Bohiney Magazine

Volume 1, Issue 17 – Saturday, June 7, 1947

“America’s Trusted Source for Satirical Truth”

Secretary of State Marshall Unveils European Recovery Plan While Southern Senators Block Recovery Plans for Southern Negro Americans

CAMBRIDGE, MA – As Secretary of State George Marshall delivered his historic speech at Harvard University outlining massive aid program to rebuild war-torn Europe, Southern senators who enthusiastically support spending billions abroad continued blocking legislation that would provide basic rights, economic opportunity, and federal protection to Negro citizens in their own states who face systematic discrimination, violence, and economic exclusion.

The Marshall Plan proposes approximately $13 billion over four years to rebuild European economies, prevent Communist expansion, and restore prosperity to nations devastated by war. Southern Democrats have signaled strong support for this international investment while maintaining their traditional opposition to any federal intervention addressing conditions in the South that keep millions of Negro Americans in poverty, deny them voting rights, and expose them to violence without legal recourse.

“We must help Europe recover,” declared Senator James Eastland of Mississippi while explaining why American tax dollars should rebuild European infrastructure but not address Mississippi’s systematic denial of constitutional rights to Negro citizens who are, technically, also Americans deserving of government assistance.

The contradiction – supporting massive federal spending abroad while opposing modest federal action at home – appears lost on legislators who view European reconstruction as strategic necessity but view protecting Negro Americans’ constitutional rights as unacceptable federal overreach into state affairs.

The Department of State describes the Marshall Plan as essential to preventing Communist influence in Europe by demonstrating that democracy and capitalism provide better material conditions than alternatives. This reasoning doesn’t extend to addressing conditions in the American South where systematic oppression and economic exploitation might also make alternative systems appealing, except nobody in Congress seems interested in preventing Communist sympathy among Negro Americans through the simple expedient of treating them equally under law.

“European recovery serves American interests,” explained Senator Richard Russell of Georgia while voting against anti-lynching legislation that would serve the interest of Negro Americans not being murdered without legal consequences. Apparently American interests include European prosperity but exclude Southern Negro survival.

The Marshall Plan will provide funds for rebuilding roads, factories, schools, and infrastructure throughout Europe. Similar federal investment in Southern infrastructure that served Negro communities remains opposed by the same senators supporting European reconstruction, suggesting their concern is less about federal spending and more about who benefits from that spending.

“We can’t have federal interference in state matters,” Southern senators insist when discussing civil rights legislation, then enthusiastically support federal interference in European national matters through massive aid program dictating economic policies and political reforms. The principle of non-interference applies selectively based on whether interference benefits people Southern senators want helped or protects people Southern senators want oppressed.

European nations will receive American assistance with requirements that they cooperate with each other, implement economic reforms, and work toward political stability. Southern states receive federal assistance with no requirements that they stop systematically violating constitutional rights of Negro citizens, suggesting that America holds foreign nations to higher standards than it holds its own states.

“We must demonstrate that democracy works,” proponents argue while supporting European aid. Democracy apparently works best when demonstrated abroad rather than practiced at home, as Negro Americans in Southern states experience something closer to authoritarian control than democratic participation.

The Marshall Plan aims to prevent European poverty from creating conditions where Communist ideology appeals to desperate populations. Nobody seems concerned that Southern Negro poverty and oppression might create similar ideological receptivity, except Southern senators probably prefer Negro Americans remain powerless regardless of their political sympathies.

Critics note that spending billions rebuilding Europe while refusing to protect Negro Americans from violence, discrimination, and economic exploitation sends message that American values extend to Europeans but not to all Americans. Defenders reply that this is exactly the message they intend to send.

“Europe is strategically important,” senators explain, apparently believing Southern states containing millions of citizens are not strategically important enough to warrant ensuring those citizens have voting rights, legal protection, economic opportunity, or basic human dignity.

The plan will likely pass Congress with strong bipartisan support because both parties agree that European recovery matters. Similar consensus does not exist regarding Negro American rights because Southern Democrats control key committees and block civil rights legislation while supporting massive spending for people thousands of miles away.

President Truman supports both European recovery and civil rights legislation, but can only pass one because Southern Democrats who control Congress will approve aid to Europeans while blocking protection for Negro Americans, revealing that their commitment to federal spending depends entirely on the race of beneficiaries.

