Bohiney Magazine

Volume 1, Issue 12 – Saturday, May 3, 1947

“America’s Trusted Source for Satirical Truth”

Congress Overrides Taft-Hartley Veto While Workers Assured This Union-Weakening Is Actually For Their Benefit

WASHINGTON, DC – In a stunning display of bipartisan agreement that occurs only when restricting labor rights, Congress this week overrode President Truman’s veto of the Taft-Hartley Act, passing legislation that business leaders describe as “restoring balance” and labor organizers describe as “systematically dismantling workers’ ability to collectively bargain while pretending to help them.”

The Act, which requires union leaders to sign anti-Communist oaths, prohibits secondary boycotts, allows states to pass right-to-work laws, and permits employers to campaign against unions during organizing drives, has been sold to the public as protecting workers from “union bosses” rather than what it actually does: protect employers from workers having too much power.

“This is about freedom,” explained Senator Robert Taft while describing legislation that restricts workers’ freedom to organize as they see fit. “Workers shouldn’t be forced to join unions.” He did not address whether workers should be forced to accept whatever wages and conditions employers offer without collective bargaining power, apparently believing that’s different.

The Communist oath requirement represents what critics call “political theater disguised as policy” – requiring union leaders to swear they’re not Communists before representing workers, while no similar oath is required of corporate executives, politicians, or anyone else. The message is clear: organized labor is suspicious and potentially un-American, while organized capital is patriotic free enterprise.

“We’re protecting workers from radical elements,” insisted Representative Fred Hartley while explaining provisions that weaken workers’ primary tool for protecting themselves from employers. The “radical elements” in question appear to be anyone who thinks workers deserve higher wages, better conditions, or the ability to strike without employers immediately replacing them with strikebreakers.

The Department of Labor acknowledges that the Act fundamentally shifts power from labor toward management but insists this creates “balance” despite unions only existing because management historically exploited workers so badly that collective organization became necessary for survival.

Secondary boycotts – where workers refuse to handle goods from struck companies – are now illegal, preventing unions from applying economic pressure beyond immediate striking. This means workers can strike their employer but cannot ask other workers to support that strike through refusing related work, making strikes considerably less effective while maintaining the fiction that workers still have the right to strike.

The state right-to-work provision allows states to pass laws prohibiting union security agreements, creating situations where workers can benefit from union-negotiated contracts without paying union dues. Business interests frame this as “worker freedom” rather than “deliberately weakening unions by allowing free riders who benefit from collective bargaining without contributing to it.”

“Workers shouldn’t have to pay for representation they don’t want,” argued supporters, ignoring that workers in unionized shops benefit from union contracts whether they’re members or not, and allowing non-payment while receiving benefits undermines the collective power that achieved those benefits.

The Act permits employers to hold mandatory meetings during organizing campaigns where they can campaign against unions while workers are captive audiences on company time. Unions cannot access workers similarly, creating wildly unbalanced organizing conditions where employers use their economic power to discourage workers from organizing to limit that economic power. This is described as “free speech” rather than “coercion by parties controlling workers’ livelihoods.”

President Truman vetoed the Act, calling it “bad for labor, bad for management, and bad for the country,” which prompted Congress to override him immediately in rare bipartisan cooperation demonstrating that limiting labor power is one issue both parties support despite their many differences on other matters.

Labor leaders have denounced the Act as “slave labor legislation,” which supporters dismiss as hyperbole despite the Act systematically restricting workers’ primary tools for improving their conditions. The National Association of Manufacturers celebrated passage, which probably tells you everything you need to know about whose interests the legislation serves.

Some defenders argue that unions had become too powerful and needed restrictions to prevent abuse. These defenders rarely specify what abuses required legislation weakening workers’ collective power, beyond vague assertions about union corruption that could be addressed through targeted reforms rather than broad restrictions on labor rights.

The Act’s practical effect will be making it harder to organize unions, harder to maintain existing unions, harder to strike effectively, and easier for employers to resist workers’ demands. Business groups will praise increased “flexibility” while workers discover that flexibility primarily means their working conditions become more flexible downward.

Future historians will likely note that America passed this legislation in 1947 while simultaneously promoting “free world” values abroad, apparently believing that freedom includes employers dictating terms to workers who lack meaningful collective bargaining power because their government restricted it at business community’s request.

