Bohiney Magazine

Volume 1, Issue 14 – Saturday, May 17, 1947

“America’s Trusted Source for Satirical Truth”

House Un-American Activities Committee Investigates Hollywood While Actual Un-American Activities Occur Elsewhere

WASHINGTON, DC – The House Un-American Activities Committee has escalated its investigation into Communist infiltration of Hollywood film studios this week, determining that the greatest threat to American democracy is screenwriters who may have attended left-wing meetings in the 1930s rather than, say, the systemic discrimination, labor suppression, or actual fascist sympathizers who never faced similar scrutiny.

The hearings, chaired by Representative J. Parnell Thomas, have focused intensely on whether film industry professionals are now or have ever been members of the Communist Party, a question that apparently matters more than whether they’ve committed actual crimes or created actual threats to national security beyond making movies about working-class people occasionally winning against corrupt bosses.

“We must root out Communist influence in Hollywood,” Thomas declared while sitting at a committee that has never shown similar interest in investigating fascist influence in American business, Nazi sympathizers who operated openly before Pearl Harbor, or the various un-American activities of segregation, labor intimidation, and political corruption that affect millions of Americans daily.

The Library of Congress notes that the committee, originally formed to investigate Nazi activities in America during the 1930s, spent most of that decade ignoring actual Nazi sympathizers while investigating leftist groups, suggesting its definition of “un-American” has always been selectively applied based on political preferences rather than actual threats.

Witnesses have been called to testify about their political beliefs, associations, and whether they’ve ever attended meetings where socialism was discussed favorably. Those refusing to answer face contempt charges, professional blacklisting, and destroyed careers for exercising rights that the committee claims to be defending through its investigation into who might theoretically want to undermine those rights.

The hearings operate on fascinating logic: people who believe in economic equality are dangerous threats requiring investigation, while people who believe in racial superiority, labor suppression, and anti-democratic business practices are respectable citizens whose views require no scrutiny. One group writes movies. The other controls industries, influences elections, and shapes actual policy. Guess which group Congress investigates?

“Communist influence in films poses a grave danger,” testified industry executives who apparently believe that movies about workers organizing or poor people succeeding constitute propaganda but movies about heroic businessmen and contented servants represent objective truth. The danger, they explain, is that films might make Americans think about economic inequality, which is apparently more un-American than actual economic inequality.

The committee has shown particular interest in films with “pro-labor” themes, suggesting that depicting unions positively represents Communist propaganda while depicting them negatively represents accurate filmmaking. This interpretation conveniently aligns with business interests who prefer workers not get ideas about collective bargaining from their entertainment.

Some witnesses, dubbed “friendly” by the committee, have cooperated enthusiastically by naming colleagues who attended left-wing meetings, belonged to unions, or expressed sympathy for Soviet Russia during the period when America and Russia were allies fighting Nazi Germany. These denunciations are treated as patriotic acts rather than career-destroying betrayals they actually are.

“Unfriendly” witnesses who refuse to name names or discuss political beliefs face contempt citations and industry blacklisting, effectively ending their careers for declining to participate in committee’s investigation into their thoughts and associations – an investigation that would seem to violate the First Amendment rights the committee claims to protect except apparently those rights don’t apply when investigating leftists.

The Hollywood Ten, as they’re being called, have refused to answer whether they’re Communists, arguing that the committee lacks authority to investigate political beliefs. They’re being held in contempt, which will likely result in prison sentences for refusing to discuss their thoughts with government committee that exists to punish people for having wrong thoughts.

Meanwhile, actual un-American activities continue unimpeded:

• Segregation denying citizens equal rights based on race
• Poll taxes and literacy tests preventing voting
• Labor intimidation and illegal strike-breaking
• Discrimination in housing, employment, education
• Corporate collusion fixing prices and suppressing competition
• Various state-level authoritarianism that actually restricts freedom

The committee investigates none of this, apparently because these activities are performed by people with correct political views so they’re fine, while screenwriters with incorrect political views represent existential threats requiring investigation, exposure, and punishment.

“We’re protecting America,” committee members insist while attacking Americans for their beliefs, destroying their careers for their associations, and creating atmosphere of fear that makes actual dissent dangerous – all things that might be considered un-American if performed by people the committee actually wanted to investigate.