As of press time, Congress was preparing to authorize billions for European reconstruction while continuing to ignore conditions in the American South where systematic oppression, economic exploitation, and racial violence proceed unimpeded by federal intervention that apparently only applies when helping white Europeans rather than Negro Americans.

Man’s “I’ll Fix It This Weekend” Enters Third Year, Still Unaddressed

DETROIT, MI – Following his confident declaration in April 1944 that he would “fix it this weekend,” area resident Theodore Whitmore has now reached the 37th month of intending to repair the leaking faucet that continues dripping at identical rate as when he first noticed it and promised immediate attention.

“I’ll fix it this weekend,” Whitmore announced on April 15, 1944, a statement his wife Dorothy initially interpreted as commitment to actually repair the faucet rather than what it actually meant: “I acknowledge this problem exists and will perpetually postpone addressing it while claiming ongoing intention to fix it eventually.”

It is now June 7, 1947. The faucet drips. Whitmore maintains he will “definitely get to it this weekend,” a promise he has made approximately 156 consecutive weekends without following through once.

“What happened to fixing the faucet?” Dorothy asked last Saturday after Whitmore spent the day sitting in his chair reading the newspaper.

“I’m going to do it next weekend,” Whitmore replied, apparently believing that 156 failed weekends of non-repair would somehow transform into successful repair during weekend 157 despite no change in his approach, motivation, or actual intention to complete the task.

The Smithsonian Institution has documented what researchers call “Perpetual Postponement Syndrome” where men announce intention to fix things, genuinely believe they will fix them, then perpetually postpone actual fixing while maintaining confident assertions that fixing will occur soon, very soon, definitely by next weekend at the latest.

“He says ‘I’ll fix it’ like it’s a magic spell that makes the problem disappear,” explained Dr. Millicent Hargrove while reviewing timeline of Whitmore’s three-year faucet repair project that has consisted entirely of intention and zero actual repair activity. “In his mind, committing to fix it resolves the issue. The actual physical repair becomes optional detail that keeps getting postponed.”

The faucet’s journey from “I’ll fix it this weekend” to three years of continued dripping:

April 1944: Problem identified, repair promised

May 1944: Repair postponed to “next weekend”

Summer 1944: Repair postponed due to “too hot to work”

Fall 1944: Repair postponed due to “nice weather, want to enjoy it”

Winter 1944: Repair postponed due to “too cold in basement”

Spring 1945: Repair postponed to “when I have time”

Summer 1945: Repair postponed to “fall, definitely”

Fall-Winter 1945: Repair postponed to “after holidays”

All of 1946: Various postponements, consistent dripping

Present (1947): Still dripping, still promising to fix it

Total water wasted: Approximately 2,000 gallons Total repair attempts: Zero Whitmore’s confidence in eventual repair: Unwavering

“I just need the right weekend,” Whitmore explained when asked why 156 weekends had proven wrong but weekend 157 would somehow be right. “I need a weekend where I have time, energy, and motivation. Those haven’t aligned yet.”

Investigation into Whitmore’s weekends revealed extensive periods of sitting, reading, occasional yard work, and substantial time devoted to avoiding household repairs he’d promised to complete.

“What did you do last weekend?” Dorothy asked.

“I was busy,” Whitmore replied vaguely.

“Doing what?” Dorothy pressed.

“Various things,” Whitmore answered, maintaining mystery about activities that consumed entire weekend without including faucet repair.

Further questioning revealed “various things” consisted of reading newspaper for four hours Saturday morning, napping Saturday afternoon, sitting on porch Saturday evening, and repeating similar schedule Sunday, suggesting he wasn’t busy at all but preferred to describe inactivity as busyness to justify not repairing faucet.

Dr. Theodore Pemberton notes that “I’ll fix it this weekend” functions as household equivalent of “check is in the mail” – statement that sounds like commitment but actually means “I have no immediate plans to address this but saying I will makes you stop talking about it.”

“He knows saying ‘I’m not going to fix it’ would prompt argument,” Dr. Pemberton explained. “Saying ‘I’ll fix it this weekend’ ends conversation without requiring action. Then next weekend he says it again. And again. Indefinitely. The promise becomes permanent replacement for action.”