As of press time, Congressional leaders were celebrating their bold strike against union power while assuring workers this was actually about protecting them, using reasoning that makes sense only if you don’t think about it carefully or if you benefit from weakened labor organization, which Congressional leaders and their business donors definitely do.

Man’s “I’ll Take Care of It” Means “I Will Think About Taking Care of It Until You Do It Yourself”

MILWAUKEE, WI – Following her husband’s confident assertion that he would “take care of” the leaking faucet, area resident Dorothy Whitmore has entered week three of watching the faucet continue leaking while her husband periodically looks at it thoughtfully and announces he’s “still planning to take care of it.”

“I’ll take care of it,” Theodore Whitmore declared on April 10th upon hearing his wife mention the dripping kitchen faucet that had been dripping for several days. “Don’t worry about it. I’ve got it handled.”

Three weeks later, the faucet continues dripping at its original rate, Theodore has looked at it approximately seventeen times without actually repairing it, and Dorothy has concluded that “I’ll take care of it” translates to “I acknowledge that something needs doing but will not actually do it.”

“What happened to taking care of the faucet?” Dorothy inquired yesterday after the drip had cost them approximately 400 gallons of wasted water at current calculation.

“I’m still planning to do it,” Theodore replied with the confidence of someone who believes planning and doing are equivalent activities. “Just need to find time. And get the right tools. And maybe watch someone do it first. And check if we have replacement parts. And possibly research faucet repair. I’m taking care of it.”

The Smithsonian Institution has documented what researchers call “Declarative Completion Syndrome” where men believe that announcing they’ll handle something constitutes handling it, creating situations where tasks exist in perpetual state of being “taken care of” without ever actually being taken care of.

Dr. Reginald Pemberton explains that for many men, “I’ll take care of it” functions as closure phrase ending discussion about the task rather than commitment to actually performing the task. “He hears ‘faucet is dripping,'” Dr. Pemberton noted. “He says ‘I’ll take care of it’ which in his mind resolves the issue. The faucet continues dripping, but the conversation is closed. Task accomplished.”

This reasoning, which makes no logical sense, makes perfect psychological sense to men who prefer declaring intention over executing action because declaration feels like accomplishment without requiring actual work.

Theodore’s “taking care of it” process has consisted of:

Week One:

• Looking at faucet thoughtfully (six times)
• Announcing intention to fix it (three times)
• Googling “how to fix dripping faucet” (once, didn’t read results)
• Touching faucet handle experimentally (twice)
• Concluding he needs tools he doesn’t own

Week Two:

• Meaning to buy tools (daily)
• Not buying tools (also daily)
• Mentioning to neighbors that he needs to fix faucet (establishes public commitment without follow-through)
• Looking at faucet disappointedly (four times)
• Wondering if dripping might stop on its own

Week Three:

• Avoiding kitchen to avoid seeing dripping faucet
• Assuring wife he’ll “definitely get to it this weekend”
• Weekend passes without addressing faucet
• Considering whether hiring plumber would constitute failure
• Still not fixing faucet

Total progress: Zero Faucet status: Still dripping Theodore’s assessment: “Making good progress on the plan to fix it”

His wife reports this pattern extends beyond faucet repair. “He’s been ‘taking care of’ the garage organization for six months,” Dorothy explained while gesturing at chaotic garage unchanged since October. “The basement light needs replacement. He’s ‘taking care of it’ since February. The back gate sticks. He’s been ‘handling it’ since last summer. Every task exists in permanent state of being addressed without ever being addressed.”

Dr. Millicent Hargrove, who studies household dynamics, notes that “I’ll take care of it” represents male avoidance strategy disguised as acceptance of responsibility. “By saying he’ll handle it, he prevents his wife from either doing it herself or hiring someone,” Dr. Hargrove explained. “But he also doesn’t actually do it. The task enters limbo where it’s simultaneously being handled and not being handled until eventually the wife does it herself out of frustration.”

