Bohiney Magazine

Volume 1, Issue 16 – Saturday, May 31, 1947

“America’s Trusted Source for Satirical Truth”

Congress Debates Communist Threat While Ignoring Actual Threats Like Poverty, Discrimination, Inadequate Housing

WASHINGTON, DC – As Congressional committees continue their exhaustive investigation into Communist infiltration of labor unions, Hollywood, and university faculties, legislators have shown considerably less interest in addressing actual threats to American wellbeing including widespread poverty, systematic racial discrimination, dangerous working conditions, inadequate housing, and economic inequality that affects millions of citizens daily.

The House Un-American Activities Committee has now spent eight months investigating suspected Communists in various industries, calling hundreds of witnesses, ruining numerous careers, and generally creating atmosphere of fear around political beliefs. Meanwhile, committees addressing housing shortages, labor conditions, and civil rights meet irregularly with minimal attendance and even less urgency.

“We must root out Communist influence,” declared Representative John Rankin while explaining why investigating screenwriters’ political beliefs takes precedence over investigating why millions of Americans live in substandard housing without adequate sanitation, heat, or safety features that Congress could address through legislation if they weren’t so busy investigating people who attended left-wing meetings in 1937.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development reports that approximately 8 million American families live in housing classified as substandard, dangerous, or overcrowded. This represents actual threat to American wellbeing that affects real people in measurable ways. Congress has shown minimal interest in addressing it, apparently because substandard housing doesn’t involve political ideology that requires investigation.

“Communist ideology threatens American values,” insisted Senator Karl Mundt while voting against housing legislation that would improve living conditions for poor families, suggesting that American values include investigating political beliefs but not ensuring Americans have safe places to live.

The priorities reveal interesting pattern: issues affecting wealthy and middle-class Americans receive legislative attention and funding. Issues primarily affecting poor Americans, Negro Americans, or immigrant Americans receive rhetorical concern and minimal action. Issues involving left-wing political beliefs receive obsessive investigation.

Housing legislation languishes because it costs money and benefits people without political power. Anti-Communist investigations proceed enthusiastically because they cost relatively little, benefit politicians seeking publicity, and harm people who lack political power to resist.

“We’re protecting America from ideological threats,” explained committee members who apparently believe that ideas about economic equality pose greater danger than actual economic inequality, that theories about worker ownership threaten society more than actual worker exploitation, and that investigating beliefs matters more than addressing conditions that make alternative economic systems appealing to people experiencing capitalism’s failures.

The irony – investigating people who criticize American economic system while ignoring problems that prompt criticism – appears lost on legislators who believe that silencing critics addresses problems better than solving problems addresses critics.

Negro Americans face systematic discrimination in employment, housing, education, voting, and virtually every aspect of civic life. Congress investigates whether labor unions have Communist members. Poor Americans lack adequate food, shelter, and medical care. Congress investigates whether university professors have correct political views. Workers face dangerous conditions and insufficient wages. Congress investigates whether Hollywood films promote pro-labor themes.

“These investigations protect national security,” proponents argue, though unclear how national security is enhanced by ruining careers of screenwriters while ignoring actual security threats like poverty-driven instability, racial tensions that periodically explode into violence, and economic conditions that make millions of Americans receptive to alternative economic systems because current system isn’t working for them.

The investigations operate on assumption that Communist ideas are dangerous because they might inspire Americans to question capitalism. This assumption raises obvious question: if capitalism is working well for everyone, why would Communist ideas appeal to anyone? Perhaps addressing conditions that make alternative systems attractive would reduce ideological threats more effectively than investigating people who notice those conditions exist.

“We can’t let Communists undermine American values,” legislators insist while undermining American values of free speech, free association, and protection from government persecution based on political beliefs – apparently believing that destroying constitutional rights protects constitutional rights if done to people with wrong political opinions.

The investigations cost substantial money that could address actual problems. The House Un-American Activities Committee’s budget could fund housing improvements, school construction, or medical clinics serving poor communities. Instead it funds investigations into whether people attended meetings, belonged to organizations, or expressed sympathy for economic theories that remain legal to believe even if unpopular to express.