The film industry, terrified of being labeled Communist sympathizers, has begun cooperating extensively with investigations, promising to purge suspected leftists and ensure future films contain no controversial content about economic inequality, labor rights, or any topic that might be interpreted as critical of American business practices. This self-censorship is described as “responsible” rather than what it actually is: allowing government to dictate film content through intimidation.

As of press time, the committee was preparing additional hearings to investigate more Hollywood figures whose greatest crime appears to be believing workers deserve better treatment, while actual un-American activities performed by powerful interests who benefit from the committee’s work continue unexamined because investigating actual power is harder than investigating people who write movies.

Local Man’s Elaborate Weekend Plans Consist Entirely of Sitting

MILWAUKEE, WI – Following five days of intense work and commuting, area resident Theodore Whitmore has announced ambitious weekend plans consisting primarily of sitting in various locations throughout his home without moving or accomplishing anything requiring effort beyond remaining conscious.

“I’ve got a busy weekend planned,” Whitmore declared Friday evening while settling into his chair with the newspaper, a position he maintained with minimal variation for the next fourteen hours.

His wife Dorothy inquired about these elaborate plans, receiving comprehensive itinerary:

Saturday: Sit in chair reading paper, move to couch for radio programs, possibly relocate to porch if weather permits, return to chair for evening sitting

Sunday: Similar sitting agenda with possible variation in sitting locations depending on energy levels

“That’s not plans,” Dorothy noted. “That’s just existing without purpose.”

“Exactly,” Whitmore replied with satisfaction. “After five days of purposeful existing, I’ve earned two days of purposeless existing. This is my reward for working: the privilege of not working.”

The Department of Labor acknowledges that weekend sitting represents primary leisure activity for approximately 73% of working men who view accomplishing nothing as preferable alternative to accomplishing something, especially if accomplishing something requires leaving sitting position.

Dr. Reginald Pemberton, who studies rest and recovery, notes that men often confuse rest with complete inactivity. “There’s resting, which restores energy,” he explained while observing Whitmore sit motionlessly for six consecutive hours. “Then there’s what he’s doing, which is avoiding all activity so completely that he might as well be furniture. This doesn’t restore anything. It just passes time while using minimal calories.”

Whitmore’s weekend sitting schedule follows strict routine:

Saturday Morning: Wake at 8:00, sit in chair until 10:00 reading paper Saturday Midday: Move to couch, listen to radio until 1:00 Saturday Afternoon: Return to chair, stare at wall until 4:00 Saturday Evening: Sit on porch until 6:00, then back to chair until 10:00 Sunday: Repeat with slight variations in sitting location

Total activities planned beyond sitting: Zero Total energy required: Approximately none Total accomplishment: Perfect record of accomplishing nothing

“Don’t you want to do something?” Dorothy asked Saturday afternoon while watching her husband occupy the same chair he’d been in since breakfast.

“I am doing something,” Whitmore replied. “I’m sitting. It takes focus and commitment to sit this effectively.”

When asked what makes sitting effective versus ineffective, Whitmore explained that effective sitting involves “really committing to the sit” and “not getting distracted by urges to stand or move or accomplish things.” This philosophy of sitting appears to be working based on his complete lack of movement for seven consecutive hours.

Dorothy’s suggested weekend activities – all rejected:

Visit Friends: Requires leaving house and talking Work on Garden: Involves standing and effort Repair Fence: Far too active for weekend plans Take Walk: Walking is literally the opposite of sitting Attend Church: Sitting would occur but in wrong location Grocery Shopping: Sitting interrupted by walking aisles Any Activity Whatsoever: Fundamentally incompatible with sitting commitment

“This is my weekend,” Whitmore explained when pressed about doing something productive. “Monday through Friday I work. Saturday and Sunday I sit. This is the arrangement. Suggesting I do things on weekend violates the whole purpose of weekends, which is specifically to not do things.”

Marriage counselor Dr. Millicent Hargrove notes that weekend sitting represents marital tension point where wives want companionship and shared activities while husbands want solitude and absence of activities. “He’s been around people all week,” Dr. Hargrove explained. “He doesn’t want more people. He wants his chair. She’s been home all week and wants adult interaction. Neither gets what they want.”

