any such trickery would be one brick over a load for some hitherto servile members of the Democratic House and Senate caucuses, giving them an excuse to halt their party’s Gadarene rush toward the precipice.