Some defenders argue that Communist threat justifies extraordinary measures. These defenders rarely explain what specific threat requires investigation of individual beliefs rather than criminal acts, or why theoretical ideological dangers warrant more attention than actual material dangers affecting millions.

As of press time, Congress was preparing additional hearings to investigate more people suspected of wrong political beliefs while actual threats to American wellbeing continued unaddressed because addressing real problems is harder than investigating imaginary subversion, and helping poor people is less politically rewarding than accusing people of being Communists.

Local Man’s “I’ll Just Have a Bite” Consumes Entire Plate of Wife’s Dinner

MILWAUKEE, WI – Following his declaration that he wanted “just a bite” of his wife’s dinner after already finishing his own meal, area resident Theodore Whitmore proceeded to consume approximately 60% of Dorothy Whitmore’s entrée while maintaining he was only having “a few bites” despite evidence suggesting he was eating a second dinner from his wife’s plate.

“Can I have a bite?” Theodore asked at 6:47 PM while eyeing his wife’s chicken parmesan with the intensity of someone who had not just consumed complete dinner seventeen minutes earlier.

“One bite,” Dorothy agreed, making the mistake of believing her husband understood quantitative concepts like “one.”

Theodore took what he described as “a bite” but witnesses described as “approximately one-third of the chicken, plus considerable pasta.” He then returned for second “bite” that consumed another third, then third “bite” that finished the chicken entirely, leaving Dorothy with approximately two forkfuls of pasta and regret about sharing.

“I said one bite,” Dorothy protested while surveying the remains of her dinner.

“That was one bite,” Theodore replied, apparently operating under definition of “bite” that differs substantially from standard usage where “bite” means single mouthful rather than extended eating session consuming majority of available food.

The Smithsonian Institution has documented what researchers call “Proportional Consumption Disorder” where husbands requesting “just a bite” reliably consume 50-70% of wives’ meals while genuinely believing they took only small portion, creating situations where wives must choose between sharing or finishing their own dinners.

“He does this every time,” Dorothy explained while describing pattern where Theodore orders meal, eats it completely, then requests “bites” of her meal until she’s eaten perhaps half of what she ordered. “He’s not asking for a bite. He’s asking permission to eat my dinner. But he frames it as small request so I feel obligated to agree.”

Dr. Millicent Hargrove, who studies household behavior, notes that “just a bite” represents male food acquisition strategy disguised as modest request. “He’s finished his meal but is still hungry,” Dr. Hargrove explained. “Rather than order more food or admit he’s eating second dinner, he requests ‘just a bite’ from his wife’s plate. This bite then multiplies into several bites until he’s consumed substantial portion while maintaining fiction that he only had small amount.”

Theodore’s “bite” consumption pattern:

First bite: Approximately one-third of entrée Second bite: Another third, plus sampling sides Third bite: Finishing remaining entrée, maybe leaving token pasta Fourth bite: Taking pasta anyway “so it doesn’t go to waste” Total consumption: 60-75% of wife’s meal His assessment: “I just had a few bites”

“Why didn’t you order more food if you were still hungry?” Dorothy asked while looking at her nearly empty plate.

“I wasn’t hungry,” Theodore replied, apparently believing that consuming two-thirds of someone else’s meal doesn’t constitute hunger because he didn’t order it himself.

“But you ate most of my dinner,” Dorothy noted.

“I just had a few bites,” Theodore maintained, suggesting he either cannot count or defines “bite” as “any amount of food consumed while standing next to plate rather than sitting at designated eating position.”

Marriage counselor Dr. Reginald Crumpet explains that this represents boundary violation where husbands feel entitled to wives’ food based on assumption that marriage creates shared food rights that override individual plate ownership. “He ordered his meal. He ate his meal. But he views her meal as potentially shared resource available for taking,” Dr. Crumpet noted. “She views her meal as her food that she ordered specifically for herself. These incompatible views create conflict.”

