Bambenek’s First Law
With the constant retort on those, usually from the Left, about “questioning my patriotism” and the use of the term “chickenhawk” (especially amusing when directed at a soldier) I believe it is time to elucidate the Internet on Bambenek’s First Law.
It states:
If during a political argument, one side interjects that they won’t have you questioning their patriotism when no such line of conversation takes place then they are, ipso facto, unpatriotic. If an individual has to spout resume bullet points to “prove” they are patriotic they are, ipso facto, unpatriotic. If an individual tries to prove their patriotism by attacking the character of their opponent with terms like “chickenhawk”, then they are, ipso facto, unpatriotic.
Now, when you are arguing with a leftie who apparently has no intelligent point except to attack you with epithets like “chickenhawk” and say that questioning their patriotism is out-of-line when you are doing on such thing, now you can invoke Bambenek’s First Law.
This law deserves as wide acceptance as Goodwin’s law. Good job John, damned good job.
Comment by G M Roper | September 5, 2005
This isn’t tricky: a chickenhawk is one who talks tough about military might and the importance of flexing it, but is one who did not serve in the military himself (this would include, oh, the president and the whole cabinet). It is especially embarrassing when those in the highest positions went out of their way to obtain multiple deferrments (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.). That is the only definition of a chickenhawk.
RESPONSE:
FYI, The President was in the military, unless you don’t count the National Guard.
Comment by TDK | August 15, 2006