Bohiney Magazine
Volume 1, Issue 23 – Saturday, July 19, 1947
“America’s Trusted Source for Satirical Truth”
Presidential Succession Act Passes, Establishes Line Of Succession Through People Nobody Elected
WASHINGTON, DC – Congress this week passed Presidential Succession Act establishing that if President and Vice President both die, the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of Senate—officials elected by their colleagues rather than American voters—would assume presidency, apparently believing that indirect election by 435 representatives is sufficient democratic legitimacy for most powerful office on earth.
“This ensures continuity of government,” supporters explain while creating system where Americans might get president they didn’t vote for, selected by process they didn’t participate in, implementing policies they didn’t endorse, all because actual elected officials died and succession plan values Congressional seniority over electoral democracy.
The Act reverses 1886 succession law that placed Cabinet members in line after Vice President, returning Speaker and Senate President to succession order based on theory that legislative officials possess more democratic legitimacy than Cabinet appointees, ignoring that neither group was elected president by American voters who might have preferences about who leads them.
“But they’re elected officials,” proponents argue while glossing over that they’re elected by small groups of colleagues rather than national electorate, making them marginally more democratic than appointed Cabinet members but considerably less democratic than actual presidential election.
The succession logic appears to be: if Americans elect president who dies, they should get different president selected through process bearing minimal resemblance to presidential election, because somehow having Congress choose president is preferable to having president’s appointed Cabinet members assume office despite neither option involving actual voters.
Conservative critics note that succession through legislative leaders concentrates power by making Speaker simultaneously second-in-line for presidency and leader of House, creating incentive structure where Speaker’s decisions about when to challenge president might be influenced by knowledge that president’s death makes Speaker president without requiring election.
“We’re just being prepared,” supporters insist while establishing system that could theoretically result in opposition party member becoming president if elected president and vice president both die, creating situation where Americans voted for one party and got different party through succession plan that values Congressional protocol over electoral results.
The Act assumes that Congressional leaders selected through backroom deals and seniority systems possess more legitimacy than Cabinet officials selected by elected president, which is questionable assumption given that neither selection process involves American voters who elected original president expecting that president or his selected vice president would serve.
As of press time, succession plan was established ensuring that if president and vice president die, Americans will get president selected through process they didn’t participate in, representing party they might not have voted for, implementing policies they didn’t endorse, all while calling this “democratic succession.”
Air Force Becomes Independent Branch, Proving Government Solution To Bureaucracy Is More Bureaucracy
WASHINGTON, DC – The Air Force this week became independent military branch separate from Army, creating new service with its own command structure, budget requests, and procurement processes, demonstrating that government’s solution to military organizational problems involves creating additional organizations requiring coordination with existing organizations they were separated from.
“This improves military effectiveness,” defense officials explain while creating situation where Air Force and Army will now compete for budget, duplicate administrative functions, and require coordination committees to coordinate activities that were previously coordinated by being part of same organization.
The independence establishes Air Force with authority to develop its own equipment, training, and doctrine separate from Army, which sounds efficient until one realizes this means two services developing similar capabilities independently while competing for same funding from same Congress that will be lobbied by same defense contractors selling to both services.
“Air power requires independent command,” Air Force advocates insist, apparently believing that commanding aircraft requires separate bureaucracy rather than competent command within existing structure, suggesting either that competent command is impossible within Army or that real goal is independent budget authority rather than military effectiveness.
The new structure guarantees inter-service rivalry where each branch advocates for its own importance while diminishing others’ contributions, creating situation where military strategy becomes influenced by bureaucratic competition rather than national defense requirements.
Conservative critics note that adding military branches increases overhead, duplicates administrative functions, and creates coordination problems that didn’t exist when air power was Army function, but such concerns apparently matter less than desire for independent service with autonomous budget authority.
As of press time, Air Force was establishing independent bureaucracy that will definitely not grow to rival Army in size and budget requests while both services coordinate activities that were previously coordinated by being same service before separation created need for coordination committees.
Brother’s Borrowing Of Sister’s Belongings Technically Theft, Legally Unenforceable
DETROIT, MI – Local sister Susan Morrison’s complaint that brother Robert took her baseball glove without permission has been classified as theft by legal experts and completely ignored by parents who maintain that sibling property disputes don’t warrant intervention despite meeting every definition of unauthorized property taking.
“He stole my glove,” Susan accurately described situation where brother took her property without consent.
“I borrowed it,” Robert corrected while wearing glove he’d taken without asking, apparently believing family relationship creates property access rights superseding consent requirements.
Parents attempted mediation through statements like “you should ask before taking your sister’s things” which Robert interpreted as suggestion rather than rule, proceeding to take things without asking while technically having been told not to.
“Did you ask if you could use the glove?” parents inquired.
“She wasn’t using it,” Robert replied, answering different question while avoiding the one asked, suggesting that unused property becomes communal property available for taking despite owner’s explicit objection to this interpretation.
The logic appears to be that asking permission creates risk of permission being denied, while taking without asking avoids that risk entirely, making theft more efficient than borrowing for person seeking property access.
“You need to respect her property,” parents instructed without establishing consequences for not respecting property, creating rule without enforcement that becomes suggestion Robert can safely ignore.
Some families have attempted to prevent unauthorized borrowing through room locks. Robert views locks as challenges rather than boundaries, developing lock-picking skills that would be impressive if applied to legitimate purposes rather than circumventing sister’s property rights.