The “just a bite” request functions as foot-in-door technique where small initial ask leads to larger consumption. “Once she agrees to one bite, saying no to additional bites feels petty,” Dr. Crumpet explained. “He leverages her initial agreement into extended access, taking progressively more while maintaining each additional bite is still ‘just a bite’ rather than accumulated meal consumption.”

Some wives have attempted to prevent bite escalation by:

• Refusing all bite requests (leads to pouting)
• Ordering extra food anticipating bite requests (husband eats extra)
• Taking bites from husband’s meal reciprocally (meets resistance)
• Explaining that bites add up to substantial food loss (ignored)

None prove effective because husbands maintain that requesting “just a bite” constitutes modest ask regardless of consumption that follows.

“Can I have some of your dessert?” Theodore asked after finishing both his dinner and most of Dorothy’s.

“No,” Dorothy replied, having learned that sharing dessert results in Theodore consuming 80% of it while claiming he “barely had any.”

“I just want a taste,” Theodore protested, apparently believing that rephrasing “bite” as “taste” makes the request different despite leading to identical result of him eating her food.

Dr. Theodore Pemberton notes that husbands seem genuinely surprised when wives are upset about food consumption. “He thinks he took small amount,” Dr. Pemberton explained. “She knows he took substantial amount. Neither can understand other’s perspective because they’re measuring food loss differently – he measures by number of times he reached for plate, she measures by actual quantity consumed.”

As of press time, Theodore was asking for “just a taste” of Dorothy’s dessert while Dorothy was considering ordering two dinners next time they dine out – one for her and one labeled “Theodore’s bites” to prevent him consuming the meal she actually wants to eat.

Woman’s “I’m Cold” Actually Means “Adjust Thermostat, Close Window, Give Me Your Jacket, and Stop Asking Questions”

CLEVELAND, OH – Following his wife’s simple statement “I’m cold,” area resident Harold Finchley made the critical error of treating this as factual information rather than series of action items requiring immediate execution, leading to extended discussion about temperature perception, appropriate indoor climate, and whether Harold was deliberately keeping house cold to torment his wife.

“I’m cold,” Dorothy Finchley announced at 7:30 PM while sitting on couch wrapped in blanket.

“Okay,” Harold replied, apparently believing this concluded the interaction rather than initiated series of required responses.

“Aren’t you going to do something about it?” Dorothy asked after ten seconds elapsed without Harold adjusting thermostat, closing windows, offering his jacket, or taking any action whatsoever to address her coldness.

“Do what?” Harold responded with genuine confusion about what his required role was beyond acknowledging that she had made statement about her temperature perception.

The National Institutes of Health has documented what researchers call “Temperature Statement Translation Failure” where wives announce they’re cold expecting immediate environmental adjustment while husbands interpret announcement as factual observation requiring no response beyond acknowledgment.

“When she says ‘I’m cold,’ she’s not providing information,” explained marriage counselor Dr. Millicent Hargrove while reviewing the interaction. “She’s issuing indirect command to fix her coldness through any available means. His job is to immediately begin addressing it rather than simply acknowledging that coldness exists.”

Harold’s error was treating “I’m cold” as equivalent to “The walls are blue” – statements of fact requiring no action. Dorothy’s usage meant “I’m cold and you should: adjust thermostat up, close any open windows, offer me your jacket or sweater, get me additional blanket, make tea, or ask what would help. Do not simply sit there acknowledging my coldness without addressing it.”

This expectation – that statements about discomfort automatically trigger correction efforts – represents what Dr. Theodore Pemberton calls “implied action items disguised as simple statements.”

“She could say ‘Please adjust the thermostat,'” Harold protested. “That would be direct communication about what she wants.”

“That would also ruin the relationship dynamic where you’re supposed to care about her comfort enough to address it without explicit instruction,” Dr. Hargrove explained. “Requiring detailed directions about how to address her coldness suggests you’re not paying attention to her needs and care more about avoiding effort than ensuring her comfort.”

“But I don’t feel cold,” Harold noted, identifying the problem: he experiences different temperature than his wife and believes his temperature perception is the correct baseline for household climate.

