THE MEMBER FROM MARS Last week's Scrapbook had some harsh things to say about the virulent strain of anti-Americanism, always latent in the soil over there, that has been a-fully sporulating in France since the terrorist attacks of last fall. In particular, we noted that an amazingly stupid and ugly conspiracy theory--that the Bush administration itself blew up the Pentagon on September 11, inventing a fictitious plane crash as "cover" for yet another imperialist adventure overseas--was the number-one bestselling book on the French Amazon.com lists. Well, now it appears we owe the French an apology. Oh, hell--no way. Instead, we'll simply acknowledge that we have some amazingly stupid and ugly conspiracy theorists of our own, right here in America. And one of them, it so happens, is a Democratic member of the House of Representatives, Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. The Washington Post reports that Ms. McKinney, interviewed recently on a Berkeley radio station--yes, that Berkeley--all but explicitly accused President Bush of knowing the World Trade Center attacks were coming but doing nothing to stop them. This, so that the president's friends at Washington's Carlyle Group investment firm, along with their clients, might "make huge profits off America's new war." "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11," claimed the not-so-honorable congresswoman, though she apparently declined to explain how "we" know this or what those "warnings" might have entailed. Why, then, she wondered, "did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?" Asked by the Post to provide some evidence for these hideous slanders, Ms. McKinney blithely admitted that "I am not aware of any." But "a complete investigation might reveal" some, she helpfully added. Very French of her, wouldn't you say? Meanwhile, Rep. Jim Traficant of Ohio has been convicted by a federal jury of ten felony corruption charges and now faces expulsion from the House. Too bad Ms. McKinney can't go first. BRITISH HACKS ACCUSED OF HEADLINE ABUSE Speaking of anti-Americanism, we mustn't forget the Brits--at least those of them who happen not to be Prime Minister Blair. Try this one on for size: a massive, 25-paragraph, full-page story in the March 24 London Observer, carrying the byline of a certain Helena Smith who writes from Washington, D.C. "US rich accused of servant abuse as Saudi princess goes into hiding," screams the four-inch deep headline. And the story goes like this: "Princess Buniah al-Saud, socialite and niece of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, no longer wants to show her face. She has gone to ground in Washington, under the protection of the Saudi embassy. Her live-in maid, Ismiyati Soryono, has accused her of abuse, which has highlighted concerns about what human rights groups say are ugly truths about the treatment of foreign servants in the U.S. Now she faces criminal proceedings and a civil lawsuit. Worse, as far as her uncle is concerned, has been the notoriety. There have been pictures of the timid Indonesian servant's bruised and battered body all over America's media. . . . "Whatever the outcome of the trial, rights appear in short supply for thousands of migrant servants living in slave-like conditions in the U.S. In Washington, behind the doors of glamorous Watergate condominiums, elegant Georgetown mansions and the town houses of Embassy Row, lurk tales of horror and sadness." And so it continues, blah, blah, blah, complete with a quote from Carol Pier of Human Rights Watch about how "some of the world's most disadvantaged workers [are] held captive by some of the world's most powerful employers, who exploit, abuse, degrade, mock and humiliate them." The hypocrisy of these Americans--who pose as beacons of liberty and opportunity all the while they are perpetrating such cruelty and oppression! Except that, um, "Princess Buniah al-Saud, socialite and niece of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia," isn't an American. And neither is anybody else who's cited for servant abuse in the Observer's entire, hysterical diatribe. Instead, the evildoers are all foreign embassy officials or delegates to this or that Washington-headquartered international organization. And consequently--just like equivalent diplomats living in London--they are generally immune from, and beyond reach of, local law. What's with the Observer, we wonder? Has it recently been purchased by a Frenchman, perhaps? Also, who cleans whatever house or apartment Observer Washington correspondent Helena Smith is now living in? Would said housekeeper please call The Scrapbook? We'd like to ask about working conditions. MCGOO LIVES! Rising from the mists of the obscurity that envelops failed presidential nominees, George McGovern offers his analysis of the war against terrorism in the April 22 issue of the Nation. Called "Questions for Mr. Bush," it's an artfully written piece that isn't quite as bad as it could be. McGovern admits, for instance, that he does not have "the benefit of national security briefings," and therefore must concede that the administration has "vigorously and effectively responded" to September 11. But then he turns the concession into a demand that the military budget increases be halved, with the money saved going to poor, rogue nations to induce changes within them. But then he wonders, "What is a rogue nation? Isn't it simply one we have chosen to boycott because it doesn't always behave the way we think it should?" By that definition, it strikes us, France, Italy, and the Holy See might qualify as rogue nations, given their tepid positions on the Middle East. But no, rogue nations are actually those which support and sponsor terrorism--the terrorism whose existence McGovern, to hold his view, comes close to denying. The Bush administration's "seeming obsession" derives, he insists, from "terrorism replacing communism" as the "great hobgoblin of our age." Obsession? Hobgoblin? To be generous, McGovern seems to sense that his politics are wildly out of sync with the moment. Rather than revise his politics, though, he indulges in the fantasy that the terrorist threat might be either exaggerated or even imaginary. How's that old line go? A little hobgoblin is the consistency of foolish minds? Something like that. BIOTECH: A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED Elsewhere in this issue you'll find Eric Cohen's examination of the current state of bioethics. For readers interested in further analysis of this momentous and timely topic, The Scrapbook heartily recommends a new book co-edited by Cohen, a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and this magazine's editor William Kristol. "The Future Is Now: America Confronts the New Genetics" (Rowman & Littlefield) gathers readings from the fiction of Aldous Huxley all the way up through the latest testimony before Congress on such issues as cloning and fetal stem cell research. A number of distinguished contributors to this magazine's pages are included: J. Bottum, Charles Krauthammer, Gilbert Meilaender, Wesley J. Smith, Adam Wolfson, and more. But all the polemical sides are represented. And at the very least, you'll find out why "Attack of the Clones" is more than just the title of a summer flick.