Bohiney Magazine

Volume 1, Issue 22 – Saturday, July 12, 1947

“America’s Trusted Source for Satirical Truth”

National Security Act Creates Permanent Military Establishment, Proves Big Government Conservatives Were Right To Worry

WASHINGTON, DC – President Truman signed the National Security Act this week, establishing Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, and National Security Council in sweeping reorganization that transforms temporary wartime military expansion into permanent peacetime bureaucracy that will definitely not grow into sprawling intelligence apparatus conducting domestic surveillance and foreign interventions without Congressional oversight.

“This streamlines national defense,” administration officials explain while creating multiple new agencies that will require coordination between agencies coordinating other agencies, suggesting either different definition of “streamline” or remarkable optimism about bureaucratic efficiency.

The Act establishes CIA as permanent intelligence agency, giving government authority to conduct covert operations, gather intelligence, and engage in activities that will definitely remain focused on foreign threats and absolutely not expand into domestic surveillance of American citizens whose privacy is theoretically protected by Constitution that apparently doesn’t apply to intelligence agencies.

“We need centralized intelligence,” supporters argue while creating agency with minimal Congressional oversight and authority to conduct secret operations using secret budgets for secret purposes that Americans won’t learn about until decades later when classified documents reveal activities that would have prompted outrage if known contemporaneously.

The Department of Defense replaces War Department, because apparently “defense” sounds better than “war” even when department’s function remains preparing for and conducting wars that will be called “police actions” or “conflicts” to avoid formally declaring them.

Conservative critics warned for years that wartime expansion of federal power would become permanent, and this Act proves them right while demonstrating that warnings about government power rarely prevent government from expanding power once opportunity presents itself.

“But national security requires it,” proponents insist, deploying argument that will justify virtually unlimited government expansion for next several decades because national security apparently requires whatever government officials want to do regardless of Constitutional constraints.

The National Security Council creates permanent body coordinating military and foreign policy, centralizing decision-making power in executive branch while reducing Congressional oversight, establishing system where president can commit American resources abroad with minimal legislative input.

“We’re just organizing existing functions,” they claim while creating new agencies with expanded authorities that exceed what existing agencies possessed, suggesting that “organizing” actually means “expanding” but sounds less threatening to people concerned about government growth.

The Act represents exactly what limited government advocates feared: temporary wartime measures becoming permanent peacetime institutions that will grow, expand, and accumulate power while operating with secrecy that prevents effective oversight or accountability.

As of press time, new agencies were settling into permanent bureaucratic homes while Constitutional scholars wondered whether document limiting federal power actually limits anything when national security is invoked to justify whatever government wants to do.

Price Controls Finally Ending, Government Admits Market Works Better Than Central Planning

WASHINGTON, DC – After years of wartime price controls that created shortages, black markets, and general economic dysfunction, Office of Price Administration announced it will finally cease telling Americans what prices they can charge for goods, accidentally demonstrating that free markets allocate resources better than government bureaucrats with clipboards and regulatory authority.

“Price controls were necessary during wartime,” officials explain while ending controls now that war is over, inadvertently admitting that necessity was temporary but government power tends toward permanence until economic reality forces retreat.

The controls, which fixed prices on virtually everything Americans buy, created predictable results that any economist could have forecasted: shortages of price-controlled goods, black markets where actual prices reflected actual supply and demand, and bureaucrats confused about why controlling prices didn’t control reality.

“We prevented inflation,” OPA officials claim while ignoring that suppressing price signals didn’t prevent inflation, just forced it into different channels including black markets, quality deterioration, and shortages that allocation based on government preference rather than consumer choice.

The end of controls will allow prices to find natural market levels, which officials worry will cause “temporary price increases” as if artificially suppressed prices were somehow more real than prices reflecting actual supply and demand conditions.

“Won’t businesses exploit consumers with high prices?” critics ask, revealing touching faith that government officials know appropriate prices better than millions of individuals making voluntary exchanges based on their own preferences and circumstances.

The free market answer—that high prices signal opportunity for increased production while rationing scarce goods to highest-value uses—is apparently too complex for people who prefer simple narrative where government protects consumers from greedy businesses rather than recognizing that competition protects consumers more effectively than regulations.