“Your comfort is irrelevant,” Dorothy informed him, clarifying that “I’m cold” means “The house is cold and needs warming” not “I’m cold but you might not be so let’s discuss whether temperature adjustment is warranted.”

The couple’s temperature preferences differ by approximately 8 degrees, creating perpetual conflict where Harold finds house comfortable while Dorothy requires additional heating, blankets, and possibly relocating to equatorial regions.

“Why don’t you just put on a sweater?” Harold asked, making another error by suggesting Dorothy should adjust to house temperature rather than house temperature should adjust to Dorothy.

“Why don’t you turn up the heat?” Dorothy countered, making it clear that her coldness was his responsibility to fix rather than her responsibility to tolerate.

Dr. Reginald Crumpet notes this represents common marital battlefield. “Temperature control is really control control,” he explained. “He wants house at his comfortable temperature. She wants house at her comfortable temperature. Neither wants to compromise. Both believe their preference should dominate. Thermostat becomes site of ongoing power struggle disguised as discussion about degrees.”

The interaction escalated through predictable stages:

Stage One: Wife announces coldness Stage Two: Husband fails to respond appropriately
Stage Three: Wife clarifies that response is expected Stage Four: Husband questions what response is appropriate Stage Five: Wife explains this should be obvious Stage Six: Husband suggests wife adjust rather than environment adjust Stage Seven: Extended debate about whose responsibility coldness is Stage Eight: Thermostat adjusted, but grudgingly Stage Nine: Temperature adjusted up 2 degrees Stage Ten: Wife still cold, requires additional adjustment Stage Eleven: Husband now too warm, opens window Stage Twelve: Wife cold again from open window

The cycle continues indefinitely without resolution.

“I don’t understand why my temperature doesn’t matter,” Harold protested while adjusting thermostat for third time.

“Your temperature matters,” Dorothy clarified. “But my coldness matters more because I’m the one experiencing discomfort. You’re comfortable, so maintaining your comfort while I’m uncomfortable means my discomfort is acceptable to you, which is unacceptable to me.”

This logic – where one person’s discomfort takes precedence over another person’s comfort – makes sense to Dorothy and no sense to Harold, creating impasse where both believe their position is obviously correct.

Some couples have resolved this through compromise where temperature is set between preferred points, resulting in both parties being slightly uncomfortable, which is described as “fair” despite neither party being satisfied.

Others have implemented zoned heating allowing different temperatures in different rooms, leading to couples occupying separate spaces to achieve preferred temperatures, which solves temperature conflict while creating new issue of spending evenings apart.

As of press time, Dorothy was cold despite thermostat being adjusted up 5 degrees, Harold was too warm and had opened window, Dorothy was cold again from window, and both were maintaining that the other was being unreasonable about temperature while their marriage slowly froze despite the heat being turned up.

Breakthrough Study: All Diet Plans Abandoned by Second Week

BOSTON, MA – After tracking 5,000 participants through various diet programs over six months, the Institute for Nutritional Studies has confirmed that approximately 97% of diets are abandoned within two weeks of starting, making diet planning primarily an exercise in creating elaborate food restrictions that nobody maintains beyond initial burst of motivation.

“This time will be different,” test subjects declared unanimously on Day One of diets they would abandon by Day Twelve, displaying optimism that researchers describe as “touching but completely unfounded based on subjects’ extensive history of diet failure.”

The study examined multiple diet approaches including calorie restriction, carbohydrate elimination, fat reduction, meal replacement, intermittent fasting, and complex point-counting systems. All produced identical results: initial enthusiasm followed by progressive rule-breaking followed by complete abandonment followed by guilt followed by starting new diet that would also be abandoned.

“I’m really committed this time,” announced test subject Dorothy Pemberton on Monday while beginning diet she would quit by Friday, resume briefly the following Monday, then abandon permanently by second Wednesday.

Day One featured strict rule adherence, meal preparation, and determination. By Day Three, subjects were “making small exceptions” that they promised were temporary. By Day Seven, exceptions had become routine while subjects maintained they were “still basically on the diet.” By Day Ten, diets existed primarily as source of guilt about not following them. By Day Fourteen, diets were abandoned while subjects planned to restart Monday.

