BROADSIDES

December 31, 2003

"America Towers"
Ralph Peters writes in the New York Post today that 2003 was a bad year for Islamist mercenaries:

In 2003, a new generation of enemies learned that America not only fights ferociously, but follows through with tremendous residual power. In one of history's great paradoxes, the provocation of 9/11 -- intended to humble us -- unleashed our dormant might and rejuvenated the historical trend toward liberty. The Twin Towers fell, but two years later America towers over the world as never before.

He also points out that terrorists' "last desperate hope" is to attack the United States so severely that President Bush loses the 2004 presidential election. How telling is it that terrorists prefer a Democrat president?

B. Sides @ 6:34 PM

Bite Me, Guy Lombardo!
I loathe New Year's Eve and its unholy spawn, New Year's Day.

Why?

Largely because this holiday has no meaning--spiritual or patriotic. For me, New Year's Day means nothing more than snatching up a free calendar at Kroger. It's like when you were in the 1st grade and one of your classmates had a birthday; his mother would bring in sugary foodstuffs and everyone would sing Happy Birthday. You really didn't give a damn that it was his brithday, you just wanted the goodies. "Yeah, yeah, yeah--Happy Birthday--whatever--just gimme my fuckin' cupcake." (Wow! For a first grader, you sure had a potty mouth.)

For the most part, the only people who love New Year's celebrations are alcoholics and Dick Clark.

On that cheerful note, Happy New Year!

B. Sides @ 11:16 AM

December 25, 2003

Merry Christmas!
And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them; and they were sore afraid.
And the angel said unto them, "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger."
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." -- Luke 2:8-14

And many thanks to our men and women in uniform who this day are securing peace on earth.

B. Sides @ 10:15 AM

December 24, 2003

Iraqi Children And A Lasting Peace
While reading Sergeant Jason's latest tales of deployment at Just Another Soldier, I noticed he listed a link to IraqiSchools.com. And I'm glad he did.

IraqiSchools is a volunteer effort founded by American soliders in Iraq -- and you'll never read about it the news.

Led by Major Gregg Softy and his soliders of Armor Squadron S-3, 1-1 Cavalry Regiment, 1st Armored Division, IraqiSchools collects and distributes basic classroom supplies to Iraqi children and teachers. Saddam's evil regime decimated the Iraqi educational system leaving most schools without necessities such as chalk, blackboards, erasers, rulers, markers, glue and even pencils and paper. Major Softy and his soldiers are committed to changing all that. As the major explains on the IraqiSchools website:

Among the many tasks associated with this mission is interaction with the local schools (grades K - 8 equivalent). Simply put, the conditions are deplorable. The conditions include raw sewage on the ground and in the classrooms, no electricity or water, bullet holes in the walls and on the roofs, broken windows and doors, no desks or chalkboards, and obviously little or no supplies with which to hold classes ...

For what I provide my two boys in one year for school, I could outfit an entire classroom of Iraqi children for the year. My soldiers and I quickly realized the need to reach out directly to you all for help ...

... we are attempting to start a grass roots movement to provide school supplies directly from the States to the children and schools here in Baghdad. In doing so, I am asking from each of you a few moments of your time and few simple tasks. My soldiers and I will see to the rest.

If you want to help, just box up some basic school supplies -- paper, pencils, pens, rulers, glue, markers, chalk, crayons, scissors, paint, erasers, etc. -- and mail them to Major Softy in Baghdad. His address:

MAJ Gregg Softy
HHT, 1st Squadron 1st Cavalry Regiment
Unit 92841
APO AE 09324-2841

What difference will a box of pencils and paper make? Major Softy has the answer: "If [we] are going to achieve an enduring, secure environment for the Iraqis, the keys to the kingdom lie with the next generation. We have to win the lasting peace through the children. "

B. Sides @ 4:25 PM

How Now Mad Cow
Why is just one case of mad cow in the U.S. suddenly big news? After all, Rosie O'Donnell loses her temper all the time.

B. Sides @ 2:27 PM

Memo to Fox Network Execs
Hire Louis Barone as a judge on American Idol.

B. Sides @ 7:02 AM

December 23, 2003

A Soldier Disagrees With TIME
Jason Van Steenwyk, a blogging Army officer in the thick of it in Iraq, thinks TIME magazine's choice for Person of the Year misses the mark:

Don't these guys ever go out on a limb, anymore? If there was ever a year for a President to be named "Man of the Year," 2003 was it! This war was not some Tolstoyan tital [sic] wave of popular sentiment that carried President Bush along with it. The war that toppled Saddam Hussein--for good or for ill--was overwhelmingly the product of a single will--George W. Bush's ... Time is defining their "Man of the Year" concept out of all usefulness.

