Wang Sounds the Gong
Most of the coverage of Wang Wenyi's protest at the White House during the welcome ceremony for Hu Jintao has ignored the reason for what she did. Ethan Gutmann's "Why Wang Wenyi Was Shouting" (May 8) helps provide an important corrective to this general trend.
There is a view of China abroad today according to which its massive and systematic human rights abuses are somehow a holdover from a rapidly receding past. The organ-harvesting from living human beings puts the lie to this comfortable delusion and challenges everyone to take a close look at the reality of the rule of the Chinese Communist party today.
Gutmann describes the Epoch Times as a "Falun Gong-associated publication." This needs to be clarified: The Epoch Times was founded by a group of Falun Gong practitioners who realized the Western media were doing a poor job of reporting on China in general and on the persecution of Falun Gong in particular. But although the individuals who founded the paper were connected to Falun Gong, many who write for the paper, which is not owned by Falun Gong, are not members.
Stephen Gregory
Epoch Times
Chicago, Ill.
Cons on the Beagle?
In his review of Larry Arnhart's Darwinian Conservatism, James Seaton seems to be confused about the nature of conservatism ("Natural Selection," May 8). Arnhart's argument that Darwin-ism supports conservative social ideals is based on evolutionary psychology, an approach based on so little evidence that even some Darwinists dismiss it. Arnhart ignores central aspects of Darwinian theory that are deeply inimical to traditional Christianity. Arnhart's argument that Darwinism supports conservative political/economic ideals obscures the fact that Darwinian thinking underlies the "zero-sum" concept that reduces us to competing for limited resources and justifies leftist-managed economies--the exact opposite of creating wealth through new technology and engaging in free-enterprise capitalism. It's no accident that leftists have historically embraced Darwinism while conservatives have tended to reject it.
Jonathan Wells
Seattle, Wash.
James Seaton responds: Jonathan Wells's complaint about my failing to mention that "central aspects of Darwinian theory . . . are deeply inimical to traditional Christianity" may be based on a misunderstanding. Rather than claiming that Arnhart "does assuage the fears of some Christians . . . that Darwin also undermines belief in God," I intended to say that he does not entirely succeed in doing so.
Generally Speaking
Frederick W. Kagan's "Let the Generals Speak" (May 8) wrongly claims that retired military officers are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. All those receiving retired pay are subject to the UCMJ.
Lt. Gen. Bob Springer
USAF (ret.)
Pinehurst, N.C.
Frederick W. Kagan responds: I readily acknowledge that I erred in stating that retired officers are not subject to the UCMJ. The question of the applicability of Article 88--which bans contemptuous speech directed at superiors and civilian leaders--is, however, more complicated. Apart from the fact that there are no cases of attempted prosecutions for violating this article, the standard for preferring such charges is different from the one required to accuse active duty officers. To prosecute a retired officer, the military would have to show that the words used "create a clear and present danger" leading to evils "that Congress has a right to prevent." This hurdle is much higher than the requirement to show for active duty officers that "the speech interferes with . . . the orderly accomplishment of the mission or presents a clear danger to loyalty, discipline, mission, or morale of the troops." Even discussing an Article 88 charge in the context of the retired generals' statements is absurd.