This outcome – wife eventually handling task that husband claimed he’d handle – represents the actual endpoint of most “I’ll take care of it” declarations. Husbands know this through experience but continue making declarations because:

1. It stops immediate discussion about the task
2. It makes them feel helpful without requiring actual help
3. It delays the task indefinitely
4. Eventually someone else handles it
5. They can then claim they were “just about to do it”

Theodore’s neighbors report similar patterns. Ernest Potts has been “taking care of” his lawn for three months while grass grows to concerning height. Harold Finchley is “handling” the squeaky door that’s been squeaking since 1945. Walter Grimsby plans to “get to” painting the fence he’s been discussing since Truman took office.

All maintain that they’re actively working on these projects despite zero visible evidence of any work occurring.

“The problem is he genuinely believes he’s handling it,” Dorothy explained while watching her husband look at the dripping faucet for the eighteenth time without touching it. “In his mind, thinking about fixing it constitutes progress toward fixing it. The gap between thinking and doing doesn’t register.”

She has developed her own system: when Theodore says “I’ll take care of it,” she starts a mental countdown. If nothing happens within two weeks, she either does it herself or hires someone, having learned that his declaration was performative rather than predictive.

“But then he gets upset that I didn’t wait for him to do it,” she noted. “Despite him having no actual plans to do it. It’s lose-lose. Either the thing doesn’t get done or I do it and he’s offended that I didn’t trust his imaginary timeline.”

As of press time, the faucet continued dripping, Theodore continued planning to fix it, and Dorothy was researching plumbers while her husband assured her that “this weekend for sure” he’d finally get around to taking care of it, a promise he’ll repeat next weekend and the weekend after until she stops believing him entirely and just handles everything herself like she should have from the beginning.

Local Woman’s Restaurant Suggestion Immediately Vetoed Despite Husband Having No Alternative Ideas

CLEVELAND, OH – Following his wife’s proposal that they eat dinner at the new Italian restaurant on Fourth Street, area resident Harold Finchley immediately rejected the suggestion while offering zero alternative options, creating what marriage counselors describe as “typical restaurant selection stalemate that will delay dinner indefinitely.”

“What about Luigi’s?” Dorothy Finchley suggested at 6:00 PM after spending ten minutes considering options and selecting one she thought both would enjoy.

“Nah, I don’t feel like Italian,” Harold responded instantly, vetoing his wife’s suggestion without considering it seriously or proposing any alternative.

“Okay, what do you want?” Dorothy asked with the patience of someone who knows the answer will be unhelpful.

“I don’t know. Not Italian though,” Harold replied, establishing only what he doesn’t want while providing zero information about what he does want.

This exchange has continued for 47 minutes, during which Dorothy has suggested seven different restaurants, Harold has rejected all seven, and they remain no closer to dinner than when the conversation began. Harold maintains he’s “not being difficult” despite rejecting every suggestion while offering none of his own.

The National Restaurant Association estimates that approximately 62% of couples experience restaurant selection paralysis where one party rejects all suggestions without contributing alternatives, creating decision-making deadlock that can last hours or until someone just makes unilateral choice and accepts the consequences.

Dr. Theodore Pemberton, who studies relationship dynamics, explains that restaurant vetoing without suggesting represents “passive control strategy where one spouse prevents decisions without accepting responsibility for making decisions.” Harold wants Dorothy to somehow guess what he wants to eat without him articulating preferences because articulating would require thought and commitment.

“He doesn’t know what he wants,” Dr. Pemberton noted while reviewing transcript of the Finchley’s 47-minute restaurant debate. “But he knows he doesn’t want whatever she suggests. This gives him control without responsibility. She does all the mental work of considering options, he simply says no until something appeals to him, which might be never.”

Dorothy’s suggestions have included:

Italian – “Don’t feel like it” Chinese – “Had that recently” (was three weeks ago) Steakhouse – “Too expensive” (they can afford it) Diner – “Not nice enough” (contradicts previous objection) Mexican – “Too spicy” (she knows he’ll order mild items) Seafood – “Not in the mood” Barbecue – “Too heavy”

Each rejection came within seconds, suggesting Harold isn’t actually considering suggestions but simply rejecting them reflexively because accepting would end the process and he apparently prefers prolonged indecision to eating dinner.

“What sounds good to you?” Dorothy asked directly, attempting to force actual contribution.

“I don’t know, you pick,” Harold replied, apparently forgetting that she’s been picking for 47 minutes while he’s been rejecting.

“I’ve suggested seven places. You’ve rejected all of them. I need you to suggest something,” Dorothy explained with increasing frustration.