B. Sides @ 7:38 AM

December 21, 2003

"The Face of America"
TIME named its Person of the Year this morning:

They swept across Iraq and conquered it in 21 days. They stand guard on streets pot-holed with skepticism and rancor. They caught Saddam Hussein. They are the face of America, its might and good will, in a region unused to democracy. The U.S. G.I. is TIME's Person of the Year ...

To have pulled Saddam Hussein from his hole in the ground brings the possibility of pulling an entire country out of the dark. In an exhausting year when we've been witness to battles well beyond the battlefield--in the streets, in our homes, with our allies--to share good news felt like breaking a long fast, all the better since it came by surprise. And who delivered this gift, against all odds and risks? The same citizens who share the duty of living with, and dying for, a country's most fateful decisions ...

Perfect choice.

B. Sides @ 10:08 AM

December 18, 2003

Quote Of The Day
"Why don't they let Sirhan Sirhan out to go Christmas shopping?" -- Howard Stern, reacting to a federal judge's decision allowing would-be presidential assassin John Hinckley, Jr. to travel unsupervised.

B. Sides @ 2:56 PM

Madumb Secretary
Once again, Madeleine "Not At" Albright lives up to her nickname. Reacting to Saddam's capture, she wondered aloud to Roll Call editor Morton Kondracke if the Bush Administration already has Osama bin Laden in custody and will reveal it to the world just before next year's election.

Albright now claims she was just pulling Mort's leg.

I saw Kondracke on Fox News when he revealed Albright's comments. He said she gave no indication that she was joking.

Who do you believe? A respected veteran journalist or a simpleton former secretary of State who once suggested that it wasn't a good thing for the United States to be the world's sole superpower?

B. Sides @ 12:38 PM

An "American Chronicle By The Tigris"
Thanks to the late Robert Bartley's longtime stewardship, great columns like this make the Wall Street Journal's editorial page must-reading.

B. Sides @ 12:09 PM

Unbelievable
How can it be that the man who shot the president of the United States, the White House press secretary, a Secret Service agent and a Washington, D.C. policeman is allowed to walk among us unsupervised? The federal judge responsible for this outrage -- Clinton appointee Paul L. Friedman -- is as fucked in the head as the monster he set free.

Maybe Friedman did it to impress Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

B. Sides @ 9:25 AM

December 17, 2003

"The Bike-Path Left"
That's Mark Steyn's new label for Howard Dean and the other twice-baked hippies who dominate the Democratic Party. Read Steyn's explanation.

B. Sides @ 9:43 AM

December 16, 2003

He's Back!
Shhhh. Listen closely. Hear that?

No, that's not a cuckoo clock you hear. But you're close! It's Saddam's closet American ally, Democrat Rep. Jim McDermott!

You may remember McDermott. He's the ethically-impaired Washington congressman who, in September of 2002, went to Iraq to help Saddam stay in power.

Judging from this AP report, Jimbo's still doing what he can to thwart American's liberation of Iraq:

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted." Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said: "Yeah. Oh, yeah."

The Democratic congressman went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."

When interviewer Dave Ross asked again if he meant to imply the Bush administration timed the capture for political reasons, McDermott said: "I don't know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they'd find him.

This was too much even for a fellow Democrat congressman:

"With all due respect to my colleague, that is a fantasy," Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., said of McDermott's comments. "That just is not right. ... It's one thing to criticize this administration for having done this war. I mean, that's a fair question. But to criticize them on the capture of Saddam, when it's such a big thing to our troops, is just ridiculous."

Besides being a traitor, McDermott is well known as Grade A prime loon. He's also a psychiatrist.

Physician, heal thyself.

B. Sides @ 3:25 PM

A Patriotic Dem Rips His Party
The day after Al Gore endorsed the Spaz and labeled America's war on terrorism "a catastrophic failure", I wrote that "Most Democrat leaders will do anything to win the presidency--even if it means siding with terrorists, flirting with treason, destroying our troops' morale and endangering American lives."

Surprisingly, there's a Democrat who agrees.

In a column published on the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com, a Democrat, writer Orson Scott Card, has choice words for some of his fellow Dems:

...the most vile part of this campaign against Mr. Bush is that the terrorist war is being used as a tool to try to defeat him--which means that if Mr. Bush does not win, we will certainly lose the war. Indeed, the anti-Bush campaign threatens to undermine our war effort, give encouragement to our enemies, and cost American lives during the long year of campaigning that lies ahead of us.