Whitmore’s friends report identical weekend patterns. Ernest Potts spends weekends sitting in different chair. Harold Finchley alternates between his chair and the porch. Walter Grimsby has perfected the art of sitting so still that his family forgets he’s there, which he considers the ultimate sitting achievement.

“But you could sit anywhere,” Dorothy protested. “We could sit at the park. Or sit at a restaurant. Or sit visiting people.”

“That’s not sitting,” Whitmore replied with the logic of someone who has thought extensively about sitting taxonomy. “That’s sitting while doing other things. I want pure sitting. Undiluted by activity. Just man and chair in perfect harmony.”

When reminded that he could help with household projects that need completing, Whitmore noted that “weekend” and “projects” are contradictory concepts that cannot coexist. Projects are weekday activities. Weekends are for sitting. Attempting to do projects on weekends violates natural order and threatens the fundamental purpose of having weekends.

“So your plan is to sit for two days, accomplish nothing, and call that a successful weekend?” Dorothy asked for clarification.

“Exactly,” Whitmore confirmed. “If I accomplish something, the weekend was wasted on productivity when it should have been spent on sitting. The perfect weekend is one where I achieve absolutely nothing beyond mastering the art of remaining seated.”

His children have adopted father’s weekend philosophy, creating home where four people sit in four different locations, barely speaking, accomplishing nothing, and defending this as appropriate use of leisure time that shouldn’t be contaminated by activities, conversation, or anything requiring effort beyond maintaining consciousness while seated.

As of press time, Whitmore had completed day one of his weekend sitting marathon, having successfully sat for approximately fourteen hours broken only by brief standing intervals for food and bathroom, which he described as “necessary interruptions” that he minimized to maximize sitting time. He projects day two will achieve similar sitting success, possibly breaking his personal record of seventeen consecutive sitting hours if conditions are favorable and nobody attempts to make him do anything.

Woman’s “We Should Talk” Means “I Will Talk, You Will Listen and Apologize”

CLEVELAND, OH – Following his wife’s announcement that “we should talk,” area resident Harold Finchley has spent the past forty-seven minutes listening to comprehensive explanation of his failures as husband, father, and human being generally, while his contributions to the conversation have consisted of “I’m sorry” and variations thereof.

“We should talk,” Dorothy Finchley announced at 7:30 PM, a phrase Harold correctly identified as meaning “you should listen while I talk and then apologize for things I’m about to tell you you did wrong.”

The “should” in “we should talk” apparently refers to Harold should listen, nod, and express remorse rather than contribute perspectives, explanations, or defenses that would be interpreted as “not listening.”

“This is about you leaving dirty dishes in the sink this morning,” Dorothy began what Harold initially assumed would be brief discussion about dishwashing but has evolved into comprehensive review of his household participation over seventeen years of marriage.

“I’m sorry,” Harold offered, making his first contribution to conversation that Dorothy described as needing participation from both parties but actually requires participation from only one party while other party provides periodic acknowledgment sounds.

“It’s not just the dishes,” Dorothy continued, expanding topic from morning dishes to general pattern of insufficient household contribution that apparently includes but is not limited to: forgetting to take out trash, leaving bathroom messy, not helping with dinner preparation, insufficient engagement with children, poor time management, inadequate emotional availability, and various other failings Harold is learning about for first time despite apparently committing them regularly.

The Smithsonian Institution has documented what researchers call “Comprehensive Complaint Sessions Disguised as Mutual Conversations” where one party delivers extensive criticism while other party provides apologetic acknowledgment, creating illusion of dialogue that is actually monologue with required audience responses.

Dr. Theodore Pemberton explains that “we should talk” represents communication framework where “we” means “I will list your failings” and “talk” means “you will absorb criticism without defending yourself because defending would prove you’re not listening.”

“When she says ‘we should talk,’ she means she’s been accumulating complaints for weeks and has reached capacity,” Dr. Pemberton noted while reviewing transcript of conversation where Dorothy spoke for 47 minutes and Harold contributed 37 words, 31 of which were “I’m sorry.” “He interprets it as invitation to discuss. She means it as notification that discussion will occur with predetermined conclusion that he’s wrong and should apologize.”

