"Don't live in fear."

So read a sign in Baghdad, yesterday, encouraging voters, according to CNN.

"We are defeating the terrorists as we are coming here," Saad said, pointing his index finger into the air. "We want to be and live like all people, like all human beings."...

A Kurdish woman wearing a black scarf said simply, "This is the happiest day of my life."...

"This is the greatest day in the history of this country," Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie told CNN.

He said voters had defied loyalists of Saddam Hussein and terrorist leaders Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden. "I think we have sustained a very big blow on them -- at least psychologically -- today," Al-Rubaie said.

Throughout Iraq, voters' fingers were marked with ink to prevent them from voting more than once.

At a voting center in Baghdad, one man dipped his son's finger in ink.

"This is our badge of pride," he said....

Voters nationwide said they were coming to defy the insurgency, to cast ballots for their nation's future and to take part in the first free elections of their lifetime. Many brought their entire families, and the general mood was one of celebration.

A sign on a wall in Baghdad read: "Don't live in fear."

This reminds me of the way Americans responded after 9/11, going back to doing the things that were part of our usual way of life on the theory that otherwise the terrorists would have won. Many of the things we did in those days, like getting on a plane again, were not all that risky, but we did need to conquer the fear the terrorists meant to enfeeble us with. Following the same sound logic, the Iraqi voters faced much more imminent threats yesterday. What a great accomplishment for the people of Iraq! They acted for their own benefit, but it took a lot of courage. They have our deep admiration.

UPDATE: I wrote about Al-Rubaie a while back, here.

Milestone sighted.

Hey, I'm kind of closing in on the millionth visitor over there on the Site Meter!

UPDATE: Milestone reached, sometime there when I wasn't looking. How cool! Thanks to all the readers who have made blogging so interesting and so fun. I wonder who the millionth reader was.

UW researchers make human motor neurons out of stem cells.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:

The feat, which took more than two years of trial and error, is seen as an important step in the dream of creating spinal nerve cells in the lab for use in replacing cells damaged by spinal cord injuries or by diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also called Lou Gehrig's disease.

Jury blogging.

Don't miss the new Jury Blog. There should be lots happening over there this week with the big Michael Jackson trial starting up. The new blogger, Valerie Hans, is an old hand at jury studies, with 30 years of experience.

The blue finger of democracy.

My colleague Gordon Smith writes:

I love the ink-stained index finger as a symbol of democracy. If I were George Bush, I would hold up an ink-stained finger in the State of the Union address this week.

It was only a few days ago that there was talk that the ink-stained finger would be a dangerous identification, that would mark people for retaliation, that people would need to hide it. Now we see the pictures of people actively displaying what was devised as a utilitarian safeguard, turning it into a proud new symbol of the love of democracy.

UPDATE: Thanks to Virginia Postrel for linking to this post. She subtly reminds me that the ink is more purple, not so much blue. Maybe it's the same ink used in those old mimeograph machines (the fragrant ink us kids in the 60s used to inhale with delight). An emailer wonders how the lack of an ink-stained finger is regarded today in Iraq.

ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader emails:

"Maybe it's the same ink used in those old mimeograph machines (the fragrant ink us kids in the 60s used to inhale with delight). "

A positively Proustian figure. However, allow me to offer a clarification. That ink wasn't from Mimeograph [sic; it's their trademarked name] machines. In fact it was from Ditto machines -- an entirely different copy process.

Mimeographs used what amounted to a stencil on a drum, through which ink (almost always black) was pressed onto the paper. Ditto used masters typed with a special "carbon" paper which actually deposited aniline dye upon a master sheet, in the shape of each letter. This master was then pressed against blank sheets that had been dampened with a special solvent.

The small amount of the dye that transferred to the solvent-dampened sheets left the imprint of each letter that was on the master.

This dye was almost always purple, although a rather wretched red was also available.

The solvent was a chemical something like benzene or xylene, I believe: a ring-shaped molecule that chemists in fact call an "aromatic". The slow effluorescence of this solvent produced that odor you remember so vividly.

