Bohiney Magazine
Volume 1, Issue 24 – Saturday, July 26, 1947
“America’s Trusted Source for Satirical Truth”
Department of Defense Officially Established, War Department Renamed To Make Permanent Military Bureaucracy Sound Less Threatening
WASHINGTON, DC – The Department of Defense officially replaced the War Department this week in rebranding effort that makes permanent military establishment sound defensive rather than offensive, proving that changing names doesn’t change function but does make expansion of federal power more palatable to citizens concerned about government overreach.
“Defense sounds better than war,” officials explained while establishing department that will conduct wars just as War Department did, except now calling them “police actions” or “conflicts” to avoid Constitutional requirement of Congressional war declarations.
The reorganization consolidates Army, Navy, and newly independent Air Force under single civilian secretary, creating additional bureaucratic layer supposedly improving coordination between services that managed to win World War II without this organizational structure, suggesting either previous structure was adequate or new structure is unnecessary.
“This eliminates duplication,” defense officials claim while creating new department with new administrative staff duplicating functions previously performed by individual services, proving that government’s solution to bureaucracy is invariably more bureaucracy.
The consolidation theoretically prevents inter-service rivalry, though early evidence suggests rivalry will continue with services now competing under same departmental roof rather than separately, making conflict more convenient rather than less likely.
Conservative critics warned that centralizing military authority under single secretary concentrates power dangerously, but such concerns apparently matter less than administrative efficiency that may or may not materialize once bureaucracy finishes expanding to fill available authority.
“We’re just organizing existing functions,” they insist while expanding those functions, increasing staff, and accumulating authorities that exceed what existed before organization supposedly streamlined operations.
The name change from War to Defense represents linguistic engineering where aggressive military capability is rebranded as defensive posture, making permanent military establishment politically acceptable to population that might object to permanent war department but accepts permanent defense department despite functional equivalence.
As of press time, Department of Defense was settling into new headquarters while preparing budgets that will definitely not grow substantially now that military establishment has permanent peacetime bureaucratic home with authority to expand without wartime emergency justification.
Congress Debates Foreign Aid While Taxpayers Wonder Why Their Money Goes To Foreign Capitals Instead Of Their Own Wallets
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressional debate over additional foreign aid appropriations continued this week with bipartisan agreement that American taxpayers should fund reconstruction of European economies devastated by war those countries fought themselves into, apparently believing that taking money from Americans who didn’t start war and giving it to Europeans who did represents sound fiscal policy.
“We must help Europe recover,” senators declare while explaining why Americans who work should have earnings confiscated through taxation and transferred to foreign governments who promise to be grateful and definitely not squander aid on projects having nothing to do with stated purposes.
The aid packages total billions of dollars extracted from Americans through government force and distributed to foreign nations based on theory that containing Communism requires buying allies with taxpayer money, creating system where American foreign policy depends on continued willingness to pay other countries to be our friends.
“This prevents Soviet expansion,” supporters argue using logic that apparently requires American money flowing continuously to foreign capitals because theoretical threat of Communism spreading is more important than actual Americans keeping their earnings.
The Constitutional question—where does federal government get authority to tax Americans for benefit of foreign governments?—is dismissed as antiquarian concern that shouldn’t prevent Congress from doing whatever seems expedient regardless of Constitutional constraints.
“We’re defending freedom,” they claim while using compulsory taxation to fund foreign governments that may or may not actually promote freedom but definitely oppose Soviets, revealing that principle is opposing Soviet power rather than promoting liberty, though liberty sounds better when justifying taxpayer spending.
The aid creates dependency where recipients expect continued American money while Americans expect continued loyalty, establishing relationships based on financial transactions rather than shared values, making allies effectively mercenaries whose loyalty lasts precisely as long as payments continue.
Conservative critics note that taking money from Americans to give to foreigners represents wealth redistribution on international scale, but apparently redistribution is bad domestically and necessary internationally when fighting Cold War that conveniently requires perpetual spending.
As of press time, Congress was appropriating more billions for foreign aid while American taxpayers wondered when they’d agreed to finance every anti-Communist government on earth and whether they could opt out of arrangement they never consented to.
Teenager’s Excuse For Poor Grades Blames Everything Except Actual Studying Habits
CHICAGO, IL – Fifteen-year-old Robert Morrison’s explanation for disappointing report card cited numerous factors including difficult teachers, unfair tests, and inadequate study conditions while notably omitting mention of spending zero hours studying and entire evenings listening to radio.
“The teacher doesn’t like me,” Robert explained while presenting report card showing multiple failing grades.
“Did you study?” his father Ernest asked, attempting to redirect focus from teacher’s alleged bias to son’s actual academic effort.
“I tried, but…” Robert began, deploying “but” as introduction to excuses explaining why external factors prevented studying he hadn’t actually attempted.
The excuse progression followed predictable pattern: blame teachers for poor instruction, blame tests for unfair questions, blame study environment for being too noisy/quiet/bright/dark, blame anything except actual studying habits consisting of zero effort.
“The test covered material we didn’t learn in class,” Robert claimed, describing situation that actually involved material being taught while he wasn’t paying attention.
“Did you pay attention in class?” Ernest pressed.
“Mostly,” Robert replied, meaning “occasionally when not daydreaming or talking to friends.”