Harold’s attempted contributions to “conversation”:

“I didn’t realize that bothered you” – Met with explanation of how he should have realized “I thought I did help with that” – Corrected with evidence of insufficient help “Can I explain my thinking?” – Told that explaining is deflecting from real issue “What can I do differently?” – Provided list of seventeen behavioral changes required

Each attempt to participate beyond apologizing was interpreted as defensive rather than conversational, creating situation where Harold learned that “we should talk” means “stop talking and start apologizing.”

“Are you listening?” Dorothy asked three times during her 47-minute explanation of Harold’s various failings.

“Yes,” Harold replied each time while mentally calculating how much longer until he could go to bed and forget this conversation occurred.

This dynamic – wife delivering criticism, husband providing minimal acknowledgment while waiting for it to end – represents what marriage counselor Dr. Millicent Hargrove calls “unequal emotional labor distribution” where wives do work of identifying problems and husbands do work of enduring being told about problems.

“She’s processing emotions, organizing thoughts, articulating concerns,” Dr. Hargrove explained. “He’s sitting there hoping if he apologizes enough, she’ll stop talking. Neither finds this satisfying but both continue the pattern because neither knows alternative.”

The conversation concluded with Harold apologizing for things he did, things he didn’t do, things he did wrong, things he should have done differently, and preemptively for things he’ll inevitably do wrong in future despite promising to improve.

“Do you understand why I’m upset?” Dorothy asked, testing whether Harold absorbed any content from 47-minute monologue beyond understanding that she’s upset.

“Yes,” Harold lied, having processed approximately 11% of what she said while spending remaining mental energy on appearing attentive while actually planning escape strategies.

“What are you going to do about it?” Dorothy pressed, requiring commitment to behavioral change.

“Everything you said,” Harold replied vaguely, hoping this sufficiently addressed all seventeen identified failings without requiring him to remember specifically what they were.

This satisfied Dorothy temporarily despite both parties knowing Harold retained minimal specific information and will likely repeat most of the behaviors she just spent 47 minutes explaining were problems.

“I just want you to participate more,” Dorothy summarized, condensing 47 minutes into sentence that could have been opening statement if “we should talk” actually meant brief conversation rather than extended criticism session.

“I will,” Harold promised with sincerity that will last approximately three days before he returns to previous patterns, prompting future “we should talk” session covering identical topics with identical outcome.

Dr. Reginald Crumpet notes this represents typical marital communication failure where “we should talk” creates expectation of dialogue while actual structure prevents dialogue. “She needs to express frustration. He needs to avoid conflict. They arrive at compromise where she expresses everything, he absorbs nothing, both pretend productive conversation occurred, and problems remain unresolved until next ‘we should talk’ session.”

As of press time, Harold had escaped to garage claiming he needed to organize tools, Dorothy was satisfied she’d addressed concerns even though addressing changed nothing, and both were maintaining fiction that they’d had productive conversation rather than one-sided criticism session that neither enjoyed but both will repeat monthly until one of them dies.

Breakthrough Study: All Kitchen Sponges Contain More Bacteria Than Toilet Seats Nobody Wants to Know About

BOSTON, MA – After analyzing 5,000 household kitchen sponges, the Institute for Domestic Hygiene has made a discovery that researchers describe as “deeply disturbing” and “information people will ignore because ignorance is more comfortable than dealing with this reality”: every kitchen sponge contains more bacteria than an average toilet seat, making the tool people use to clean dishes actually the dirtiest item in the home.

“The average sponge contains approximately 54 billion bacteria per cubic inch,” announced lead researcher Dr. Millicent Hargrove while holding up specimen that test subject had been using to clean dishes for six months. “That’s roughly 200,000 times more bacteria than a toilet seat. The item you use to achieve cleanliness is actually spreading filth more efficiently than anything else in your house.”

Test subjects responded to this information with denial, dismissal, and determination to continue using their contaminated sponges because the alternative – acknowledging they’ve been spreading bacterial colonies across dishes and surfaces – was too psychologically troubling to accept.

“That can’t be right,” insisted Mrs. Dorothy Pemberton while clutching sponge she’s used for four months. “I use this every day. If it was that dirty, we’d all be sick.”

Researchers explained that humans develop tolerance to their own bacterial colonies, making them less sick than they should be but not actually preventing the spread of bacteria across everything the sponge touches.

“So you’re saying I should throw this away?” Dorothy asked while still holding sponge.

“Immediately,” Dr. Hargrove confirmed.