“I will, just give me a minute,” Harold said, then spent that minute thinking about nothing before suggesting “Maybe we should just eat at home?”

This suggestion – avoiding the entire restaurant question by not going to restaurant – represents what marriage counselors call “failure surrender” where the suggester becomes so exhausted by rejections that staying home seems preferable to continuing the debate.

“We’ve been planning to go out all day,” Dorothy protested. “I don’t want to cook. That’s why we’re going out.”

“Okay, then you pick,” Harold replied, completing the circular logic that has consumed the past 47 minutes and will consume at least 47 more unless someone breaks the cycle.

Dr. Millicent Hargrove notes that this represents common couple communication failure where one party does all cognitive labor while other party simply responds with rejection, creating illusion of shared decision-making while one person does all deciding and other person does all preventing.

“She’s considering options, evaluating preferences, making suggestions,” Dr. Hargrove explained. “He’s sitting there saying ‘no’ to everything like a toddler. This isn’t collaboration. This is her working while he obstructs.”

The Finchley’s neighbors report similar patterns. Ernest Potts rejects his wife’s restaurant suggestions for up to two hours before finally accepting one, usually the first suggestion she made before he rejected seventeen alternatives. Walter Grimsby suggests “let’s just get pizza” to every restaurant discussion, which his wife describes as “technically a suggestion but the same suggestion every time regardless of context or whether anyone wants pizza.”

Theodore Whitmore once rejected so many restaurant suggestions that his wife started the car and drove to a restaurant she selected unilaterally, informing him upon arrival that “we’re eating here, I don’t care what you think.” Theodore described this as “unfair” despite it being the only way to actually achieve dinner.

Dorothy has attempted several strategies:

Making him decide – He can’t or won’t

Limiting options – He rejects both, suggests starting over

Going to restaurant without asking – He complains about the choice

Refusing to suggest – They don’t eat, he eventually blames her

Accepting his “you pick” – He rejects her pick immediately

The only successful strategy involves Dorothy making decision, ignoring Harold’s objections, and proceeding with her choice while he complains but ultimately accepts it because he’s hungry and cannot actually suggest alternative.

As of press time, they remained locked in restaurant selection debate with Harold having rejected nine suggestions, offered zero alternatives, and begun suggesting they just stay home, which Dorothy was considering not because she wants to but because Harold has made going out so unpleasant that staying home represents the path of least resistance, which was possibly his strategy all along.

Groundbreaking Study Reveals Husbands Physically Incapable of Finding Items in Refrigerator

BOSTON, MA – After extensive research involving 5,000 married couples and countless refrigerator searches, the Institute for Household Behavior has confirmed that husbands possess biological inability to locate items in refrigerators, requiring wife assistance for finding things directly in front of them at eye level.

“The milk is right there,” wives reported saying an average of 3.7 times per week while pointing at milk that husbands claim cannot be seen despite occupying prominent refrigerator position.

“I looked everywhere,” husbands consistently replied while standing in front of open refrigerator staring directly at milk they somehow cannot perceive.

The study found that husbands searching refrigerators fail to locate items approximately 94% of the time, with failure rate increasing to 99% when item is visible without moving anything. Researchers initially suspected husbands were lying about not seeing items, but brain scans revealed they genuinely cannot process visual information about refrigerator contents, suffering from what scientists term “Selective Refrigerator Blindness.”

“It’s fascinating,” reported lead researcher Dr. Millicent Hargrove while reviewing footage of test subject Walter Grimsby staring directly at butter while insisting butter isn’t in refrigerator. “His eyes see the butter. His brain doesn’t process it as butter. He experiences refrigerator contents as undifferentiated chaos rather than organized items with specific locations.”

Test subjects consistently reported that refrigerators contain “a bunch of stuff” rather than specific items in specific places. When asked to locate ketchup, subjects opened refrigerator, looked around vaguely, announced ketchup isn’t there, and closed refrigerator despite ketchup being on door shelf where it’s been stored for six years.

“Where’s the mustard?” subjects asked their wives repeatedly.

“In the refrigerator,” wives replied.

“I looked. It’s not there,” subjects insisted.

“Did you move anything or just stare at the front row?” wives asked, knowing the answer.

“I looked at everything,” subjects lied, having looked at nothing beyond surface level.