“But what about the poor?” supporters of controls ask, as if keeping prices artificially low helps poor people who cannot purchase goods that aren’t available because price controls created shortages, suggesting that high prices preventing purchase are worse than no goods being available for purchase at any price.

The black markets that flourished under price controls demonstrated that actual prices differed from controlled prices, proving that government cannot dictate prices through regulation any more than it can dictate weather through legislation, but this lesson will probably be forgotten by next time crisis prompts calls for price controls.

As of press time, OPA was preparing to close offices while patting itself on back for successfully preventing inflation through method that didn’t prevent inflation but did create shortages, black markets, and several years of economic distortion that is now ending because even government eventually admits reality exists independent of regulatory preferences.

Local Barber’s Definition Of “Just A Trim” Means “Substantial Haircut You Didn’t Request”

MILWAUKEE, WI – Area resident Theodore Whitmore discovered yesterday that barbers possess unique interpretation of phrase “just a trim” that differs substantially from how normal English speakers understand those words, resulting in haircut far shorter than requested despite explicit instructions to minimal cutting.

“Just trim it a bit,” Whitmore instructed while emphasizing “just” and “trim” to ensure barber understood request for slight reduction rather than major haircut.

“I’ll clean it up,” barber Harold Pemberton replied, deploying phrase that sounds like agreement but actually means “I’m going to cut it however I think it should look regardless of your instructions.”

Fifteen minutes later, Whitmore possessed haircut approximately three inches shorter than when he’d entered shop, despite “just a trim” typically meaning removing perhaps quarter inch to maintain current length and style.

“How’s that?” Pemberton asked with confidence of someone who believes he’s provided exactly what customer requested rather than considerably more cutting than customer wanted.

“It’s shorter than I expected,” Whitmore noted diplomatically while meaning “this is far too short and not at all what I asked for.”

“It looks good,” Pemberton assured him, which might be true but doesn’t address fact that Whitmore wanted trim maintaining existing length, not substantial haircut creating new shorter length he hadn’t requested.

The phenomenon appears universal. Barbers receive instruction to “trim” hair and interpret this as license to cut substantially, suggesting either that barber training includes redefined vocabulary where trim means cut substantially or that barbers simply prefer cutting more hair than customers request because additional cutting demonstrates their skills.

“Just take a little off the top” produces similar results. “Little” apparently means “several inches” in barber language, creating situation where customers leave shops having received different service than they’d requested and paid for.

Some customers have attempted to prevent over-cutting through specific measurements. “Leave it three inches long,” they instruct precisely. Barbers cut it to two inches while explaining that three inches “wouldn’t look right” despite customer explicitly requesting three inches because customer presumably knew what length they wanted.

As of press time, Whitmore was wearing hat to conceal haircut that was supposed to be “just a trim” but now requires six weeks of growth to restore length he’d walked in with when he’d asked for slight reduction rather than substantial alteration.

Office Birthday Card Obligation Forces Signatures From Coworkers Who Don’t Know Birthday Person

CHICAGO, IL – Employees at Henderson Manufacturing were confronted yesterday with birthday card circulating for coworker none of them had ever spoken to, creating awkward situation where signing card pretends personal connection that doesn’t exist while refusing to sign reveals truth that nobody wants to acknowledge.

The card, celebrating accounting department employee Martha Thornbury’s birthday, reached sales department where approximately zero people knew who Martha Thornbury was or could identify her if she walked past their desks.

“Just sign it,” office manager suggested while presenting card that already contained seventeen signatures from other people who also didn’t know birthday person but signed anyway to avoid appearing unfriendly.

“What should I write?” employees asked while holding pen and staring at card covered in “Happy Birthday!” messages from strangers pretending to be friends.

“Just write ‘Happy Birthday’ and sign your name,” manager instructed, establishing minimum participation requirement that maintains fiction of office camaraderie without requiring actual camaraderie.

The signatures proceeded through predictable patterns:

• “Happy Birthday! – John” (doesn’t know Martha)
• “Have a great day! – Susan” (has never met Martha)
• “Hope it’s a good one! – Robert” (wouldn’t recognize Martha in elevator)
• “Best wishes! – Harold” (learned Martha’s name from this card)

“Why are we signing cards for people we don’t know?” one employee asked while already knowing answer: refusing to sign makes one appear antisocial even when honest assessment is that signing cards for strangers is antisocial theater pretending strangers are friends.