The advantage of the Ditto process was that it was far less messy than Mimeograph, which demanded the frequent handling of viscous black ink that had to be poured into the machine's drum. Hugely messy. Not so with Ditto. Still, if you were careless enough to touch the dye-letters themselves on the master, you'd come away with a purple finger. Which brings us delightfully back to those Iraqi fingers, doesn't it?

"We heard many bombs this morning but we didn't care."

As I noted here, NBC newsman Brian Williams, reporting from Baghdad, heard booms from his hotel and concluded that there must be "general unease." Contrast this statement from a Zeina, a 60-year-old female election candidate in Baghdad, writing for the BBC's Iraq election log:

Everyone is so excited. We heard many bombs this morning but we didn't care because we have to use our right to vote. So many people were afraid to go this morning, but now it seems in the afternoon that more people have voted.

I am so happy, so glad. Later this afternoon we will meet up with our friends for a celebration.

What profound admiration so many of us in America feel for the brave people of Iraq! They remind us of the beauty of the liberties we take for granted and the courage that we are so rarely called upon to show.

"Voting, Not Violence, Is the Big Story on Arab TV."

That's the headline -- at least for now -- on this NYT report:

After close to two years of providing up-to-the-minute images of explosions and mayhem, and despite months of predictions of a bloodbath on election day, some news directors said they found the decision surprisingly easy to make. The violence simply was not the story this morning; the voting was.

Overwhelmingly, Arab channels and newspapers greeted the elections as a critical event with major implications for the region, and many put significant resources into reporting on the vote, providing blanket coverage throughout the country that started about a week ago. Newspapers kept wide swaths of their pages open, and the satellite channels dedicated most of the day to coverage of the polls.

Often criticized for glorifying Iraq's violence if not inciting it, Arab news channels appeared to take particular care in their election day reporting. For many channels, the elections were treated on a par with the invasion itself, on which the major channels helped build their names.

Far from the almost nightly barrage of blood and tears, Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera, the kings of Arab news, barely showed the aftermath of the suicide bombings that occurred in the country.

Instead, the channels opted to report on the attacks in news tickers, and as part of the hourly news broadcasts, keeping their focus on coverage and analysis of the elections themselves. And the broadcasters spared no expense to provide an entire day of coverage from northern to southern Iraq.

Beautiful! Will this not greatly increase the effect of the successful election throughout the region? Hope has its own momentum, and these broadcasters, who don't want to be left behind, have become part of the force for democracy.

Quick, change that headline!

Earlier today, I commented on the somewhat positive NYT headlines here, including one that said "Amid Attacks, a Party Atmosphere on Baghdad's Closed Streets." That article was picked up by Memeorandum, which collects blog commentary on it: a lot of prominent bloggers have observed that even the NYT is acknowledging the great success. Then, I clicked on the link for the article and the headline is now:

Insurgent Attacks in Baghdad and Elsewhere Kill at Least 24

The text remains the same:

After a slow start, voters turned out in very large numbers in Baghdad today, packing polling places and creating a party atmosphere in the streets as Iraqis here and nationwide turned out to cast ballots in the country's first free elections in 50 years.

Really, that is one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen the New York Times do.

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers. I checked the Times headline again, and it's changed once again, not to return us to the "party atmosphere," but to emphasize the number who have died: "Attacks in Baghdad and Elsewhere Reportedly Kill Several Dozen."

ANOTHER UPDATE: Gabe Rivera of Memeorandum emails:

Glad my site (memeorandum) could be of this unique service. I should add that the older versions WILL persist on my site, for better or for worse, by design.

FYI, here is the headline progression for this piece that my site picked up throughout the day. You might have missed the initial version, which was even more upbeat than the one you cited (the second).