Wives then located mustard within three seconds, usually without moving anything, by employing what researchers call “actually looking” rather than “staring blankly while hoping items reveal themselves.”

The Smithsonian Institution has documented this phenomenon affecting approximately 89% of married men who claim refrigerator searching ability while demonstrating none. The remaining 11% can locate items but only after extended searching that would take wives 5% of the time.

Dr. Theodore Pemberton explains that men and women apparently see refrigerators differently. “Women see organized space containing specific items in logical locations,” he noted. “Men see mysterious cabinet where things appear and disappear according to unknowable rules. They open it, see chaos, give up immediately.”

The study identified several categories of items husbands cannot find despite prominent placement:

Items in Front Row – Literally the first thing visible when opening refrigerator; husbands cannot see them

Items on Door – Stored in designated door compartments; might as well be invisible

Items in Clear Containers – Transparency makes them harder to find somehow

Items They Used Yesterday – Previous location knowledge provides no help

Items Wives Just Told Them About – Verbal information doesn’t aid visual searching

Particularly baffling were cases where husbands asked “Do we have butter?” while holding butter they’d removed from refrigerator seconds earlier to make space for looking for butter.

“It’s in your hand,” wives pointed out.

“Where?” husbands responded while holding butter at eye level.

Mrs. Dorothy Pemberton participated in study after years of locating refrigerator items for her husband who claims he “thoroughly searched” before asking for help. “He opens the refrigerator, moves nothing, looks at nothing systematically, then announces we’re out of whatever he needs,” she explained. “I walk over, move one item, and find what he needs immediately. He acts amazed, like I performed magic rather than basic visual searching.”

The study found that husbands employ several ineffective refrigerator searching strategies:

The Blank Stare – Open door, stare at contents without processing what’s visible, give up

The Surface Scan – Look only at front row, assume anything behind doesn’t exist

The Memory Failure – Cannot remember where items are stored despite retrieving them hundreds of times

The Instant Defeat – Open refrigerator, immediately conclude item isn’t there without searching

The Wife Summons – Skip searching entirely, just ask wife where it is from the start

The only strategy that works – actually looking at items, moving things to see behind them, checking all shelves – is never employed because husbands apparently believe refrigerator searching shouldn’t require effort.

Dr. Reginald Crumpet notes that this represents broader pattern of household incompetence where husbands claim inability to find things, prompting wives to handle the finding, reinforcing husbands’ belief that they’re incapable and wives’ expectation that they must handle everything.

“It’s learned helplessness,” Dr. Crumpet explained. “He can’t find milk, she finds it. He ‘learns’ he can’t find milk, stops trying, just asks her. She ‘learns’ he can’t find things, does the finding. Neither questions whether his inability is real or performed.”

Some wives have attempted to force husbands to search properly by refusing to help. These wives report husbands staring into refrigerator for extended periods before either giving up entirely, claiming item doesn’t exist when it definitely does, or eating something else rather than admitting they need to search more carefully.

As of press time, thousands of husbands were asking where the juice is while staring directly at juice, millions of wives were finding juice in three seconds, and researchers were concluding that husbands’ refrigerator incompetence represents either genuine neurological condition requiring medical intervention or elaborate performance art intended to ensure wives handle all household management forever.

Man’s “One More Episode” Promise Enters Fourth Episode, Still No Sign of Stopping

PHILADELPHIA, PA – Following his declaration at 9:00 PM that he’d watch “just one more episode” before bed, area resident Ernest Potts has progressed through four additional episodes of his radio drama program with no indication that sleep will occur anytime soon despite having work tomorrow and it currently being 11:47 PM.

“One more episode,” Potts announced to his wife Dorothy at 9:00 PM when she suggested he should sleep since he’d been listening since 7:00 PM and had work at 6:00 AM.

“You said that an hour ago,” Dorothy noted at 10:00 PM as second “final” episode concluded.

“This is the last one. I promise. After this I’m definitely going to bed,” Potts replied with conviction that evaporated immediately when that episode ended and he began the next one without pause.

The National Broadcasting Company acknowledges that “one more episode” represents industry-standard lie that listeners tell themselves and others while fully intending to watch multiple additional episodes because stopping mid-story feels impossible despite knowing that continuing guarantees exhaustion tomorrow.