Monday never came, or came and went without diet restarting.

The National Institutes of Health acknowledges that diet adherence represents significant challenge but notes that continued diet failure doesn’t prevent people from starting new diets with renewed confidence that this time they’ve found the right approach despite right approach proving identical to all previous wrong approaches.

“I just need more willpower,” subjects explained while restarting diets they’d previously quit, apparently believing that willpower is commodity that appears spontaneously rather than trait requiring development through consistent practice they’re not demonstrating.

Dr. Millicent Hargrove notes that diet failure follows predictable pattern:

Week One: Strict adherence, pride in commitment, frequent announcements about being on diet Week Two: Occasional exceptions, rationalization about why exceptions are acceptable
Week Three: More exceptions than rule-following, denial about diet failure Week Four: Diet abandoned, planning to restart soon Week Five-Onward: Diet exists only as guilt source until new diet is started

“The problem is that diets require permanent behavior change,” Dr. Hargrove explained. “People approach them as temporary restriction. They plan to diet until reaching goal weight, then return to normal eating. But normal eating is what caused the weight they’re trying to lose. Temporary change produces temporary results.”

This reasoning makes perfect sense to researchers and no impact on dieters who continue approaching diets as short-term projects rather than lifestyle changes.

Test subject Walter Grimsby reported starting seventeen different diets over past three years, abandoning all of them within two weeks. “Each time I think I’ve found the answer,” he explained while eating donut despite currently being on no-carbohydrate diet he started yesterday. “Then it turns out to be hard to maintain, so I quit and try something different. Clearly I just haven’t found the right diet yet.”

The study found that diet abandonment accelerates when:

• Special occasion occurs requiring eating outside diet rules
• Stressful day prompts comfort eating
• Someone brings treats to work
• Weekend arrives enabling relaxed eating
• Literally any circumstance that makes following diet inconvenient

“I’ll restart tomorrow” becomes daily refrain as dieters permanently postpone resuming restrictions they never consistently followed.

Particularly problematic are diets eliminating entire food categories. “No carbohydrates” diets fail when dieters realize bread exists and is delicious. “No fat” diets fail when dieters discover fat makes food taste good. “No sugar” diets fail immediately because sugar is in everything.

“The diet was too restrictive,” subjects explained while abandoning diets, apparently believing that less restrictive diet would be easier to follow despite all diets requiring restrictions by definition.

Some subjects attempted to ease back into diets through gradual reduction, which resulted in gradual reduction never actually occurring because gradual is sufficiently vague that it permits unlimited postponement.

“I’m gradually cutting back on sugar” subjects announced while consuming identical sugar quantities as before gradual reduction supposedly began.

The study found that most successful approach involved modest sustainable changes rather than dramatic restrictions. However, modest sustainable changes lack appeal because they don’t promise rapid results, so people continue choosing dramatic restrictions they can’t maintain over modest changes they could maintain.

“I want to lose twenty pounds in two weeks,” subjects explained while describing goals that require starvation-level restriction. When informed that sustainable weight loss occurs gradually, subjects replied they didn’t have time for gradual change and needed immediate results, then wondered why their extreme diets failed within two weeks.

As of press time, millions of Americans were starting new diets with confidence that this time would be different despite this time being identical to all previous times, and were already planning which day they would break diet rules because special circumstance warranted exception that would spiral into complete diet abandonment by second Tuesday.

Man’s “I’m Listening” Proven Completely False by Simple Follow-Up Question

PHILADELPHIA, PA – Following his wife’s detailed explanation of a household matter requiring his attention, area resident Ernest Potts assured his wife he was “definitely listening” before immediately proving he had absorbed zero information by failing to answer basic question about what she had just told him.

“Are you listening?” Dorothy Potts asked during her explanation of schedule changes for next week’s medical appointment, grocery shopping plans, and children’s school activities requiring coordination.

“Yes, I’m listening,” Ernest replied while continuing to read his newspaper, apparently believing that hearing words and processing words are identical activities.

“What did I just say?” Dorothy tested, having learned through years of experience that “I’m listening” often means “I’m pretending to listen while actually thinking about other things.”

