(Sorry, I don't think I can start a thread) From the UK Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,3604,1374552,00.html... and my response (perhaps they'll print it)
"Andrea Dworkin (G2, 16 December) is wrong about the fate of Scott Peterson.
"The arguments against the death penalty are well rehearsed.
If Peterson is not deserving of our sympathy as were the Rosenbergs, or the thousands of anonymous black men denied a fair trial, it is time to add another.
"This is the re-election of Bush, hardly a friend of feminism. The overwhelming US media coverage of this trial is itself suspicious. It coincides with the murder of Iraqi civilians, amongst them women, children, and undoubtedly babes in utero, on an industrial scale. It comes as the "mandate" for the slaughter is called into serious question, in Ohio and elsewhere. Peterson killed to live the bachelor's life; Bush kills for oil riches.
"The psychology of the lynch mob as informed by a highly selective reading of the Old Testament (Dworkin writes that the jurors were pre-vetted for their vengefulness) thus sets the stage for history's greatest ever distraction heist. The Iraqi people and ordinary Americans are the poorer for it, and the feminist and gay movements stand to lose everything they have won. Dworkin mentioned Roe v. Wade in passing. It's a shame she didn't address it."