Investigation revealed that Robert’s study habits consisted primarily of claiming to study while actually listening to radio, which he maintained was “background noise helping concentration” rather than primary focus of attention that studying was supposed to receive.
“I can’t study when it’s too quiet,” Robert explained, establishing that studying required radio noise, then revealing that studying with radio meant listening to radio while books remained closed.
Some parents have attempted to enforce actual studying through supervision. Teenagers respond by opening books and staring at pages while thinking about anything except book content, satisfying letter of studying requirement while violating spirit.
As of press time, Robert was promising to study harder next semester, a promise contradicted by his plan to continue listening to radio every evening while claiming radio somehow enhances studying despite grades suggesting otherwise.
Local Dog’s Barking At Nothing Suggests Either Supernatural Perception Or Profound Stupidity
MILWAUKEE, WI – Morrison family dog Buster spent seventeen minutes yesterday barking intensely at empty corner of living room, suggesting either remarkable ability to perceive threats invisible to humans or complete lack of understanding about what constitutes bark-worthy stimulus.
“What are you barking at?” owner Theodore Whitmore asked while examining corner containing nothing except wall and carpet.
Buster continued barking with urgency suggesting imminent danger from threat that didn’t exist in observable reality, leading Whitmore to wonder whether dog possessed sixth sense detecting supernatural entities or was simply barking at nothing because barking felt appropriate regardless of stimulus.
The barking displayed commitment suggesting genuine alarm about perceived threat, making Whitmore question whether invisible intruder occupied corner or dog had simply decided corner needed barking at without external justification.
“There’s nothing there,” Whitmore assured dog who ignored this information and continued defensive barking against non-existent threat.
Eventually Whitmore examined corner thoroughly, finding nothing, leading to conclusion that dog either detected something beyond human sensory range or was barking at nothing while believing he was protecting family from imaginary danger.
The incident raised philosophical questions about whether dogs possess heightened perception detecting actual threats or whether dogs simply bark at random stimuli including occasional nothing because barking instinct doesn’t require actual threats to activate.
Some owners believe dogs sense supernatural entities invisible to humans. Others believe dogs are occasionally confused about reality and bark at nothing while genuinely believing something warranting barking exists even when it doesn’t.
As of press time, Buster had ceased barking at corner and begun barking at different corner, suggesting either multiple supernatural entities occupying Morrison home or dog moving through house barking at corners for reasons only he understands.
Father-In-Law’s “Let Me Show You” Always Precedes Demonstration Of Wrong Way To Do Task
BALTIMORE, MD – Local resident Harold Finchley reports that father-in-law Walter Pemberton’s offer to “show you how it’s done” invariably precedes demonstration of incorrect technique that Finchley must then redo properly after father-in-law leaves feeling helpful.
“Let me show you the right way,” Pemberton announced while observing Finchley paint fence using technique that had successfully painted previous fences without issue.
“I think I’ve got it,” Finchley attempted, hoping to avoid demonstration that would definitely make job harder rather than easier based on previous experiences with father-in-law’s help.
“No, like this,” Pemberton insisted while demonstrating painting technique that created drips, uneven coverage, and visible brush strokes that professional painters specifically avoid.
Following Pemberton’s demonstration, fence section looked noticeably worse than sections Finchley had painted using original technique, proving once again that father-in-law’s confidence in his methods exceeded their actual effectiveness.
“See? Much better,” Pemberton declared while surveying fence that was objectively worse than before his helpful demonstration.
“It’s different,” Finchley diplomatically agreed while planning to repaint section after Pemberton left.
The “let me show you” offers follow consistent pattern: father-in-law observes activity being performed adequately, insists on demonstrating superior method, performs demonstration that produces inferior results, then leaves believing he was helpful while actually creating additional work.
Some sons-in-law have learned to accept demonstrations politely then ignore demonstrated techniques entirely, recognizing that maintaining family harmony requires pretending father-in-law was helpful even when his help made things worse.
As of press time, Pemberton was offering to show Finchley correct way to trim hedges despite having no hedge-trimming experience and having recently destroyed his own hedges attempting similar task.
Office Birthday Celebration For Unknown Coworker Features Awkward Silence Between Bites Of Cake
PHILADELPHIA, PA – Employees at Henderson Manufacturing stood around conference table yesterday consuming birthday cake for coworker none of them could identify, creating atmosphere described as “aggressively uncomfortable” punctuated by occasional comments about cake quality.
The celebration honored accounting employee whose name was learned from invitation rather than prior acquaintance, with attendees gathering out of obligation rather than genuine desire to celebrate stranger’s birthday.
“The cake is good,” several people offered, discussing cake because discussing birthday person would require knowing anything about them.
Awkward silence followed while employees consumed cake and wondered how long they needed to remain at celebration before returning to work was socially acceptable.
“So… happy birthday,” someone ventured while birthday person smiled uncomfortably at roomful of coworkers who were strangers forced to pretend otherwise.
The mandatory celebration represented obligation disguised as festivity, requiring employees to demonstrate enthusiasm they didn’t feel for person they didn’t know because management believes forced social interaction builds morale.
Some employees attempted conversation about weather, sports, or any topic not requiring knowledge of birthday person they were supposedly celebrating.
As of press time, employees were returning to work after celebration, having learned nothing about birthday person except that she exists and has birthday, which they’ll forget before next year when they’ll celebrate again.
About This Issue
Bohiney Magazine – Volume 1, Issue 24 – 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.