Dorothy has learned that Whitmore’s promises about weekend repair projects have approximately 3% completion rate, with 97% of promised repairs remaining unaddressed indefinitely while he continues assuring her they’ll be handled soon.

“I’ve started just hiring repair people,” Dorothy admitted while describing her coping strategy. “He promises to fix things. I wait two weeks. He doesn’t fix them. I hire someone. He gets upset that I didn’t trust him to do it. I point out he didn’t do it for months. He promises to definitely handle the next one. The cycle repeats.”

Some wives have attempted to force husband completion through ultimatums. “Fix it this weekend or I’m hiring someone,” they announce. Husbands respond with renewed promises to definitely fix it, then don’t fix it, forcing wives to either follow through on hiring someone (creating marital conflict) or back down (ensuring repairs never occur).

“I’ll get to it,” Whitmore maintains when pressed about the three-year-old dripping faucet repair project. “I’ve just been busy with other things.”

“What other things?” Dorothy challenged.

“Important things,” Whitmore replied without elaborating on what important things superseded a three-year commitment to repair a faucet.

The important things, investigation revealed, consisted primarily of reading the newspaper and sitting in his chair – activities that could easily accommodate faucet repair but apparently take priority over promises made 156 weekends ago.

As of press time, Whitmore was assuring his wife he would definitely fix the faucet this weekend, a promise Dorothy no longer believes but still tolerates because arguing about it accomplishes nothing and at least his perpetual promising keeps alive the fiction that he intends to eventually fulfill his household obligations rather than simply avoiding them indefinitely while maintaining plausible deniability through repeated broken promises.

Woman’s “Whatever You Want” Means “Choose Correctly or Face Consequences”

CLEVELAND, OH – Following his wife’s seemingly generous offer to let him choose the restaurant for dinner, area resident Harold Finchley made the critical error of actually choosing a restaurant, discovering too late that “whatever you want” actually meant “correctly guess which restaurant I’m thinking of without me telling you or face extended discussion about poor decision-making.”

“Where do you want to eat?” Harold asked at 6:00 PM, attempting to share decision-making responsibility.

“Whatever you want,” Dorothy Finchley replied, deployment of phrase that Harold recognized too late as trap rather than actual choice delegation.

“How about that steakhouse on Main Street?” Harold suggested, selecting restaurant based on factors including proximity, food quality, and what he actually wanted, failing to consider that the correct choice was whatever restaurant his wife wanted but wasn’t saying.

“We went there last month,” Dorothy replied with tone suggesting Harold had proposed something offensive rather than a restaurant they’d previously enjoyed.

“Okay, what about the Italian place?” Harold offered, attempting second choice.

“That’s too expensive,” Dorothy noted, establishing that restaurants were subject to unspecified criteria Harold was supposed to know without being told.

“The diner?” Harold tried, moving down-market.

“That’s not nice enough for going out,” Dorothy corrected, apparently requiring restaurant that fell into narrow band between “too expensive” and “not nice enough” that Harold was meant to identify through telepathy.

The National Institutes of Health has documented what researchers call “False Choice Syndrome” where wives offer husbands decision-making authority while actually maintaining veto power over all choices and preferred outcome they’re not revealing, creating situations where husbands cannot win.

“When she says ‘whatever you want,’ she doesn’t mean whatever you want,” explained marriage counselor Dr. Millicent Hargrove while reviewing the interaction. “She means ‘guess what I want and propose it so I can accept it without appearing to have made the decision.’ Your job is to read her mind and suggest what she’s thinking. Suggesting what you actually want demonstrates you’re not paying attention to her unstated preferences.”

Harold’s error was treating “whatever you want” as genuine invitation to choose rather than as test of his ability to determine her preferences through psychic powers he doesn’t possess.

“Just tell me where you want to go,” Harold suggested, attempting to cut through the charade and get direct information.

“I said whatever you want,” Dorothy replied, maintaining the fiction that decision was his while making it clear that his decisions were subject to approval she wouldn’t grant to anything except the choice she wanted him to make.

“But you’re rejecting everything I suggest,” Harold noted with confusion about how he was supposed to choose when choices were being rejected.