TIME HEADLINE
09:24 High Turnout in Baghdad Points to Early Success
10:24 Amid Attacks, a Party Atmosphere on Baghdad's Closed Streets
18:26 Insurgent Attacks in Baghdad and Elsewhere Kill at Least 24
20:50 Attacks in Baghdad and Elsewhere Reportedly Kill Several Dozen

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Blasting me as a "wingnut" for this post, Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly delivers an irrelevant lecture about how newspaper websites work. He fails to see the point, which is awfully clear in my post, that the changing headlines were for the very same article. (Thanks to The Unpopulist for pointing me to Drum's post.) There are 54 comments on Drum's post at the moment, and, though I haven't read them all, most of them seem to be from people who are just accepting Drum's mistaken point about my post. There is at least one commenter in there who keeps trying to point out the mistake, but the passion for denouncing the optimism of imagined crazy right wing bloggers is so strong that it overwhelms the interest in the facts. And the irony is that Drum's main point is that those who are taking an optimistic view don't respect the truth. It would be bad if I were disrespecting the truth out of optimism, of course. But Drum is disrespecting the truth out of an aversion to optimism, which is really quite sad.

If you go over there, you might want to leave a comment in my defense. And if you're into that, leave a comment for me over here too. I'm surprised at the way some lefty blogs seem to think they are making a good point by quoting something and saying the person who wrote it is stupid or crazy, even as they are plainly misreading the very thing they quote.

STILL MORE: I discuss the fallout from this post here. And this is a related post too.

Kerry on "Meet the Press."

The Kerry interview on today's "Meet the Press" is exactly what you would expect. There are many of the familiar lines from the campaign, including the repeated assertion that he had a better way to handle things in Iraq. Now, success in Iraq depends entirely on the "four-point plan," which he (he says) articulated precisely and clearly during the campaign and which still applies.

Tim Russert shows Kerry that devastating clip that will haunt him forever: he voted for funding the Iraq War before he voted against it. Kerry once again responds that he picked a bad way to express himself about the war, but Bush picked a bad way to conduct the war.

Kerry is trying to define a moderate Democratic position that is distinct enough from the Bush Adminstration and somewhat distant from the strong anti-war element of the party but that also avoids alienating the anti-war element. That's a difficult task, and there's no reason at all to think that Kerry will be any good at it. Kerry is displaying his most annoying tic: insisting that he's being clear and precise when he's fuzzing over everything. And I'm sympathetic to the problem of trying to explain and defend a moderate position! I'm a moderate!

Russert sadistically shows Kerry a photograph of himself sitting just behind Bush, who is giving his Inaugural Address. Russert asks what was going through his head at the time. Kerry says "respect for the process." What is he supposed to say? We're left to imagine what he was really thinking. It's got to be something like: I can't believe that little #@!* beat me!

Russert asks Kerry if the Osama bin Laden tape, released shortly before the election, caused him to lose. Kerry gives a classic Kerry answer where it seems as though he's saying yes and no at the same time. He'd been rising in the polls before the tape came out and after that he "flat-lined," but it was really 9/11 that determined the election. He essentially says that, given 9/11, Bush was destined to win, and he (Kerry) ought to be given credit for coming as close as he did. Of course, Kerry only got the nomination because he presented himself as the one candidate who could actually win (as opposed to express clear ideas about the party's values) -- which stuck Democrats with the double pain of listening to his uninspiring equivocating and losing.

But he's proud, he's proud of what we did, Tim. Kerry presents the facts about the number of voters in Ohio whose different vote would have swung the election his way. He uses the image of half the number of people at an Ohio State football game, and Russert comes back, saying half the people at a high school football game in New Hampshire would have swung the election back to Bush. Kerry can't really respond other that to note lamely that that is the system. (You know, the one he was contemplating with respect during Bush's Inauguration Speech.) Kerry tries to crowbar in the argument that Bush doesn't have a mandate other than a "mandate for unity," and Russert retaliates with Kerry's vote against Condoleezza Rice. His answer is something along the lines of: I was for her at the same time I was against her.

Remember when we had to listen to Kerry's tiresome explanations every day? What's the point of listening to him now? It's oh so dreary, and on a day when we should be feeling very happy about the Iraqi elections. I guess "Meet the Press" is a nice haven for anyone who doesn't want to have to see positive Bush-related news. Come on over here and wallow in despair. Gaze upon the haggard, hang-dog face that represents your dashed hopes!