Some employees attempted to personalize messages despite having no personal knowledge of recipient. “Hope you have amazing birthday Martha!” they wrote with exclamation point suggesting enthusiasm they definitely didn’t feel about stranger’s birthday.

The card eventually collected twenty-three signatures from people who collectively knew nothing about Martha beyond name learned from card itself, creating document that purports to represent genuine birthday wishes from coworkers but actually represents participation in mandatory social ritual.

As of press time, card was being presented to Martha who would read twenty-three messages from strangers pretending to be friends while maintaining polite fiction that she appreciated birthday acknowledgment from people she’d never spoken to and probably wouldn’t recognize.

Family Dog’s Selective Deafness To Commands Contrasts Sharply With Hearing Treat Bag From Different Zip Code

PHILADELPHIA, PA – Morrison family dog Buster has demonstrated remarkable hearing differential, remaining completely deaf to verbal commands shouted from six feet away while somehow detecting sound of treat bag opening from distances that should make such detection physically impossible.

“Buster, come!” owner Ernest Morrison called seventeen times without response while dog maintained position on couch, apparently unable to hear name being shouted repeatedly.

Sound of treat bag being retrieved from pantry three rooms away brought Buster to kitchen within four seconds despite closed doors and distance that should have prevented auditory detection of plastic bag sounds.

“How did you hear that but not hear me calling you?” Morrison asked while Buster demonstrated perfect hearing by responding to whispered word “treat” while having ignored his name being shouted at full volume moments earlier.

Scientists studying canine hearing confirm that dogs possess superior auditory capabilities compared to humans, though they cannot explain why this superior hearing functions perfectly for food-related sounds while completely failing for command-related sounds.

The selective deafness extends to specific vocabulary. Buster can hear:

• “Treat” whispered in different room
• “Dinner” mentioned in casual conversation
• “Walk” said at any volume from any location
• Refrigerator door opening regardless of distance

While remaining mysteriously deaf to:

• “Come” shouted repeatedly
• “Stay” said firmly
• “Down” commanded urgently
• Any instruction requiring obedience

Veterinarians confirm dog hearing is physically superior to human hearing across all frequencies. What they cannot explain is why this superior hearing operates selectively based on whether words require dog to do something he doesn’t want to do or offer something he does want.

As of press time, Buster had ignored his name forty-seven times but materialized instantly when Morrison opened treat jar while attempting to be quiet, proving once again that dog hears exactly what he wants to hear while remaining conveniently deaf to everything else.

Teenager’s “I’ll Do It Later” Means “I’m Hoping You’ll Forget About It”

BALTIMORE, MD – Fifteen-year-old Timothy Morrison’s promise to complete household chores “later” has been recognized by parents as strategic delay tactic hoping that “later” never arrives or parents forget about task before he’s forced to actually complete it.

“Take out the trash,” his mother Dorothy instructed at 6:00 PM.

“I’ll do it later,” Timothy replied while establishing that “later” meant “not now” without committing to specific time when action would occur.

8:00 PM arrived without trash removal. 10:00 PM passed similarly. By 11:00 PM, trash remained exactly where it had been when instruction was issued five hours earlier.

“You said you’d do it later,” Dorothy noted. “It’s now later.”

“I’ll do it in a minute,” Timothy adjusted, changing timeframe from “later” to “minute” while maintaining strategy of perpetual postponement hoping parents would eventually either forget about task or complete it themselves out of frustration.

The “later” strategy proves remarkably effective because parents face choice between nagging repeatedly about incomplete task or completing task themselves to avoid extended conflict, making “later” successful delay tactic that often becomes “never” through parental surrender.

“I was just about to do it,” Timothy claimed when finally confronted at 11:30 PM about trash that remained untouched, deploying defense that immediate action was imminent despite five hours of no action suggesting otherwise.

Some parents have attempted to combat “later” strategy by establishing specific deadlines. “Do it by 7:00 PM” they instruct precisely. This results in task being ignored until 6:59 PM when frantic last-minute completion occurs, or more commonly, deadline being missed while teenager claims to have forgotten despite multiple reminders.

As of press time, trash remained inside house while Timothy insisted he would definitely take it out “in just a minute,” continuing strategy of perpetual postponement that has successfully delayed chore completion for six hours and counting.

About This Issue

Bohiney Magazine – Volume 1, Issue 22 – 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.