“But it’s still good,” Dorothy protested, demonstrating the psychological phenomenon where people defend continued use of items they now know are disgusting because admitting the item is disgusting requires admitting they’ve been using disgusting item, creating retrospective discomfort about all previous uses.

The Centers for Disease Control acknowledges that kitchen sponges represent significant sanitation concern but notes that informing people about this concern results mainly in people becoming defensive about their sponges rather than replacing them.

“We’ve tried warning people,” explained CDC spokesperson Harold Finchley while reviewing public response data. “They get upset, argue that their sponge is different, insist they clean their sponges regularly so they must be fine, or simply ignore the information and continue using bacterial colonies to wash their dishes. Education has limited impact when education requires admitting you’ve been doing something unhygienic for years.”

The study examined various sponge cleaning methods that people believe sanitize sponges:

Rinsing with hot water – Reduces bacteria by approximately 0.3%, which is statistical noise Microwaving – Kills some bacteria, survivors multiply rapidly, sponge still contaminated within hours Dishwasher – Similar to microwaving, temporary reduction followed by bacterial recolonization Bleach soaking – Most effective method, still leaves sponge contaminated, also nobody actually does this

“But I squeeze mine out really well,” test subjects protested, as if squeezing eliminates microscopic organisms rather than just removing visible water.

The research revealed that bacteria thrive in sponges because sponges provide perfect environment: moisture, food particles, warmth, and porous structure that bacteria colonize extensively. The act of using sponge spreads bacteria from sponge to dish, then rinsing adds more bacteria from dirty water, creating cycle where sponge becomes progressively more contaminated while owners believe they’re achieving cleanliness.

“How often should I replace my sponge?” subjects asked after learning their sponges were biological hazards.

“Weekly,” researchers recommended.

“That seems excessive,” subjects replied, demonstrating that knowing correct behavior doesn’t lead to correct behavior if correct behavior is inconvenient.

Most subjects reported replacing sponges monthly, when they’re falling apart, or never if sponge remains structurally intact because “it still works” despite working primarily as bacterial distribution system rather than cleaning tool.

Test subject Walter Grimsby admitted he couldn’t remember when he’d last replaced his sponge, estimating “maybe six months? Could be a year?” while researchers examined specimen containing bacterial colonies that had established civilizations, developed governments, and possibly achieved sentience.

“Should I start using paper towels?” subjects asked, seeking alternatives.

“Or dish brushes that can be sanitized properly, or dishcloths washed frequently in hot water,” researchers suggested.

“But sponges work so well,” subjects protested, apparently defining “work well” as “spread bacteria efficiently across all surfaces” which is accurate if disturbing interpretation.

Dr. Theodore Pemberton notes that sponge attachment represents cognitive dissonance where people simultaneously know sponges are disgusting and believe their sponge is fine because accepting their sponge is disgusting requires action they don’t want to take.

“They want clean dishes,” Dr. Pemberton explained. “They use sponges to clean dishes. Therefore sponges must be clean. This logic fails microbiological examination but succeeds psychologically, allowing people to continue using contaminated sponges without guilt.”

The study’s publication has resulted primarily in people arguing with researchers about their personal sponge practices rather than changing their sponge practices, suggesting that some information is unwelcome regardless of accuracy because accepting it requires behavioral change people don’t want to make.

As of press time, millions of households were continuing to use sponges containing billions of bacteria to “clean” their dishes while maintaining firm belief that their sponge is somehow different from all other sponges because admitting otherwise would require acknowledging they’ve been spreading bacteria for years and possibly should have listened to researchers instead of defending their disgusting sponges.

Man’s “Quick Trip” to Hardware Store Enters Third Hour as He Examines Every Tool He Won’t Buy

PHILADELPHIA, PA – What began as a “quick trip” to purchase a screwdriver has evolved into a comprehensive three-hour examination of every tool in Henderson’s Hardware Store as area resident Ernest Potts continues browsing items he has no intention of purchasing while his wife waits in the car questioning her life choices.

“I’ll just be a minute,” Potts announced at 2:00 PM before entering the store with specific mission: purchase Phillips head screwdriver.

It is now 5:17 PM. Potts owns no screwdriver. He has, however, examined approximately 400 tools, discussed power drill specifications with three different sales clerks, studied hammer weight distribution for twenty minutes, and is currently comparing saw blade varieties despite owning no saw and having no sawing plans.