“Because they’re not good choices,” Dorothy explained, apparently believing this clarified matters rather than confirming that “whatever you want” actually meant “correctly identify my preference.”

Dr. Reginald Crumpet notes that this represents test of partnership attention where wives believe husbands should know their preferences without explicit statement. “She’s been giving hints all week about wanting Thai food,” Dr. Crumpet explained while reviewing case. “She mentioned it three times, showed him a menu, and casually noted the restaurant while driving past. In her mind, these hints constitute clear communication. In his mind, they’re unrelated observations. When he doesn’t suggest Thai food, he fails the test.”

“You never mentioned Thai food,” Harold protested when his wife suggested that maybe if he paid attention he’d know she wanted Thai food.

“I mentioned it three times this week,” Dorothy corrected, treating hints about wanting Thai food as equivalent to directly saying “I want Thai food tonight” despite these being obviously different types of communication.

“Mentioning that Thai food exists is not the same as saying you want Thai food tonight,” Harold argued with logic that made perfect sense to him and no sense to his wife.

“If you were paying attention, you’d know I wanted Thai food,” Dorothy maintained, apparently believing that attention includes remembering all casual mentions of restaurants and correctly interpreting them as preferences for future dining rather than simply acknowledging that restaurants exist.

The phenomenon creates no-win situation where:

• Husband chooses based on his preferences: Wrong, demonstrates inattention
• Husband asks what wife wants: Wrong, demonstrates inability to determine preferences independently
• Husband guesses wrong: Wrong, confirms he doesn’t know her
• Husband guesses right: Minimal credit because he should have known already

“Why don’t you just tell me what you want instead of making me guess?” Harold asked with frustration of someone who has failed multiple-choice test where answers weren’t provided and now faces extended explanation of failure.

“Because you should know what I want without me having to tell you,” Dorothy explained, articulating expectation that sounds romantic in theory but creates communication dysfunction in practice.

“That’s unreasonable,” Harold protested.

“That’s marriage,” Dorothy replied, settling the matter by declaring that unreasonable expectations are actually reasonable within context of marriage where knowing each other means guessing preferences accurately without discussion.

Some couples have resolved this through explicit communication where preferences are stated directly. However, many wives view explicit stating as removing romance from decision-making, preferring that husbands demonstrate care through accurately guessing rather than asking.

“If I have to tell you what I want, it’s not special,” wives explain while describing how guessing correctly demonstrates attention and care while asking directly demonstrates insufficient attention and inadequate care.

“I can’t read minds,” husbands reply while wondering when marriage became mind-reading competition rather than partnership.

As of press time, Harold and Dorothy had visited Thai restaurant after extended negotiation about why Harold should have known she wanted Thai food without her saying so, with Dorothy satisfied she’d taught lesson about attention and Harold planning to suggest Thai food next time she says “whatever you want” because surely that will work despite her preferences probably changing to completely different restaurant he also won’t correctly guess.

Groundbreaking Study Confirms All Home Improvement Projects Take Exactly Triple Original Time Estimate

PHILADELPHIA, PA – After analyzing 10,000 home improvement projects ranging from minor repairs to major renovations, the Institute for Construction Studies has confirmed that every project requires exactly three times longer than initially estimated, making accurate time prediction impossible and contractor estimates purely fictional.

“This should take about two hours,” contractors announced at beginning of projects that would ultimately require six hours, demonstrating either complete inability to estimate time accurately or deliberate misrepresentation of project duration to secure work.

The study found that this three-times multiplier applied universally across all project types:

• “Quick fix” repairs: Estimated 1 hour, actual 3 hours
• “Simple weekend” projects: Estimated 2 days, actual 6 days
• “Should be done in a week” renovations: Estimated 1 week, actual 3 weeks
• “Month-long” major work: Estimated 1 month, actual 3 months

“I can finish this by Friday,” test contractor announced on Monday while beginning project that would stretch through following Wednesday, requiring ten days to complete work initially estimated at five days.

The Department of Labor acknowledges that construction time estimation represents unsolved mystery where experienced professionals consistently underestimate duration by exactly three-fold, suggesting either chronic optimism or industry-wide conspiracy to lowball time estimates to secure contracts.

