Bohiney Magazine
Volume 1, Issue 19 – Saturday, June 21, 1947
“America’s Trusted Source for Satirical Truth”
Taft-Hartley Act Passes Over Veto, Union Leaders Shocked That Republic Survived Without Their Permission
WASHINGTON, DC – Following Congressional override of President Truman’s veto, union officials across the nation responded to the Taft-Hartley Act with predictions of economic collapse, worker oppression, and general apocalypse, apparently believing that requiring union leaders to actually obey laws constitutes the end of civilization.
“This is a disaster for working Americans,” declared union president Walter Reuther while explaining how preventing unions from engaging in secondary boycotts, requiring financial transparency, and stopping coercive union membership somehow harms workers who allegedly benefit from union representation.
The Act, which labor bosses call “slave labor legislation,” actually just requires unions to follow the same rules as everyone else: no violence, no coercion, financial accountability, and leaders who aren’t Communist Party members. These basic standards of civilized behavior apparently represent intolerable restrictions on union freedom to do whatever they want.
“Workers need protection from management,” union officials insist while opposing any protection of workers from union officials, suggesting their concern is less about worker welfare and more about union power to force membership and extract dues from people who might prefer to negotiate individually.
The requirement that union leaders sign affidavits stating they’re not Communists has prompted outrage from union officials who apparently believe that leading worker organizations while secretly loyal to foreign totalitarian regime should be protected as free speech rather than recognized as potential national security concern.
“This is McCarthyism,” critics charge, referring to Senator McCarthy’s Communist investigations that won’t actually begin for another three years, demonstrating impressive ability to complain about future events as if they’re current problems.
The closed shop prohibition—preventing unions from forcing employers to hire only union members—has unions particularly upset because apparently free association only applies when it benefits unions, not when it allows workers to choose whether to join unions or employers to hire based on qualifications rather than union membership.
“Workers will be exploited without union protection,” officials warn, ignoring that millions of non-union workers somehow avoid exploitation through basic employment contracts, labor laws, and ability to quit jobs offering poor conditions rather than requiring union intermediaries to negotiate on their behalf.
The financial disclosure requirements have unions especially agitated because apparently transparency about how they spend member dues constitutes government overreach, while keeping members ignorant about financial management demonstrates respect for worker intelligence.
Business owners, meanwhile, celebrate the Act as restoring balance between management and labor, which unions interpret as management gaining unfair advantage because balance apparently means unions can do whatever they want while businesses must follow rules.
The Act allows states to pass right-to-work laws preventing mandatory union membership, which unions describe as “undermining collective bargaining” and free-market advocates describe as “allowing freedom of association,” revealing that unions believe freedom means compulsory membership in their organizations.
As of press time, unions were threatening strikes to protest legislation limiting their ability to strike as frequently as they want for whatever reasons they choose, apparently missing irony of striking to protest restrictions on striking.
Congress Debates Aid to Greece and Turkey While Ignoring That Foreign Aid Is Buying Influence With Taxpayer Money
WASHINGTON, DC – The Senate this week approved $400 million in aid to Greece and Turkey under the Truman Doctrine, marking official U.S. policy of buying allies with American tax dollars and calling it “containing Communism” rather than what it actually is: using government force to take money from Americans and give it to foreign governments who promise to be our friends.
“We must prevent Soviet expansion,” declared Senator Arthur Vandenberg while explaining why American taxpayers should fund Greek and Turkish governments rather than allowing those nations to handle their own affairs or, revolutionary concept, letting Americans keep their own money.
The Truman Doctrine establishes precedent that American military and economic power should be deployed anywhere Communist influence appears, creating open-ended commitment to global intervention that will definitely not result in decades of expensive foreign entanglements that accomplish little except enriching defense contractors and foreign politicians.
“This is about freedom,” supporters insist while using government compulsion to extract money from American citizens to fund foreign governments, apparently believing freedom means being forced to finance other people’s political arrangements whether you agree or not.
Greece and Turkey face internal Communist movements that their governments claim they cannot defeat without American money. This raises obvious question: if their own people prefer Communism, why should Americans pay to prevent it? But asking such questions apparently makes one insufficiently committed to global crusade against political systems we don’t like.
The $400 million represents substantial sum that could remain in American pockets or, if government spending is truly necessary, could fund actual constitutional functions like national defense of actual America rather than theoretical defense of countries thousands of miles away.
“But if Greece falls to Communism, others will follow,” argue proponents of domino theory that conveniently requires eternal American intervention everywhere because apparently no nation can resist Communism without American money backing their governments.
This reasoning suggests that freedom is so fragile and Communism so appealing that only continuous American financial support prevents global Communist victory, which raises uncomfortable questions about whether our system is actually superior if it requires constant expensive intervention to prevent people from choosing alternatives.
The aid comes with strings attached requiring Greek and Turkish governments to implement American-approved reforms, demonstrating that our opposition to Soviet influence involves using American influence instead, making us slightly more polite imperialists but imperialists nonetheless.