Dr. Theodore Pemberton, who studies entertainment consumption, explains that “one more episode” functions as permission structure allowing people to continue behavior they know they should stop. “Saying ‘one more’ makes continuing feel like controlled decision rather than lack of self-control,” he noted. “It’s not addiction if you’re deliberately choosing one more episode. Even if you choose one more episode six times consecutively.”

Potts’s viewing pattern followed predictable escalation:

Episode 1 (7:00 PM): Watched casually while doing other things Episode 2 (7:30 PM): Became engaged in story, decided to continue Episode 3 (8:00 PM): Cliffhanger ending, must watch next to resolve Episode 4 (8:30 PM): Wife suggests stopping, Potts agrees to “one more” Episode 5 (9:00 PM): The supposed “final” episode Episode 6 (9:30 PM): Actually just one more this time Episode 7 (10:00 PM): Okay but seriously just this one Episode 8 (10:30 PM): This is definitely the last one Episode 9 (11:00 PM): Current episode, probably not actually last Episode 10+ (11:30 PM+): Inevitable continuation until physical collapse

His wife has learned that “one more episode” translates to “indeterminate number of additional episodes until I literally cannot remain conscious” and that attempting to intervene only prompts Potts to insist he’s “almost done” despite being nowhere near done.

“It’s 11:47,” Dorothy noted while preparing for bed alone. “You have work in six hours. You said one episode at 9:00. You’ve watched five episodes since then.”

“I know, but I’m at a really exciting part,” Potts replied, as if story excitement justifies self-inflicted sleep deprivation. “I’ll stop after this one. I promise.”

Dorothy recognized this promise as identical to previous six promises, all broken immediately, and went to bed knowing her husband would emerge sometime after midnight, exhausted from watching ten episodes when he intended to watch one, confused about how time passed so quickly, and regretting his choices in approximately four hours when the alarm sounds.

This pattern repeats nightly with identical results and zero learning.

Dr. Millicent Hargrove notes that serial programming deliberately creates “one more episode” compulsion through cliffhangers and unresolved storylines that make stopping feel like leaving task incomplete. “The programs are designed so that stopping feels wrong,” she explained. “Each episode ends at a point that demands resolution in the next episode. Viewers intend to stop but cannot because their brain interprets continuation as completing something rather than making bad choice.”

Potts admits he’s always tired from staying up watching programs but cannot seem to stop the pattern. “I tell myself I’ll just watch one,” he explained while beginning his sixth episode past the point where he claimed he’d stop. “Then the episode ends and I need to know what happens next. Before I know it, it’s midnight and I’ve destroyed my sleep schedule again.”

His coworkers report that Potts arrives exhausted every morning, claims he’ll go to bed early tonight, then stays up watching programs again, creating cycle of perpetual exhaustion that he cannot break despite understanding the problem completely.

“It’s self-inflicted,” noted fellow accountant Harold Finchley who exhibits identical behavior with identical outcomes. “We know what we’re doing. We know it’s bad for us. We do it anyway because stopping mid-story feels impossible even though continuing guarantees misery tomorrow.”

Some experts suggest setting hard stop times before beginning programs, but this requires self-discipline that “one more episode” people demonstrably lack. Others suggest watching programs that don’t have cliffhangers, but this eliminates most entertaining content. The realistic solution appears to be accepting chronic exhaustion as lifestyle cost of consuming serialized entertainment.

As of press time, Potts had reached episode seven past his “final” episode, showed no signs of stopping, and was destined to arrive at work tomorrow claiming he’d go to bed early tonight, a promise he’ll break in identical fashion, maintaining the cycle indefinitely until retirement or death, whichever comes first.

Study Confirms Children Selectively Deaf to Parental Instructions But Hear Candy Wrapper From Three Rooms Away

BALTIMORE, MD – After extensive research involving 3,000 families and sophisticated audio testing equipment, the Institute for Child Behavior has confirmed that children possess remarkable selective hearing ability, remaining completely deaf to parental instructions while detecting candy wrapper sounds from distances that should make such detection physically impossible.

“Come help set the table,” parents reported saying an average of 6.3 times per request with zero child response despite children being in the same room, ears functioning perfectly, and instructions spoken at normal volume.