“Every project encounters unexpected complications,” explained contractor Harold Pemberton while describing his thirty-year career of projects taking triple estimated time. “We find problems we didn’t anticipate. Materials arrive wrong. Weather delays work. Other jobs interfere. The original estimate assumes everything goes perfectly. Nothing goes perfectly.”

Test subject Dorothy Whitmore participated after bathroom renovation that was supposed to take “two weeks, maybe three at most” stretched through four months. “They kept saying they’d be done soon,” she reported while describing extended period of living without functional bathroom. “Soon became next week. Next week became two weeks. Eventually I stopped believing any timeline they gave me.”

Dr. Theodore Pemberton, who studies construction project management, notes that contractors genuinely believe their initial estimates despite extensive historical evidence that projects always take longer. “They think this time will be different,” he explained. “They’ve done hundred projects that took triple estimated time, but somehow they believe project 101 will meet the estimate. It never does.”

The three-times rule held even for projects where contractors explicitly factored in buffer time for complications. “I estimated one week plus extra time for problems,” contractors reported. “Final time was three weeks.” The buffer time apparently gets consumed by complications while additional complications beyond the buffer extend project to standard three-times duration.

Particularly troubling were projects quoted as “quick jobs” that would cause “minimal disruption.” These invariably became extended ordeals that disrupted households for weeks while contractors maintained they were “almost done” without actually approaching completion.

“Just a few more days” became repeated refrain as projects stretched weeks beyond estimates, with “few more days” apparently meaning “indeterminate additional time that might be days, might be weeks, will definitely be longer than promised.”

Homeowners reported learning to automatically triple all contractor estimates, creating situations where contractors saying “two weeks” prompted homeowners to plan for six weeks, which proved accurate approximately 100% of the time.

“Why don’t they just give accurate estimates?” homeowners asked with frustration of people who had been told projects would take one time period and actually took three time periods.

“Because nobody would hire them if they gave accurate estimates,” contractors admitted. “If I say two weeks, they hire me. If I say six weeks, they think I’m slow and hire someone who says two weeks. That person also takes six weeks. But I lost the job being honest.”

This creates perverse incentive structure where contractors are rewarded for inaccurate estimates and punished for accuracy, ensuring that estimates remain consistently wrong because wrong estimates secure work while accurate estimates lose work.

Some homeowners attempted to enforce timeline penalties where contractors would pay fees for delays. This resulted in contractors building penalties into quoted prices, making projects more expensive upfront while still taking triple estimated time, meaning homeowners paid more for the privilege of having projects take just as long.

“I’d rather be pleasantly surprised by early completion than constantly disappointed by delays,” homeowners explained while describing preference for realistic estimates over optimistic fiction.

“Nobody wants realistic estimates,” contractors replied. “They want to hear the project is quick and easy. We tell them what they want to hear. Then reality happens. Everyone is disappointed but nobody learns.”

As of press time, millions of home improvement projects were underway with estimated completion dates that would definitely be missed by exactly three times the estimated duration, contractors were maintaining they’d be done “soon” despite being nowhere near completion, and homeowners were calculating actual finish dates by tripling whatever timeline they’d been given while wondering why this pattern persists across all projects and all contractors without anyone learning to estimate accurately.

Man’s “I’m Not Lost” Continues for 45 Minutes While Clearly Very Lost

BALTIMORE, MD – Following forty-five minutes of driving aimlessly through unfamiliar neighborhoods while insisting he knew exactly where he was going, area resident Ernest Potts finally admitted he was “slightly confused about the route” rather than completely lost as his wife had been suggesting since minute seven of the increasingly desperate journey.

“I’m not lost,” Potts declared at 7:17 PM while passing the same gas station for the third time and ignoring his wife’s suggestion that perhaps they were, in fact, lost.

“We’ve driven past this gas station three times,” Dorothy Potts noted while gesturing at landmarks they’d repeatedly encountered during what Ernest maintained was “just taking a different route to get there.”

“I know where I’m going,” Ernest insisted with confidence that seemed admirable until one considered he’d been driving for forty-five minutes with no progress toward destination that should have taken fifteen minutes to reach.

The Department of Transportation acknowledges that male drivers possess remarkable resistance to admitting disorientation, with average man requiring forty-seven minutes of obvious lostness before conceding that perhaps they don’t know where they are, and even then framing admission as “slightly confused” rather than “completely lost.”