And that's just for starters. Read Card's scathing indictment here.

B. Sides @ 12:47 PM

December 15, 2003

"Critical Mass" In Iraq
Victor Davis Hanson's December 12th column in National Review Online is typically brilliant. It's also prophetic. Be sure to check it out.

B. Sides @ 4:23 PM

Quote Of The Day
President Bush sends his regards. -- Major Brian Reed, US Army 4th ID, answering Saddam's offer to negotiate moments after the former dictator was captured.

B. Sides @ 9:17 AM

Disappointed Dems
If anyone needs evidence that the Democratic Party is sick to its core, they should read the the DNC's message board for reaction to Saddam's capture. Taranto highlights a few:

Here's a sampling of comments from "Kicking Ass," the official blog of the Democratic National Committee (also quoted verbatim):

* Pam Bergren: "I personally don't care too much that Hussein was caught--he never did anything to me."

* "marsh": "This is supposed to be a war on terror, not a war on tyranny."

* Erik Latranyi: "Well, tha capture of Sadaam takes the 'failure to capture' issue off the table. Now that the economy is picking up (mall was packed yesterday), Iraq is getting better, prescription drugs on the way, education spending at an all-time high, no further terrorist attacks--what is left? Oh, yes, the capture of Bin Laden. If that happens, we are completely sunk."

Now we know what Ronald Reagan, a former Democrat, meant when he declared that he never left the Democratic Party; rather, he said, the Democratic Party left him.

B. Sides @ 9:07 AM

Good Idea
James Taranto has a suggestion: "The men who spotted Saddam's hole deserve a fitting reward. If we may be so bold, Mr. President, how about Christmas dinner at the White House for them and their families?"

And throw in the $25 million reward moolah, too.

B. Sides @ 8:37 AM

December 14, 2003

Reuters Encourages Terrorists
"Saddam's capture may not end unrest" -- a headline from a Reuters call-to-arms disguised as a news report

B. Sides @ 10:28 AM

An Ace In The Hole
4th Infantry troops and Special Forces trumped the Ace of Spades in his hometown of Tikrit yesterday. They found him hiding in a hole. How fitting.

Kudos to our troops.

B. Sides @ 9:01 AM

December 11, 2003

Scalia's Dissent
A few excerpts from Justice Scalia's dissent in the McCain-Feingold case:

Because these cases are of such extraordinary importance, I cannot avoid adding to the many writings a few words of my own.

This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about...

The premise of the First Amendment is that the American people are neither sheep nor fools, and hence fully capable of considering both the substance of the speech presented to them and its proximate and ultimate source. If that premise is wrong, our democracy has a much greater problem to overcome than merely the influence of amassed wealth. Given the premises of democracy, there is no such thing as too much speech...

The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy.

B. Sides @ 3:15 PM

Striking Down The First Amendment
When a Supreme Court majority opinion opens in this fashion, you know the Constitution is about to be tossed aside:

More than a century ago the "sober-minded Elihu Root" advocated legislation that would prohibit political contributions by corporations in order to prevent "the great aggregations of wealth, from using their corporate funds, directly or indirectly," to elect legislators who would "vote for their protection and the advancement of their interests as against those of the public." In Root's opinion, such legislation would "strik[e] at a constantly growing evil which has done more to shake the confidence of the plain people of small means of this country in our political institutions than any other practice which has ever obtained since the foundation of our Government." The Congress of the United States has repeatedly enacted legislation endorsing Root's judgment.

BCRA [Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act] is the most recent federal enactment designed "to purge national politics of what was conceived to be the pernicious influence of 'big money' campaign contributions."

What the legal definition of "big money" is, Justice Stevens--writing for the majority--doesn't say. But it sure sounds evil, doesn't it?

What about the pernicious influence of little money? There are few things more annoying than having to endure someone jingling their pocket change.

But I digress.

Disguised as campaign finance reform, the BCRA (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold) is a modern-day version of the Sedition Act of 1798. Its goal is to minimize criticism of federal officeholders by regulating the content, timing and funding of political advertising on radio and television.

For example, McCain-Feingold prohibits any person or group not covered by federal election laws from mentioning a federal candidate's name in radio and tv ads within 60 days of a general election.

In upholding this and other glaringly unconstitutional provisions of McCain-Feingold, Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer base their ruling on the opinions on Elihu Root, former justices, former presidents, and zillions of other statues and precedents. They also resort to using vague phrases such as "soft money", "electioneering speech", "sham issue advocacy" and "electioneering communication".