But the great Tim Russert is making things hard to enjoy. Getting all Russert-y now, Russert shows Kerry the clip of Swift Boat Vet Steve Gardner in the Christmas in Cambodia -- "categorically a lie" -- commercial and then reads quotes from a lot of newspaper pieces. I lose count of the number of times Russert says the word "seared." The big question: "Were you in Cambodia, Christmas eve, 1968?" Kerry: "We were right on the border, Tim." And he's explained this already, "any number of times." Haven't you learned yet that if you think there's some question that Kerry hasn't already answered, it's always your problem -- you just haven't been listening properly?

Why hasn't he signed the form 180 and let people have access to his military records? You shouldn't be the "filter" for this information, Russert says. Kerry repeats that he released the information that he has received from the government, and Russert has to repeat the question: will you sign form 180? Kerry says a quick yes and goes on to a lot of other equivocation. So, yes! All right, let's see if we get it.

The unspent $14 million in the Kerry campaign fund: why didn't he spend it? The multipart answer: he did spend a lot of money, it was too hard to spend money, a reserve was needed, and -- most emphatically -- lack of spending was not the reason he lost. "A few more television ads in Ohio wouldn't have turned over those 70,000 voters?" Russert asks. Kerry: "There was no request for them." It's the staff's fault, as usual.

Kerry denounced Dean during the primaries, so can he support Dean for the Democratic Party chairmanship? Kerry says yes, and gives a long explanation that pushes me over the line and beyond my willingness to attempt to summarize blather. (Which I have a fair amount of -- have you noticed?)

After the break, the subject turns to the "moral values" angle of post-election analysis. Kerry speaks well about the need to include pro-life people in the Democratic Party. He clearly states, however, that he would vote against any Supreme Court nominee who is opposed to Roe v. Wade. He says he doesn't think that Bush wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned. He states that he would vote against Justice Scalia if he were nominated for Chief Justices, and says that he was wrong years ago when he voted to confirm Scalia.

Social security is next. He's opposed to Bush's plan and thinks Bush is "hyping a phony crisis." All that's needed to solve the problem is to roll back Bush's tax cuts. There is a tedious assertion about how "rolling back" the tax cuts ought not to be called "raising taxes."

Given a chance to end on a high note, Kerry says he learned a lot running for President and how great the people of the United States are.

Ah! It's over! What a relief!

UPDATE: I've added a link to the transcript and put in the "not" that was missing from that sentence about "rolling back" tax cuts.

Confined to quarters, soaking up atmospherics.

"Meet the Press" is offering an interview about an election, but it's John Kerry, chewing over last fall's U.S. election. Part of the opening teaser for the interview is "What would he do about Iraq?" – the very question I waited to hear him answer for the entire length of the campaign.

But, before the interview, let's have a little news from Iraq. Ooh, Brian Williams is on the scene, with his eyebrows slanting in the circumflex position of worry and his arms in the akimbo position of scolding. He's just had an interview with Iyad Allawi, who was "obviously expressing great confidence that this is the first day of a new era." Yeah, he would, that Pollyanna, so please, Brian, spread some gloom so we can feel good again about our negativism:

We should back up to the overall feeling here, and that I think most here would agree is a kind of general unease … uh … atmospherically … as we have heard many booms and concussions over the past hour … uh … as we have combined, really, over the past few days. A while back the threat of pedestrian suicide bombers had us confined to quarters. And there has been violence. As of air time this morning, fourteen attacks … thirty-six people dead so far. But, Tim, like the election numbers, those will change, and probably the best way to approach all of the numbers we'll be hearing today – you hear turn out at 72% in one precinct, 50 in another, 4 percent in another is with the same caution we exercise in the states with those now-famous first wave exit polls and other early information. This is probably, it's safe to say at this hour, a fairly unquantifiable election so far.

Good set-up for the Kerry interview. Remember how happy Kerry supporters were for a while when they heard the early numbers last November? So, anti-Bush folks, transform that old November disappointment for some new hope for a disastrous election in Iraq. Don't listen to Allawi, whom Williams got an interview with and immediately brushed aside. Listen to Williams, who is there on the scene, confined to his quarters by the threats of violence that the voters themselves defied. Williams is right there in Iraq, squirrely and squirreled away in his hotel room, where he soaks up "atmospherics." He hears some booms in the distance, so he can tell you first hand about the "general unease."