“Why don’t we ask for directions?” Dorothy suggested at minute twelve, employing reasonable strategy that Ernest rejected as unnecessary because he “definitely knows the area” despite clear evidence that he does not know the area.

“I don’t need directions,” Ernest replied, apparently believing that needing directions represents character weakness while driving aimlessly for forty-five minutes represents strong navigational ability.

Dr. Millicent Hargrove, who studies male spatial cognition, explains that men equate navigation ability with competence, making admission of being lost psychologically equivalent to admitting failure at fundamental masculine task. “He’d rather drive lost for an hour than stop and ask for help,” Dr. Hargrove noted. “Pride matters more than actually reaching the destination.”

Ernest’s journey from confident to admittedly confused:

Minutes 0-10: Completely confident, driving purposefully wrong direction Minutes 10-20: Slightly less confident, attempting to hide uncertainty Minutes 20-30: Obviously uncertain but maintaining he knows where he’s going Minutes 30-40: Very lost, insisting he’s “just turned around temporarily” Minutes 40-45: Clearly completely lost, beginning to acknowledge possible confusion Minute 46: Finally admits being “slightly confused” (completely lost)

“I might have taken a wrong turn,” Ernest conceded after forty-six minutes of driving without reaching destination, framing extensive sustained lostness as minor isolated error rather than complete navigational failure.

“We’ve been lost for forty-five minutes,” Dorothy corrected, treating continuous circular driving as what it was – being lost – rather than what Ernest was calling it: “slight confusion about specific route.”

“We’re not lost,” Ernest maintained even while admitting he didn’t know where they were, apparently believing that being uncertain about location is different from being lost despite these being definitionally identical.

Marriage counselor Dr. Theodore Pemberton notes that men often confuse knowing general direction with knowing specific route, creating false confidence about navigation ability. “He knows the destination is ‘north’ or ‘east,'” Dr. Pemberton explained. “He doesn’t know which roads lead there. But having general directional sense makes him believe he’s not lost when he’s very lost.”

The most common phrases during male lost-driving:

“I know where I’m going” – Does not know where he’s going “We’re not lost” – Completely lost “I know this area” – Does not know this area “We’re almost there” – Not almost there, possibly moving away from there “This looks familiar” – Nothing looks familiar, grasping at straws “I’ll figure it out” – Will eventually ask for directions or use map “We don’t need directions” – Definitely need directions

“Why is asking for directions such a problem?” Dorothy asked after Ernest finally stopped at gas station to request help.

“It’s not a problem,” Ernest replied while clearly experiencing asking-for-directions as significant problem. “I just prefer to figure it out myself.”

“You’ve been figuring it out for forty-five minutes,” Dorothy noted. “During which time we’ve made no progress and used half tank of gas driving in circles.”

“I was getting close,” Ernest maintained, though unclear how passing same landmarks repeatedly constituted progress toward destination.

Dr. Reginald Crumpet explains that men view asking for help as admission of inadequacy, preferring to struggle independently over succeeding with assistance. “He’d rather fail alone than succeed with help,” Dr. Crumpet noted. “This makes no practical sense but perfect psychological sense within framework of masculine self-sufficiency that values independence over effectiveness.”

Some wives have forced direction-asking by simply refusing to continue riding while lost. “Stop and ask or let me drive,” they demand. This typically results in husbands asking for directions while insisting they weren’t actually lost, just wanted to confirm their correct route that they definitely knew.

“I knew we needed to go north,” Ernest explained after receiving directions from gas station attendant.

“North is a direction, not a route,” Dorothy replied. “You need actual streets and turns, not just cardinal directions.”

“I was heading north,” Ernest protested, as if heading vaguely northward while lost constituted successful navigation.

As of press time, Ernest had reached destination forty-seven minutes later than if he’d accepted being lost and asked for directions thirty-five minutes earlier, but maintained he wasn’t really lost, just temporarily geographically uncertain, and besides he would have figured it out eventually even though he showed no signs of figuring it out at any point during extended lost driving session.