As of press time, Robert was “borrowing” Susan’s bicycle without permission while maintaining this was different from stealing because he intended to return it eventually, though “eventually” apparently meant “when forced to by parents” rather than voluntarily.
Local Cat’s Systematic Campaign Against Houseplants Proceeds With Ruthless Efficiency
CLEVELAND, OH – Morrison family cat Mr. Whiskers has demonstrated remarkable strategic planning in his ongoing destruction of household plants, displaying tactical ability that owners describe as “impressive military operation if not directed at our decorations.”
“He knocked over another plant this morning,” owner Dorothy Morrison reported while surveying soil spread across carpet and overturned pot that had been positioned safely on table until cat decided otherwise.
The campaign follows predictable pattern: identify plant, approach plant while owners watch, maintain eye contact during approach to ensure humans understand destruction is deliberate, push plant off surface, observe results with expression suggesting satisfaction with completed mission.
“Stop that!” owners command while cat processes this as encouragement to accelerate destruction before humans can intervene.
Physical barriers preventing plant access result in cat finding alternative routes or waiting for barriers to be removed, treating obstacles as interesting challenges rather than deterrents to plant destruction.
“We moved plants to center of tables,” Morrison explained. “He just walks farther to reach them, viewing this as advanced difficulty level rather than protective measure.”
The motivation remains unclear. Plants have committed no offense beyond existing on surfaces cat deems inappropriate for plant placement, suggesting cat possesses strong opinions about interior decorating that conflict with human preferences.
Some families have surrendered entirely, removing all plants from elevated surfaces and accepting that cats and houseplants cannot coexist peacefully. Others continue resistance through endless cycle of placing plants, cat destroying them, replacing plants, cat destroying them again.
As of press time, Mr. Whiskers was eyeing succulent on windowsill with obvious intent while owners debated whether removing plant before destruction constituted victory for cat or humans.
Father-In-Law’s Unsolicited Advice On Everything Demonstrates Confidence Unmatched By Competence
PHILADELPHIA, PA – Local resident Harold Finchley reports that father-in-law Walter Pemberton provides detailed expert advice on all topics regardless of actual expertise, maintaining unwavering confidence in recommendations that prove wrong approximately 95% of time.
“You’re mowing that lawn wrong,” Pemberton announced while observing Finchley’s lawn mowing technique that had successfully maintained lawn for five years.
“How should I mow it?” Finchley asked while considering whether contradicting father-in-law was worth family drama.
“Diagonal pattern is better,” Pemberton instructed with authority of someone whose own lawn featured patches of dead grass and uneven cutting suggesting his lawn expertise came from observing rather than successfully practicing lawn maintenance.
Following Pemberton’s diagonal mowing advice resulted in lawn that looked worse than before, proving once again that father-in-law’s confidence in recommendations exceeded actual knowledge about topics he advised on.
“It looks different,” Pemberton noted while surveying lawn that now featured visible diagonal stripes of uneven grass length.
“It looks worse,” Finchley corrected.
“Give it time to adjust,” Pemberton suggested, as if grass required adjustment period to recover from poor mowing technique rather than simply being poorly mowed.
The advice pattern proves consistent across all topics. Pemberton observes activity, announces superior method, provides detailed instructions, watches as following instructions creates problems, then explains problems resulted from factors other than his bad advice.
Some sons-in-law have learned to nod politely while ignoring father-in-law advice entirely. This proves most successful strategy for maintaining family harmony while avoiding disasters that result from following recommendations from someone whose expertise consists entirely of confidence.
As of press time, Pemberton was explaining to Finchley how to repair fence despite having no carpentry experience and having recently broken his own fence attempting similar repair, demonstrating that failure teaches nothing except increased confidence about next attempt.
Office Worker’s “Sick Day” Suspiciously Coincides With Perfect Golf Weather
BALTIMORE, MD – Coworkers at Morrison Industries expressed skepticism about Ernest Potts’s claimed illness preventing Friday work attendance, particularly noting that Friday featured ideal golf conditions while Monday through Thursday had been rainy and cold.
“I had terrible stomach trouble,” Potts explained Monday while displaying suspicious tan suggesting outdoor Friday activities rather than indoor illness recovery.
“The kind of stomach trouble that improves dramatically at golf courses?” coworker Theodore Whitmore asked while noting this was fourth time this summer Potts had experienced Friday illness during excellent golf weather.
“I was really sick,” Potts maintained while colleagues calculated that his illness pattern aligned perfectly with weather forecasts, suggesting either remarkable coincidence or tactical sick leave deployment.
Office sick day patterns reveal interesting trends. Monday sickness suggests weekend excess. Friday sickness during beautiful weather suggests recreational plans. Tuesday through Thursday sickness is probably legitimate because nobody fakes mid-week illness unless genuinely unable to work.
“I rested all day,” Potts claimed while three separate people reported seeing him at golf course Friday afternoon, making “rest” technically accurate if golf qualifies as rest rather than recreation.
Some offices require doctor’s notes for suspicious absences. This results in doctors who provide notes without examination, creating medical excuse system that accomplishes nothing except adding paperwork to theater of illness verification.
As of press time, Potts was planning another Friday sick day before upcoming holiday weekend, claiming he “felt something coming on” that would definitely require Thursday and Friday recovery time.
About This Issue
Bohiney Magazine – Volume 1, Issue 23 – 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.