But--and this is key--the five justices never refute the claim of McCain-Feingold critics that the act restricts free speech. Instead, the majority poo-poos free speech concerns by saying the plaintiffs "conceive of political corruption too narrowly" and that McCain-Feingold is a "modest" statute that has "only a marginal impact on political speech."

In other words, the Supreme Court has ruled that if Congress is corrupt enough, then Congress is allowed to violate the freedom of speech--but only a little bit!!

The First Amendment of the Constitution is precise:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ....

Period.

There's no way around this prohibition on Congress--except to ignore it. That's why Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer ramble for about 165-pages in a futile attempt to argue that adherence to the Constitution is predicated upon the prevalence of political corruption.

But let's not reserve all the criticism in this matter for the Supreme Court. The blame for this century's Sedition Act falls squarely onto every member of Congress who voted for it and the president who signed it into law. Shame on them.

B. Sides @ 1:43 PM

December 09, 2003

Kelly On Gore
This is a good time to review the late Michael Kelly's assessment of Al Gore. In a September, 2002 Washington Post column, Kelly wrote about Al Gore's infamous Commonwealth Club rant against Bush's Iraq policy:

Politics are allowed in politics, but there are limits, and there is a pale, and Gore has now shown himself to be ignorant of those limits, and he has now placed himself beyond that pale.

Gore's speech was one no minimally decent politician could have delivered. It was entirely dishonest, cheap, low. It was utterly hollow. It was bereft of policy, of solutions, of constructive ideas, very nearly of facts - bereft of anything other than taunts and jibes and embarrassingly obvious lies. It was breathtakingly hypocritical, a naked political assault delivered in smarmy tones of moral condescension from a man pretending to be superior to mere politics. It was wretched. It was vile. It was contemptible. But I understate.

Classic Kelly. I miss him.

B. Sides @ 11:27 PM

A 'Failure' Endorses The Spaz
While endorsing The Spaz yesterday, Al Gore, the man who couldn't even win his home state in the 2000 presidential election, characterized the liberation of tens of millions of Iraqis, the overthrow of a dictator who was funding terrorist attacks on Americans, the elimination of hundreds--if not thousands--of terrorists and the stunning success of the American military's Iraq mission as a "catastrophic failure".

Gore's slur confirms what's been obvious for over a year. Most Democrat leaders will do anything to win the presidency--even if it means siding with terrorists, flirting with treason, destroying our troops' morale and endangering American lives.

After watching the endorsement speech, it's apparent that the only "catastrophic failure" at issue is Al Gore's diet.

B. Sides @ 10:29 PM

December 08, 2003

MediGimme
Why do leftists loathe President Bush? You'd think that after Dubya gave the welfare state a booster shot in the form of a massively expensive and unconstitutional Medicare prescription entitlement, American socialists would demand his reelection.

B. Sides @ 2:38 PM

Just In Time For The Holidays
In what may be the most signficant showbiz event since Liza beat-up her husband, Jon and Al Kaplan have unveiled Silence!, a musical adaptation of The Silence of the Lambs.

Memorable tunes downloaded from the website include the suspenseful Quid Pro Quo, the toe-tapping Are You About a Size 14?, and the chilling Put the Fucking Lotion in the Basket.

Next stop: Broadway! (Assuming, that is, Disney agrees to produce it.)

Andrew Lloyd-Webber, eat your liver out.

B. Sides @ 10:23 AM

December 07, 2003

'The Inevitable Triumph'
Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounding determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God. -- President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a speech to Congress the day after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, December 8, 1941

B. Sides @ 7:35 PM

December 06, 2003

Mike Bloomberg Is An Ashhole
Don't be caught with an ashtray in New York City. Staging raids with no warrant, the public health Taliban enforcing the Bloombergermeister Meisterbloomberger's smoking ban are fining businesses for possession of ashtrays. The New York Post has some choice words about it.

And God help you if you ever pop a balloon in the Big Apple.

(Memo to NYC voters: you get what you vote for. In the future, think twice before selecting a bored billionaire for mayor.)

B. Sides @ 8:55 AM

December 04, 2003

Turkeygate
This is what passes for scandal these days at the Washington Post:

President Bush's Baghdad turkey was for looking, not for eating.

In the most widely published image from his Thanksgiving day trip to Baghdad, the beaming president is wearing an Army workout jacket and surrounded by soldiers as he cradles a huge platter laden with a golden-brown turkey.

The bird is so perfect it looks as if it came from a food magazine, with bunches of grapes and other trimmings completing a Norman Rockwell image that evokes bounty and security in one of the most dangerous parts of the world.