“We’re defending democracy,” supporters claim while backing governments that aren’t particularly democratic but are anti-Communist, revealing that the actual principle is opposing Soviet power rather than promoting freedom, though freedom sounds better in speeches.
Conservative critics note that the Constitution nowhere authorizes taxing Americans to fund foreign governments, but Constitutional limitations apparently don’t apply during Cold War that will definitely not become permanent excuse for unlimited government power and spending.
The precedent being established—that America should intervene militarily and economically wherever Communist influence appears—will definitely not result in expensive multi-decade commitments in places like Korea, Vietnam, or dozens of other countries where American money and lives will be spent achieving ambiguous results.
As of press time, Congress was preparing additional foreign aid packages while American taxpayers wondered why their money was going to foreign capitals instead of remaining in their own wallets where it belonged.
Father-In-Law’s “Helpful” Home Repair Advice Consistently Wrong, Confidently Delivered
DETROIT, MI – Area resident Harold Finchley reported that his father-in-law Walter Pemberton has spent the past six months providing detailed home repair advice that is incorrect approximately 100% of the time while maintaining unwavering confidence in his recommendations.
“You need to sand that before painting,” Pemberton instructed while watching Finchley prepare to paint wall that professional painters explicitly said should not be sanded.
“The painter said not to sand it,” Finchley noted while considering whether contradicting father-in-law was worth the family drama.
“Painters don’t know everything,” Pemberton replied, apparently believing his zero experience painting qualified him to override professional painter’s advice.
Following father-in-law’s sanding recommendation resulted in textured wall requiring professional repair, costing $200 to fix problem that wouldn’t have existed if Finchley had ignored the helpful advice.
“The important thing is you learned something,” Pemberton maintained while surveying damage his advice had caused.
What Finchley learned was that father-in-law’s home repair knowledge came entirely from having owned house for thirty years without successfully maintaining it, making him expert in what doesn’t work rather than what does.
The advice pattern followed consistent formula: Pemberton would observe repair project, announce how he’d done similar work, provide detailed instructions, and watch as following those instructions created disasters requiring professional intervention.
“I fixed our furnace once,” Pemberton explained while advising Finchley to adjust furnace settings in ways that furnace manual explicitly warned against.
Investigation revealed that “fixing” the furnace had involved calling repairman after Pemberton’s adjustments made situation worse, meaning his furnace expertise consisted of knowing how to dial telephone for professional help.
“You’re doing that wrong,” became Pemberton’s standard observation about any home project, followed by suggestions that were demonstrably worse than whatever Finchley was attempting.
Some sons-in-law have attempted to politely decline father-in-law advice by explaining they’re following professional guidance. This results in lectures about how professionals charge too much and any handy person can do the work themselves, which is technically true if the goal is creating bigger problems requiring more expensive professional intervention.
As of press time, Pemberton was explaining to Finchley how to install electrical outlet despite having no electrical knowledge and having recently been shocked attempting similar project in his own home, suggesting that failure teaches nothing except increased confidence about next attempt.
Local Cat’s Mission To Knock Items Off Tables Proceeds With Military Precision
BALTIMORE, MD – Family cat Mr. Whiskers has demonstrated remarkable tactical ability in his ongoing campaign to push household items off elevated surfaces, displaying strategic planning that his owners describe as “impressive if extremely annoying.”
“He waits until we’re watching,” reported owner Dorothy Morrison while describing cat’s methodical approach to destruction. “He walks up to object, looks at us, then slowly pushes it toward edge while maintaining eye contact to ensure we understand this is deliberate.”
The campaign targets items including glasses of water, books, pens, remote controls, and decorative objects that had committed no offense beyond occupying horizontal surfaces that cat deemed inappropriate for object placement.
“He knocked my coffee off the table this morning,” Morrison explained. “Then watched it spill across the floor with expression suggesting satisfaction with mission accomplished.”
Attempts to prevent object-knocking through verbal commands have proven ineffective. “No!” owners shout while cat processes this as encouragement to accelerate pushing motion before humans can intervene.
Physical barriers preventing table access result in cat finding alternative routes or simply waiting for barriers to be temporarily removed before resuming operations.
“We moved everything to center of table,” Morrison noted. “He just walks farther across table to reach items, treating this as interesting challenge rather than deterrent.”
Some families have surrendered entirely, accepting that elevated surfaces must remain empty or objects will be knocked off within hours of placement. Others continue resistance through endless cycle of placing objects, cat knocking them off, replacing objects, cat knocking them off again.
“Why does he do this?” Morrison asked while cat demonstrated technique by slowly pushing phone toward table edge while maintaining innocent expression.
Animal behaviorists suggest cats knock items off tables because they can, because it gets attention, and because apparently cat psychology includes inherent opposition to human organizational systems.
As of press time, Mr. Whiskers was eyeing coffee cup with obvious intent while owners debated whether removing cup before cat knocked it off constituted victory for cat or humans.
Man’s Vacation Photos Bore Friends Who Made Mistake Of Asking How Trip Was
PHILADELPHIA, PA – Local resident Ernest Potts made critical error yesterday of asking coworker Theodore Whitmore how his vacation was, triggering three-hour slideshow of vacation photographs documenting every meal, monument, and mundane travel moment that Whitmore believed were fascinating but actually proved excruciating for captive audience.