"I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants."

Iraq the Model vividly describes voting in Iraq, including his feeling as he marked his finger with ink. (Via Instapundit.)

Mainstream coverage of the Iraqi election.

I'm struck by the comparison between CNN and the New York Times right now. CNN just has the bland: "Iraqis vote amid violence." The NYT has a series of headlines:

Iraqi Voters Turn Out in High Numbers Despite Rebel Attacks Killing Up to 36

Amid Attacks, a Party Atmosphere on Baghdad's Closed Streets

Rice Says Vote Exceeding Expectations

The Vote, and Democracy Itself, Leave Anxious Iraqis Divided

Yes, it's a subtle mix of positive and negative -- for every good, there must be an ominous undertone. But the NYT at least gives a sense of the importance of what is happening and doesn't allow the bad to overshadow the good. I note that while those headlines show that the voting is more than expected, they don't say the violence is less than expected. The last headline, "The Vote, and Democracy Itself, Leave Anxious Iraqis Divided," is from a John F. Burns piece that is old enough to have made the paper edition, where the headline is "One Vote, But Many Reactions: Resolve, Discouragement, Joy." The headline change is a bit annoying, because it makes it seem as if the Iraqis are reacting to what happed today, when the article was looking forward to an event that had not yet occurred.

When law is perceived as the embodiment of morality.

Now that Germany has legalized prostitution, brothels seek employees by ordinary methods, and the unemployed may face denial of their benefits if they are not willing to accept the jobs that are available.

"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who specialises in such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."...

"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centres to stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."

What an amazing departure from common sense! To decriminalize an activity, such as prostitution, does not equal a statement of approval, just a concession that it does not deserve suppression or is not worth the government's efforts at suppression. Of course, the Germans are contemptible if they continue in this fashion, but Americans can take a lesson from this too as we think about abortion, gay marriage, drug use, and other issues. You don't have to approve of something to want it to be legal, and legalization should not be read as a statement that there is no moral basis for opposing a practice. Law and morality are not the same thing, and we are fools if we allow the law to take the place of moral reasoning.

UPDATE: Readers, please note that just because a lawyer says certain provisions of law could be put together in a certain way does not mean those applying the law really will reach that conclusion, especially where the conclusion is outrageous and absurd. I don't think it's the case that German officials have actually made the absurd leap the lawyer warns us about, but maybe it would be a good idea for Germany to clarify its law so that no low-end official makes the mistake and bullies an unemployed woman this way. ALSO: The lawyer's name is apparently Mechthild Garweg, not Merchthild Garweg.

After the Iraqi election.

It's great to wake up to the news that the Iraqi elections are already over and a huge success. I skitter around from website to website this morning, checking first to see that in fact it is true that things went brilliantly -- I'm loving all the inked index fingers held aloft by smiling voters -- and next to see what the various bloggers are finding to talk about. It looks like the topic after celebrating the success is observing MSM and anti-war bloggers for evidence of disappointment at the lack of bad news.

Here's my advice to anti-war bloggers who want to avoid embarrassing themselves: express relief that the feared violence did not occur, happiness for the Iraqi people who got to vote, concern about the new government's willingness to be fair to the people in the more violent areas who were deterred from coming out to vote, and reconfigure your anti-war position into concern about the great risk that was taken. Worry about the next war: the more success in Iraq, the more inspiration to take on bolder ventures, and the next one might go horribly. Like a defeated candidate, focus on the next election. I heard one commentator on NPR say that after the great success in voting for the Afghans, the Palestinians, and the Iraqis, it's beginning to "look like a trend." What if the neo-cons are right? Consider it -- without your usual reflexive invective. If they turn out to be right, don't you have to be happy that you were wrong?

Voting in Iraq.

Voting has begun in Iraq. We watch with hope and with admiration at the courage each voter displays.

What if "Plan 9 From Outer Space" were made today?

What would the reviews look like? Like this.