But as a small sign of the many ways the White House maximized the impact of the 21/2-hour stop at the Baghdad airport, administration officials said yesterday that Bush picked up a decoration, not a serving plate.

The source for this scoop was a trench-coat clad, shadowy figure codenamed Deep Gizzard.

B. Sides @ 10:59 AM

December 03, 2003

More Bad News For The Dems
The AP reports:

The productivity of America's workers soared by the largest amount in 20 years last quarter, raising hopes that the economic recovery is taking hold and businesses will soon be stepping up hiring.

That good news lifted stocks on Wall Street, where the Nasdaq composite index flirted with 2,000 for the first time in nearly two years and the Dow Jones industrials approached the 10,000 level as investors eagerly picked up stocks.

B. Sides @ 5:22 PM

Merry Christmas And A Happy...Um...Forget The Second Part
U.S. to execute eight inmates by Christmas -- whiny headline by the terrorist-friendly Reuters propaganda service

B. Sides @ 3:22 PM

December 02, 2003

But Will Stalin Agree To Help?
Howard Dean strikes me as a guy who guzzles copious quantities of coffee and covers his body in nicotine patches while still smoking three packs a day. He always has that borderline psychotic look; as if he's about to simultaneously lose control of his temper, bladder and bowels. Dean's about-to-come-unglued nature usually results in the former Vermont governor babbling weird remarks long before his brain is able to discern the validity of it all.

That's good news for those of us who appreciate the entertainment value of Democrats-behaving-like-fucking-idiots. In this regard, there's rarely a day Dean fails to deliver.

And Dean delivered in a big way last night on MSNBC's Hardball, as BOTW notes today. When asked how he would deter Iran from developing nukes, The Spaz offered this answer:

The key, I believe, to Iran, is pressure through the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran I believe mostly likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union, and it may require us buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Spaz, take your Ritalin! The Soviet Union hasn't existed for over a decade!

Perhaps it was just a slip of the tongue.

Or, considering Dean's politics, maybe it was wishful thinking.

B. Sides @ 11:48 AM

December 01, 2003

The People's Front of Hollywood
Does life imitate Monty Python? Matt Drudge's latest exclusive suggests so:

Top Hollywood activists and intellectuals are planning to gather this week in Beverly Hills for an event billed as 'Hate Bush,' the DRUDGE REPORT has learned!

Laurie David [wife of SEINFELD creator Larry David] has sent out invites to the planned Tuesday evening meeting at the Hilton with the bold heading: 'Hate Bush 12/2 - Event'

The list of invitees reads like a Who's Not in Hollywood with names like Julia Louis-Dreyfuss and Daniel Stern. [cricket, cricket, cricket].

Here's the best part. Drudge reports Laurie David's message verbatim:

"This is the most important meeting you can attend to prevent the advancement of the current extremist right wing agenda. Do not miss this meeting. This will be a high-level briefing to discuss the strategies... to affect what happens next November."

Extremist right wing agenda? Since when do extremist rightwingers create massive Medicare prescription entitlements?

A high-level briefing? The wife of the creator of Seinfeld is high-level?

Discuss strategies? Such as using the word "hate" in an effort to convince American voters not to support a particular candidate?

The over-the-top and off-the-mark remarks exhibited by these Hate Bush boobs bring to mind Monty Python's comedic masterpiece Life of Brian.

Set during the time of Christ, Brian viciously lampoons, among other things, the blowhard nature associated with most political activists and their maniacally exaggerated sense of efficacy. Enter the People's Front of Judea, a clandestine anti-Roman insurgent group which is in a perpetual state of meeting. Passing harsh resolutions against the Roman occupation, plotting attacks on Roman officials and always losing focus, the PFJ's tough words never result in action.

In one scene, PFJ leader Reg (John Cleese) and his followers, Francis (Michael Palin), Stan (Eric Idle) and Judith (Sue Jones), discuss their fight to free the Holy Land of Roman oppression:

JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.
REG: Agreed. Francis?
FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
FRANCIS: Or woman... to rid himself--
STAN: Or herself.
FRANCIS: Or herself.
REG: Agreed.
FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.
STAN: Or sister.
FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?
REG: I think you'd finished.
FRANCIS: Oh. Right.
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
STAN/LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
STAN/LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
STAN/LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
STAN/LORETTA: Don't you oppress me!
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
STAN/LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

The inaugural meeting of Hate Bush will probably sound much like that -- except Loretta would be urged to abort "her" baby.

B. Sides @ 10:17 AM