“How was your trip?” Potts asked politely while expecting brief response about whether vacation was enjoyable.
“I’m glad you asked,” Whitmore replied while retrieving enormous envelope of photographs, signaling that Potts had accidentally committed to viewing documentation of every moment of two-week vacation.
The photographs proceeded chronologically from departure to return, with Whitmore providing detailed commentary about each image:
“This is us leaving the house. This is us at the gas station. This is the highway. This is a different part of the highway. This is the hotel parking lot. This is our room. This is the view from our room. This is a slightly different angle of the same view.”
“Very nice,” Potts attempted to interject while Whitmore continued without pause.
“This is breakfast on Tuesday. This is breakfast on Wednesday. Note the toast is slightly more brown. This is our car in a different parking space…”
The photographs, numbering approximately 300, documented vacation with completeness usually reserved for military operations or criminal investigations, capturing moments that would have been better experienced than photographed and definitely better forgotten than shared.
“This is a tree we saw,” Whitmore explained while displaying photograph of unremarkable tree.
“Why did you photograph a tree?” Potts asked.
“It was there,” Whitmore replied, as if presence of trees warranted photographic documentation rather than simply being normal feature of outdoor environments.
The slideshow included seventeen photographs of hotel exterior, forty-two photographs of meals, sixty-eight photographs of monuments taken from slightly different angles, and extensive documentation of “interesting clouds” that looked like all other clouds but apparently held special significance for Whitmore.
“And here’s one more of the same statue,” Whitmore continued while showing eighth photograph of identical statue from slightly different positions.
Social protocol prevented Potts from escaping, as leaving mid-slideshow would constitute rudeness while being forced to view three hours of boring photographs was apparently acceptable burden of having asked polite question about vacation.
Some coworkers have learned to avoid vacation inquiries entirely, greeting returning travelers with non-specific acknowledgments like “welcome back” that don’t trigger photograph obligations.
As of press time, Whitmore was beginning second run through photographs “in case Potts wanted to see any again” while Potts contemplated whether employment elsewhere might be preferable to enduring vacation slideshows from coworkers who mistake polite interest for genuine desire to view 300 photographs of their trip.
Child’s Honest Observation About Uncle’s Baldness Creates Awkward Family Dinner Silence
CLEVELAND, OH – Sunday dinner at the Morrison household came to uncomfortable halt yesterday when six-year-old Timothy Morrison asked uncle Harold Finchley “Why don’t you have hair anymore?” creating silence that parents described as “mortifying” and uncle described as “fair question, actually.”
“Children say what everyone’s thinking,” Finchley noted while parents frantically attempted to redirect conversation away from uncle’s obvious hair loss that polite adults pretend not to notice.
“Timothy, that’s not appropriate,” his mother Dorothy scolded while everyone at table simultaneously thought about uncle’s bald head but maintained social fiction that it wasn’t noticeable.
“But he doesn’t,” Timothy persisted with child’s inability to recognize that some observations, while accurate, should remain unspoken in civilized society.
The comment highlighted fundamental difference between children and adults: children say true things regardless of social appropriateness while adults maintain comfortable fictions that everyone understands but nobody acknowledges.
“Did you lose it?” Timothy continued while family members studied their plates with intensity usually reserved for important documents.
“It just stopped growing,” Finchley explained with patience suggesting either genuine comfort with baldness or resignation that children will announce obvious things adults pretend not to see.
“Can you grow it back?” Timothy asked, demonstrating both medical ignorance and social ignorance that combined to create maximum awkwardness.
“No,” Finchley replied simply.
“Oh,” Timothy said before returning to dinner while adults continued processing the exchange that had violated unspoken agreement to never mention uncle’s hair loss.
The incident demonstrated children’s remarkable ability to identify elephant in room that adults carefully ignore, then point at elephant while asking loud questions about why elephant is present and whether anyone else notices elephant.
“Grandma is fat,” Timothy had announced at previous dinner.
“Aunt Susan has a weird nose,” he’d noted at Christmas.
“Why does Grandpa smell like that?” he’d asked at Thanksgiving.
All accurate observations. All socially inappropriate. All creating silence that parents filled with apologies while relatives pretended not to be offended by child’s honest assessments of their physical characteristics.
“He’s just curious,” parents explain while disciplining child for saying true things that everyone knows but nobody mentions.
“It’s just hair,” Finchley assured family while everyone silently agreed never to speak of this incident again despite it being only thing anyone would remember about this particular Sunday dinner.
As of press time, Timothy was asking why grandmother’s teeth could be removed, creating fresh awkward silence and prompting parents to consider whether family dinners might be better attended after children learn social filters that prevent announcing obvious truths about relatives’ physical conditions.
About This Issue
Bohiney Magazine – Volume 1, Issue 19 – 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
Bohiney Magazine: Defending individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and personal responsibility since 1947. All articles are works of satire.