Meanwhile, opening a candy wrapper in the basement resulted in children appearing within thirty seconds from anywhere in the house, demonstrating that their hearing works excellently when motivated by sugar.

The study found that children can hear:

• Candy wrappers (basement to attic range)
• Ice cream truck (half-mile radius)
• “Who wants dessert?” (whispered, different floor)
• Television turning on (detectable through closed doors)
• Adults discussing potential fun activities (superhuman audio processing)

While remaining mysteriously deaf to:

• “Clean your room” (repeated seventeen times, never heard)
• “Do your homework” (apparently inaudible frequency)
• “Come to dinner” (requires physical retrieval)
• “Get ready for bed” (generates confusion about what words mean)
• Any instruction requiring effort (processed as meaningless noise)

“It’s remarkable,” reported lead researcher Dr. Millicent Hargrove while testing eight-year-old Timothy Morrison who couldn’t hear his mother calling from ten feet away but detected cookies being removed from a jar in the kitchen while playing in the backyard. “His hearing is perfect. He just doesn’t process auditory information about chores, homework, or responsibilities. His brain filters those frequencies out automatically.”

Test subject Mrs. Dorothy Pemberton participated after years of shouting instructions to children who claim they “didn’t hear” despite being in the same room, making eye contact, and clearly hearing every word while pretending deafness to avoid compliance.

“I said clean your room five times,” she reported while her daughter Susan played contentedly, demonstrating perfect hearing ability when listening to radio but apparent profound deafness when mother speaks.

“I didn’t hear you,” Susan replied, the default excuse that parents hear constantly despite knowing it’s false.

“You’re looking right at me while I talk,” Dorothy protested.

“I wasn’t paying attention,” Susan admitted, which is at least more honest than claiming deafness but doesn’t explain why paying attention is required for hearing parents but not required for hearing television, friends, or snack-related sounds.

The National Institutes of Health has classified this as “Selective Auditory Processing Syndrome” where children’s brains automatically filter out instructions requiring work while amplifying detection of pleasure-related sounds. This appears to be universal childhood condition that resolves only when children become parents and discover their own children exhibit identical selective deafness.

Dr. Theodore Pemberton explains that children have learned that ignoring instructions often results in parents either doing the task themselves or giving up on the request, creating incentive structure where selective deafness becomes effective strategy for avoiding work.

“First time parent asks, child ignores,” Dr. Pemberton noted. “Second time, child still ignores. Third time, parent gets frustrated. Fourth time, parent either does it themselves or escalates to consequences. Child has learned that ignoring works for at least three requests, making it worthwhile strategy.”

The study documented several common parental responses to selective deafness:

Repetition – Repeating instruction multiple times without consequence teaches child that instructions don’t require immediate response

Increasing Volume – Shouting same instruction establishes that only loud instructions require response

Physical Proximity – Walking to child and speaking directly teaches that distant instructions can be ignored

Ultimately Doing It Yourself – Most effective teaching method for children to never do anything themselves

Parents reported exhaustion from constantly repeating instructions to children who demonstrate perfect hearing when candy is mentioned but apparent complete deafness when chores are assigned.

“It’s maddening,” explained Ernest Potts while describing his son’s ability to hear “Would you like cookies?” from two houses away but not hear “Take out the trash” when standing directly next to the trash can. “His hearing is selective in ways that benefit him exclusively.”

Some parents have attempted to exploit children’s superior snack-detection abilities by hiding instructions inside references to treats. “Clean your room and you’ll get ice cream” registers as “ice cream” with “clean your room” part mysteriously inaudible. The strategy failed because children learned to demand ice cream without performing prerequisite tasks.

As of press time, millions of parents were repeating instructions for the seventh time while their children pretended not to hear, except for the child three houses away who somehow detected a cookie package opening and appeared requesting snacks despite being unable to hear his own name being called from six feet away.

About This Issue

Bohiney Magazine – Volume 1, Issue 12 – Published every Saturday from our offices in Washington, DC.

Editorial Staff, 1947: Editors-in-Chief: Corporal Henry “Hank” Bohiney & Sergeant Lester “Les” Krupke
Senior Correspondents: Dorothy Ashworth, Harold K. Pennington III
Contributing Satirist: Reginald “Reggie” Buttonworth

All articles are works of satire. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental and intended for humorous purposes.