“Where is he?” Dorothy Potts asked from the car where she has remained for three hours because “just be a minute” was interpreted literally rather than as code for “I’m entering tool dimension where time operates differently.”

The National Retail Federation acknowledges that hardware stores exist in temporal anomaly where men experience five minutes while objective reality experiences hours, creating situations where “quick trip” becomes extended expedition into tool examination that serves no practical purpose but provides mysterious satisfaction to male shoppers.

Store clerk Theodore Whitmore reports that Potts is “classic hardware browser” who enters with specific need, immediately forgets need, begins examining unrelated items, and will eventually either leave without purchasing anything or buy seventeen things that aren’t the screwdriver he came for.

“He’s been in the drill bit aisle for forty-seven minutes,” Whitmore noted while watching Potts examine bits with intensity suggesting he’s decoding ancient artifacts. “He doesn’t own a drill. He’s not buying a drill. But he’s studying those bits like they hold secrets of the universe.”

This behavior – examining items extensively with no purchase intent – represents what psychologists call “recreational shopping” where the shopping is the entertainment rather than means of acquiring needed items.

Dr. Millicent Hargrove explains that hardware stores trigger male collecting instincts similar to hunting. “He’s not hunting for screwdriver anymore,” she noted. “He’s hunting for perfect tool that justifies tool ownership. He imagines projects these tools would enable. He calculates their value. He considers their specifications. None of this leads to purchase, but the examining itself provides satisfaction.”

Potts’s three-hour store journey has included:

Minutes 0-15: Located screwdriver aisle, examined screwdrivers Minutes 15-30: Became distracted by nearby hammers Minutes 30-60: Thorough investigation of hammer selection Minutes 60-90: Migration to power tools section Minutes 90-120: Extended contemplation of drill options Minutes 120-150: Drill bit analysis despite no drill ownership Minutes 150-180: Current location: comparing saws he won’t purchase

Total screwdrivers purchased: Zero Total time spent not purchasing screwdriver: Three hours Total wife patience remaining: Approaching zero

“He does this every time,” Dorothy explained to sympathetic parking lot attendant who has seen this pattern countless times. “Quick trip means three hours. I should know better. But he seems so sincere when he says ‘just a minute’ that I believe him despite seventeen years of evidence proving otherwise.”

Store owner Gus Henderson notes that browsers like Potts represent significant portion of his foot traffic but minimal portion of sales. “They come in, examine everything, discuss tools extensively, then leave,” Henderson explained. “Occasionally they buy something. Usually they just burn three hours enjoying tool proximity without committing to ownership.”

This behavior mystifies wives who enter stores, locate needed items, purchase them, and leave – a process taking perhaps ten minutes. Men enter stores, forget why they came, examine unrelated items for hours, sometimes remember original purpose, often leave without completing it.

“Why does examining tools you won’t buy take three hours?” Dorothy asks, a question without satisfactory answer.

“I might buy them someday,” Potts explains, as if studying them now prepares for hypothetical future purchase that will probably never occur.

“But you came for a screwdriver,” Dorothy notes. “You’ve been here three hours. You haven’t bought a screwdriver. You’ve examined everything except screwdrivers.”

“I’m gathering information,” Potts defends, though unclear what information requires three hours to gather or how examining saws provides information relevant to screwdriver purchase.

Marriage counselor Dr. Reginald Crumpet notes this represents fundamental gender difference in shopping approach. “She shops purposefully to acquire needed items,” he explained. “He shops recreationally to examine possible items. Neither understands the other’s method. Both become frustrated by the difference.”

As of press time, Potts had finally remembered he needed a screwdriver, returned to screwdriver aisle, selected one, then became distracted by nearby wrenches and entered his fourth hour of “quick trip” while his wife considered leaving him at the store permanently to live among the tools he loves examining but won’t purchase.

Scientists Confirm All Jokes Require Extensive Explanation, Immediately Cease Being Funny

BOSTON, MA – After analyzing 10,000 instances of joke-telling followed by explanation, the Institute for Humor Studies has confirmed what comedians have long known: explaining jokes eliminates their humor entirely, transforming amusing observations into tedious lectures that make everyone involved regret the original telling.