“You said… something about next week,” Ernest offered vaguely while frantically trying to recall any fragment of the two-minute explanation he had just completely ignored while claiming to absorb.

“What about next week?” Dorothy pressed, knowing the answer would reveal he had listened to approximately none of it.

“We have… plans?” Ernest suggested, deploying tactic of responding with vague statements that might technically be accurate without demonstrating actual knowledge of specific information provided.

The Smithsonian Institution has documented what researchers call “Listening Claim Falsification” where husbands assert they’re listening while processing zero information, creating situations where wives must repeat everything or accept that important information will not be retained.

“I told you I have a doctor’s appointment Tuesday at 2:00, you need to pick up the children from school, we need groceries for dinner, and Susan has piano lesson Thursday,” Dorothy explained for the second time.

“I knew that,” Ernest lied, having known none of it because he hadn’t listened the first time and wasn’t listening particularly well the second time either.

Dr. Millicent Hargrove notes that men often confuse hearing with listening. “Sound waves reach his ears,” Dr. Hargrove explained. “He’s aware his wife is speaking. But attention is directed elsewhere – newspaper, radio, internal thoughts about unrelated topics. The information enters his ears but doesn’t process in his brain. He’s hearing without listening.”

Ernest’s attention during his wife’s explanation:

10% – Actual words his wife was saying 30% – Newspaper article he was reading
20% – Wondering about lunch 15% – Thinking about work 15% – Considering whether he needs new shoes 10% – Random unrelated thoughts

Total attention to wife’s important information: 10%, and that 10% consisted mainly of recognizing that she was speaking rather than processing content of speech.

“Why do you say you’re listening when you’re not?” Dorothy asked with frustration of someone who has explained things multiple times only to discover explanations were absorbed zero times.

“I was listening,” Ernest protested, apparently believing that being present while someone speaks constitutes listening regardless of whether any information is retained.

“Then what’s happening Tuesday?” Dorothy challenged.

Ernest panicked internally while trying to recall if she’d mentioned Tuesday. She definitely had. He definitely hadn’t processed it. “Tuesday… is when we have the thing?” he offered uncertainly.

“What thing?” Dorothy pressed.

“The thing you just told me about?” Ernest replied, turning failure to listen into question suggesting Dorothy hadn’t been clear rather than admitting he hadn’t been paying attention.

Marriage counselor Dr. Theodore Pemberton explains that “I’m listening” functions as conversation-ending phrase allowing husbands to avoid admitting inattention while not actually requiring them to pay attention. “Saying ‘I’m listening’ makes wife feel heard without requiring husband to actually hear anything,” Dr. Pemberton noted. “It’s efficient deception that collapses immediately upon basic testing.”

The phenomenon creates cycle where wives explain things, husbands claim to listen, wives discover husbands didn’t listen, wives explain again, husbands claim they knew that information already despite demonstrably not knowing it, wives give up and just handle everything themselves while resenting husbands’ unhelpful listening.

“If you’re not going to listen, just say so,” Dorothy suggested. “At least then I’ll know I need to write everything down instead of wasting time explaining things you won’t remember.”

“I do listen,” Ernest insisted, proving immediately that he doesn’t listen because if he was listening he would have heard his wife explain that his listening is insufficient as evidenced by his complete inability to recall anything she tells him.

Some wives have tested husband listening through inserting false information during explanations. “And then I’m going to rob a bank Tuesday,” they’ll say mid-explanation. Husbands nod and say “okay” without noticing bank robbery announcement, demonstrating they’re not listening at all.

“I mentioned I was planning to join the circus,” one test wife reported. “He said ‘that’s nice, dear’ while reading the paper. When I brought it up later, he had no memory of the conversation and insisted I’d never mentioned it. The man agreed to let me join the circus while not listening.”

As of press time, Ernest was assuring his wife he was listening to her explain next week’s schedule while actually thinking about whether they had any leftover pie, meaning Dorothy would need to explain the schedule again tomorrow, and Ernest would again claim to have listened despite retaining none of it.