Revolutionary Research Shows All Bathroom Scales Broken, Doctor’s Scales Mysteriously Accurate

BOSTON, MA – After testing 5,000 household bathroom scales and comparing readings with medical-grade scales at doctor’s offices, the Institute for Measurement Standards has confirmed that every home scale is defective in exactly the same way: showing weights approximately 5-10 pounds lighter than actual weight, while doctor’s scales remain mysteriously accurate and cruelly honest.

“My scale at home must be broken,” test subjects announced after weighing at doctor’s office and discovering they weighed ten pounds more than bathroom scale indicated that morning.

“Home scales are calibrated differently,” they explained while seeking any explanation besides the obvious one that their home scales were providing comforting fiction while doctor’s scales provided uncomfortable truth.

The study found that people consistently trust their home scales despite extensive evidence that those scales underreport weight, while immediately suspecting doctor’s scales of malfunction despite those scales being professionally calibrated and maintained.

“The doctor’s scale is wrong,” patients insisted after weighing substantially more than expected. “My scale at home says I weigh ten pounds less. Obviously one is broken. It must be the doctor’s scale.”

Investigation revealed that doctor’s scales were not, in fact, broken, but patients preferred to believe medical-grade equipment had failed rather than accept their home scales had been lying to them about their weight for years.

The National Institutes of Health acknowledges that home scale optimism represents widespread phenomenon where scales seem designed to provide encouraging rather than accurate readings, creating false impression of successful weight maintenance that doctor visits cruelly dispel.

“Home scales tell comfortable lies,” explained researcher Dr. Theodore Pemberton while reviewing data showing systematic underreporting across all home scale types. “They’re positioned on uneven bathroom floors, used incorrectly, or simply providing readings people want to see rather than accurate measurements. Doctor’s scales can’t be manipulated and don’t care about your feelings, so they report actual weight.”

Test subjects demonstrated remarkable creativity in explaining weight discrepancies:

• “I’m wearing heavier clothes at the doctor’s office”
• “I must have eaten a big breakfast”
• “The doctor’s scale must need calibration”
• “My home scale is newer so probably more accurate”
• “Maybe I’m retaining water today”
• “Different times of day affect weight”

All explanations attempted to preserve faith in home scales that were clearly inaccurate rather than accept that doctor’s scales were simply telling truth.

“But my scale at home is digital,” patients protested, apparently believing digital displays are inherently more accurate than mechanical scales despite digital scales being equally capable of providing incorrect readings while looking modern and trustworthy.

The study examined why home scales consistently underreport. Findings suggested multiple factors: scales on soft bathroom floors rather than hard surfaces, scales with incorrect calibration, scales that people adjust unconsciously by shifting weight, and scales that people want to show lower weights so they interpret ambiguous readings optimistically.

“The scale said either 165 or 175,” test subjects explained while describing how they read digital displays. “I assumed 165 because that’s more in line with what I expected.” Investigation revealed the scale displayed 175, but subjects’ desire to weigh 165 transformed what they saw.

Particularly troubling were subjects who owned multiple scales and used whichever scale showed the lowest weight as their “accurate” scale while dismissing others as broken. “I have three scales,” one test subject explained. “One says 180, one says 185, one says 190. Obviously the 180 scale is correct and the others need replacing.”

This logic – where lowest reading is automatically most accurate – proves popular among home scale users who view weight measurement as opinion poll where they choose their preferred result.

“Why don’t you just trust the doctor’s scale?” researchers asked.

“Because it shows a weight I don’t like,” subjects admitted with surprising honesty. “My home scale shows a weight I do like. Therefore my home scale is accurate and the doctor’s scale is wrong. This makes perfect sense.”

It does not make perfect sense, but it makes psychological sense where accepting uncomfortable truth is less appealing than maintaining comfortable fiction.

Some subjects attempted to outsmart doctor’s scales through various techniques: removing all clothing possible, exhaling completely before weighing, or requesting morning appointments because “everyone knows you weigh less in the morning.” None of these strategies changed their actual weight, but they provided sense of control over reading they couldn’t control.

As of press time, millions of Americans were continuing to trust bathroom scales that consistently underreported weight while dismissing doctor’s scales as somehow defective despite those scales being accurate, professionally maintained, and completely indifferent to patients’ feelings about numbers they display.

About This Issue

Bohiney Magazine – Volume 1, Issue 17 – 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.