“Why did the chicken cross the road?” Test subject Walter Grimsby asked his wife during dinner.

“To get to the other side,” Dorothy replied, having heard this joke approximately 400 times.

“See, it’s funny because…” Grimsby began explaining, immediately destroying whatever minimal humor the joke possessed.

“I understand the joke,” Dorothy interrupted, hoping to prevent explanation that would drain fifteen minutes from her life.

“But the real humor comes from the setup where you expect…” Grimsby continued, apparently believing that dissecting the joke’s structure enhances rather than eliminates its amusement value.

The Library of Congress has documented that explaining jokes represents universal human impulse to share understanding while achieving opposite effect of making others wish the joke had never been told.

Dr. Millicent Hargrove notes that joke explanation occurs when teller notices audience didn’t laugh as expected and attempts to recover by explaining why joke was funny, creating situation where lack of laughter was preference compared to enduring explanation of why laughter should have occurred.

“The explanation is always longer than the joke,” Dr. Hargrove observed while reviewing case where three-sentence joke prompted seventeen-minute explanation covering wordplay, cultural context, and historical background that made joke progressively less funny with each additional detail.

Test subjects consistently reported that explaining jokes makes everyone uncomfortable:

• Joke teller feels compelled to explain why their joke was funny
• Audience members feel trapped listening to explanation of joke they understood but didn’t find funny
• Everyone involved wishes the conversation could return to pre-joke normalcy
• Future interactions are colored by memory of the unnecessary explanation

“I got the joke,” Dorothy emphasized during Grimsby’s extended explanation of chicken-crossing-road humor. “I understood it immediately. I’ve understood it since childhood. The explaining isn’t making it funnier. It’s making me want to leave the room.”

“But you didn’t laugh,” Grimsby protested, apparently believing that jokes must generate laughter or require explanation, ignoring possibility that joke simply wasn’t funny and explanation won’t improve it.

Dr. Theodore Pemberton explains that joke-tellers often confuse understanding with humor. “They think if people understood the joke better, they’d find it funnier,” he noted. “Actually, people understood it fine. They just didn’t think it was funny. Explaining doesn’t change that. It just highlights that an unfunny joke has now consumed even more time explaining why it should have been funny.”

The study identified several categories of joke explanations:

The Wordplay Explanation – Breaking down puns that were already obvious The Cultural Context Explanation – Providing background that doesn’t enhance humor The Historical Reference Explanation – Explaining obscure references nobody needed explained The “You Had To Be There” Explanation – Attempting to recreate context that can’t be recreated The Repeated Explanation – Telling joke again, louder, as if volume improves humor

All types share common feature: they make jokes less funny by transforming spontaneous humor into analyzed content requiring intellectual understanding rather than instinctive amusement.

“When you explain the joke, you’re essentially saying ‘I told a joke, you didn’t laugh, so I’ll explain why you should have laughed,'” Dr. Hargrove explained. “This insults the audience’s intelligence, highlights the joke’s failure, and guarantees nobody will laugh at the explanation either.”

Some joke-tellers defend explanations as educational. “But they learned something,” they protest after delivering comprehensive lecture on joke mechanics.

“They learned that you can’t tell jokes,” researchers reply, which is probably not the lesson intended.

Particularly painful are situations where joke-teller notices audience didn’t laugh but misinterprets why. “You don’t get it,” they announce before explaining joke that audience understood perfectly but didn’t find amusing because the joke wasn’t funny, a reality the explanation makes painfully obvious.

“If I’d known you were going to explain it, I would have just laughed,” Dorothy admitted during Grimsby’s extended chicken-road analysis. “A fake laugh would have been less painful than this explanation.”

This revelation – that audiences sometimes prefer to fake laughter rather than endure explanations – demonstrates how explaining jokes creates perverse incentives where dishonest responses are rewarded while honest non-laughter is punished with tedious lectures.

As of press time, Grimsby was explaining a second joke that hadn’t landed, Dorothy was contemplating whether marriage requires enduring joke explanations or if that’s grounds for annulment, and researchers were concluding that explaining jokes represents communication method that makes everyone involved long for silence while learning nothing except that the joke-teller doesn’t understand when to stop talking.

About This Issue

Bohiney Magazine – Volume 1, Issue 14 – 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.