Scientists Confirm Every Grocery Trip Requires Returning for Forgotten Item

BALTIMORE, MD – After analyzing 10,000 shopping trips, the Institute for Consumer Behavior has confirmed that approximately 98% of grocery shopping expeditions result in shoppers returning home, discovering they’ve forgotten essential item, and requiring second trip to store despite having spent considerable time making list and checking it before leaving.

“I got everything,” test subjects announced confidently while unpacking groceries at home.

“Did you get milk?” family members asked.

“Oh no,” subjects replied while realizing that milk – the primary item they specifically went to store to purchase – had been forgotten despite being item number one on shopping list they’d checked repeatedly.

The study found that forgotten items typically include the most important items rather than incidental purchases, suggesting some psychological mechanism where essential items are forgotten preferentially over optional items.

“We went specifically for milk, eggs, and bread,” reported test subject Dorothy Whitmore while unpacking groceries containing seventeen items but not milk, eggs, or bread. “I bought everything except the three things we actually needed. How does this happen?”

The National Retail Federation acknowledges that forgotten essential items drive substantial return traffic, with stores reporting that approximately 40% of shoppers return within 24 hours because they forgot something critical during initial trip.

Dr. Millicent Hargrove explains that list-making provides false sense of security. “People make lists, then become confident they’ll remember everything, then forget to check list, or check list but still forget items because they’re distracted by unrelated products in store,” she noted while reviewing shopping patterns showing people purchased items they didn’t need while forgetting items they specifically came for.

The forgotten item always falls into one of three categories:

Category One: The Primary Reason for Trip – Milk, eggs, bread, or whatever specific item prompted shopping trip

Category Two: The Dinner Ingredient – Whatever ingredient is required for that evening’s planned meal

Category Three: The Household Essential – Toilet paper, soap, or similar item that causes problems when unavailable

Forgotten items are never things like extra snacks, magazines, or impulse purchases. Those items are always remembered and purchased despite not being on list or needed.

“I forgot the milk but remembered to buy five things that weren’t on my list,” subjects reported with confusion about how their memory worked perfectly for unnecessary items while failing completely for essential items.

Test subject Harold Finchley reported making three trips to store yesterday because he forgot different essential items each trip. First trip: forgot milk. Second trip returning for milk: forgot eggs. Third trip returning for eggs: forgot bread. He successfully purchased magazine and candy bar on all three trips, suggesting his memory works flawlessly for non-essential items while completely failing for essentials.

“I had a list,” subjects protested when asked how they forgot items. Investigation revealed that while lists were created, they were consulted primarily before entering store and rarely checked while shopping, making them psychological props providing confidence rather than functional shopping tools providing guidance.

“But I looked at the list before going in,” subjects explained while defending their list-making without list-checking approach.

“Did you look at it while shopping?” researchers asked.

“Well, no,” subjects admitted. “But I made it, so I thought I’d remember everything.”

This belief – that creating list ensures memory of list contents – proves consistently false but doesn’t prevent people from continuing to trust memory over actual list consultation.

Some shoppers attempted to solve this through smartphone list apps, which resulted in forgetting to check phone list rather than forgetting to check paper list, suggesting the problem isn’t list format but rather human tendency to become distracted while shopping and forget to reference lists at all.

“I walk in with specific purpose, then see sales and special displays, start browsing, lose track of why I came, buy random things, go home, remember what I actually needed,” subjects explained while describing shopping methodology guaranteed to require return trips.

The study found that forgotten items are remembered at predictable times:

• Immediately upon arriving home (45% of cases)
• While unpacking groceries (30% of cases)
• While preparing dinner that evening (20% of cases)
• Next morning during breakfast (5% of cases)

All times inconvenient for returning to store, ensuring frustration about forgetting combined with necessity of return trip.

As of press time, millions of shoppers were returning to stores for forgotten items they specifically made lists to remember, wondering how they could forget things while holding lists containing those things, and promising that next time they’ll definitely check the list while shopping, a promise they’ve made hundreds of times while never actually following through.

About This Issue

Bohiney Magazine – Volume 1, Issue 16 – 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.