It doesn't take much digging in either Iranian history or culture to know that this is a society that has many true fascist overtones that run it. Persians (of which I am 1/2) have always been ones to wait out the freaks until they pass, and this time will be no different. One of the other things that most people don't know about Iranians is that there is a combined, widely-accepted Shia/Zoroastrian tradition about the righteousness of the governed to demand accountability of the government. It's why people are tweaked about the elections in the first place.

I'm not going to rant and rave about American xenophobia and ignorance about cultures of their own. But there's a lot of that in play, when it comes to either Ahmadinejad or Khameni, or Rafsanjani. We can't conceive of how such a government could be anything other than fascist because we're fed a stream of vitriol regarding Iran that denies the reality of that country's 3000 years of civilization.

And China, another one of those ancient, very sophisticated cultures, is fundamentally different from Iran. Iranians are a messy bunch, and have over the millenia developed political sophistication to deal with difference. Chinese are much more suppression-oriented toward achieving their social harmony. Both have their upsides and downsides, but suffice it to say, you don't have to read much history to look at the difference in the way Iranians and Chinese treated their respective Shahs/emperors over the years.

I'm going to be bold and say that we'll see a negotiated, coalition government that will come out of this. It would totally match the Iranian personality, and reflect much about the way that Iranians handle their problems.

In my first line, it should have said that "Iranian culture does NOT have many fascist overtones..."

That's just not the way that the culture operates.

I was hoping for some more profound insight, Andrew -- it's not Shia fundamentalism that motivates the protesters -- they're not going to martyr themselves for Allah. They're fighting AGAINST that.

As I said in an earlier post, something that Americans fundamentally don't understand is the Iranian people's cornerstone belief in the righteousness of the governed. That motivates the protesters in the streets. We can't believe it because we have been fed so much nonsense on Iran in the past 30 years we can't conceive of the majority of the Iranian people as having sense and being sophisticated enough to have a representative government.

It's important to remember that they did-- back in the early '50s with Mohammed Mossadegh -- and WE took it from them. They're just finally getting around to getting it back. Older cultures have a longer historical time constant than ours. Fact.

A very thoughtful piece -- for those that can't conceive of a love affair outside of marriage that might be something other than just sex and grunting, I feel sorry for you - it's more of a reflection of your own limitations than reality. Not that it isn't an event without consequences, but people have absolutely no idea what it is like inside the Sanford house -- because no one besides Sanford and his wife know.

We live in a lonely, alienating society, with surreal expectations for partners in any marriage. That someone in a high-level, stressful job fell in love with someone else is no sin, nor a huge surprise. Judge not, that ye not be judged.

LW-- here's some advice.

Don't take bad advice. There is a serious mix down below.

First off, unless you live in a knuckle-dragging state (they still might be out there) no one gives a shit if you or your wife have infidelity in their profile when they go for the divorce settlement. I'm not going to never say never, because I am not familiar with divorce law across all 50 states. But anymore, that falls under 'irreconcilable differences' and that just means, especially in a community property state, that the split is 50/50. The person that keeps the house will probably keep the kid, as most states now are focused on stability for the children as a primary driver, and the research has shown pretty clearly that keeping the kid in the house where they lived is essential.

The other fact is that if both those things are contested (kid and house) regardless of past behavior, you will most probably lose, UNLESS your wife does not have the financial wherewithal to keep the house. Then you may have a chance. But the reality is that if the child is under 10, and the mom can show evidence that they have been the primary caregiver, and can afford the house, your odds of keeping the kid in a divorce are two -- slim, and none. That's the way it works.

Re: keeping your marriage. Marriage is a consensual business agreement between two partners. That IS what it is. If she does not want to stay with you, you will not repair this marriage. If she agrees that she wants to fix things, then you have a chance. You have NO chance if she does not want to stay in the marriage.

Many people live in the fucked-up world that they believe that somehow a fight will get them what they want. News bulletin -- divorce law is WELL established in every state in the union. Odds are your case will not break precedent. Find out what the precedent is and negotiate from there, figuring that the best you're going to do is +/- 10%. Then make your offer, and cheat the lawyers out of all of the dough you'll lose if they take this to trial. My advice, especially if you must share custody of a child, is to be generous. Make an enemy now, you will regret it. Fact.