Dear Alex,

Obama, obviously, is taking the correct approach. And Fred Kaplan is wrong about this too - the US should simply stay out, completely. There is nothing Americans can do that won't make this situation worse and that won't help to undermine the very people that the US hopes win out.

Remember, if Mousavi does become PM, very little will change in Iranian foreign policy. What will change is the tone, and that matters a great deal, but Mousavi's main appeal to Iranian is in the slight change at the domestic level that he represents. What is interesting is that the current situation in Iran is over a post that has very limited power. Khamanei will be in charge no matter who ends up as President.

Of course, this does not change the enormous importance of the symbolism of having one's vote counted and the President does have some influence on domestic policy, so the election is hardly irrelevant. But, at the end of the day, a wise American foreign policy is going to have to deal with whoever ends up on top in Iran - and we already know that is going to be Ayatollah Khamanei.

Sincerely,

Shaun

Dear Frances,

Thanks for this article. I don't entirely agree with you - I do feel that raising this question opens a Pandora's Box of problems and ethical/moral issues that may simply lead the debate back to the beginning, with no resolution. That being said, I -while pro-choice - have long believed that fetuses deserve graduated rights and protection as they develop. The fact that a woman is carrying a fetus is not, in itself, enough to completely abrogate the responsiblity that she may ultimately bear towards another living human. In the end, those responsibilities may be the same as any of us would bear towards any other human being who happens to be outside of our bodies.

I think that members of the pro-choice community who refuse to recognize that a 5 month, 6 month or 7 month fetus is different from a 3 month fetus are burying their heads in the sand, or at least failing to recognize the real and complex questions that are involved in this situation.

Given the highly political and emotional issue of the debate around abortion, many pro-choice people have refused to openly confront complex issues because of the fear of giving succour to the other side. But a mature and responsible discussion does require a full airing of these doubts and concerns.

Again, thanks for expressing your views.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Salon,

A small point: at the start of his article, Mr. Wyman mentions that CNN allowed a number of "nutty" people to talk about Mr. Jackson, including one individual who kept referring to Mr. Jackson's concerts as starting in 2010. Mr. Wyman says the concerts were scheduled for next month. Apparently, getting this point wrong qualifies the person mentioned as being "nutty".

On the radio news this morning, I heard that Mr. Jackson had recently delayed the launch of his tour by one whole year - i.e., until 2010. If this is right, then Mr. Wyman has his facts wrong. He should apologize to the gentleman he mocked. Clearly, he is not as up on Michael Jackson's scheduling as he believes.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Robert,

Excellent suggestion, and I hope that many people follow it. However, I have a few questions/observations: I don't believe that Obama has "lost his confidence" as some people believe nor do I think that he is doing much different than what he first promised. What I do wonder is does he think that he is doing what is politically possible?

The President in the US is actually not as powerful a position as many people seem to assume. He is much less powerful, for example, than the Prime Minister in a parliamentary system. This is because everything - particularly domestic policy - must go through Congress. The US Congress is a right-wing institution. Democrats and Republicans occupy slightly different parts of the right wing spectrum. Obama can be very left-leaning in his personal inclinations, but that does not mean that he can force the Congress to do what he wants it to. Obama's major characteristic as a politician has been his pragmatism. Maybe, pragmatically, he is doing what he thinks can be done, and maybe he has a strategy for trying to push things more in the direction that he would like, over the longer term.

It appears that Obama's various efforts to go directly to the public is part of his strategy to do what Dr. Reich suggests and to put pressure on Congress to do what he wants it to do. But, again, we should probably be looking more closely at the political disposition of Congress rather than just trying to decode Obama if we want to understand what may be going on.

Sincerely,

Shaun