Bohiney Magazine

Volume 1, Issue 4 – Saturday, March 8, 1947

“America’s Trusted Source for Satirical Truth”

Congress Debates Truman Doctrine While Secretary Can’t Locate Meeting Room

WASHINGTON, DC – As President Truman’s historic doctrine to contain Soviet expansion dominated Congressional debate this week, sources confirm that Assistant Secretary Harold Pemberton spent forty-five minutes wandering the Capitol’s maze-like corridors searching for Conference Room 3-B, which he eventually discovered was actually labeled “Conference Room B-3” and located in an entirely different wing.

The Truman Doctrine, which proposes $400 million in aid to Greece and Turkey to prevent communist takeover, has sparked intense political discussion about America’s role in post-war Europe. Meanwhile, Pemberton’s navigation difficulties have sparked intense frustration about the Capitol’s “deliberately confusing” architectural design.

“I’m fairly certain this building was designed by a madman,” Pemberton reported while catching his breath after climbing his fourth incorrect staircase. “The room numbering system appears to be based on ancient Greek riddles rather than logical sequence.”

The irony of discussing aid to Greece while unable to navigate one’s own building was lost on most Congressional members, though Senator Herbert Whitmore noted that “if we can’t find our way around the Capitol, perhaps we’re not qualified to dictate foreign policy to nations with thousands of years of history.”

The Library of Congress confirmed that Pemberton is not alone in his struggles. Approximately 60% of new Capitol staff members report getting lost at least once daily, with some requiring rescue by more experienced colleagues. One intern famously disappeared for three days in 1945 before being found napping in a storage closet he’d mistaken for his office.

President Truman’s doctrine represents a significant shift in American foreign policy, committing the nation to actively opposing Soviet influence abroad. Secretary Pemberton’s wandering represents a significant shift in his afternoon schedule, committing him to missing lunch while searching for a room that three different people gave him contradictory directions to.

The debate over the doctrine centers on whether America should involve itself in European affairs or maintain the isolationist stance that characterized pre-war policy. The debate over Capitol navigation centers on whether the building should have better signage or if getting lost “builds character and teaches humility.”

Senator Margaret Thornbury argued passionately for the Truman Doctrine, stating that “free peoples everywhere must be protected from totalitarian regimes.” She then argued passionately for better hallway markers, stating that “employees everywhere must be protected from architectural chaos masquerading as governmental design.”

The Capitol architect’s office insists the building layout is “perfectly logical once you understand the underlying organizational philosophy.” However, when pressed to explain this philosophy, the architect replied that it would “take several hours and require visual aids” and suggested people “just ask for directions like everyone else.”

Critics of the Truman Doctrine worry about the cost and whether America can afford such extensive foreign commitments. Critics of the Capitol’s design worry about the cost of productive hours lost to wandering and whether America can afford a government building that functions as an inadvertent maze.

Secretary Pemberton eventually located Conference Room B-3 seventeen minutes after the meeting ended, where he found a note reading “We waited as long as we could – meeting rescheduled to Room 3-B tomorrow.” He is currently researching whether Room 3-B is a separate location or whether someone is playing an elaborate practical joke on him.

The Truman Doctrine passed its first committee review and will move to full Congressional vote next week. Secretary Pemberton passed Conference Room B-3 six times before recognizing it and will move to early retirement if this happens again.

As of press time, President Truman was preparing to address the nation about America’s crucial role in defending freedom worldwide, while Secretary Pemberton was preparing to bring a compass to work.

Local Man Discovers He’s Been Pronouncing Colleague’s Name Wrong for Three Years

CHICAGO, IL – Area insurance salesman Walter Grimsby experienced what psychiatrists are calling “catastrophic social mortification” upon learning that he has been mispronouncing coworker Derek Fenchurch’s name as “Derek Fetchworth” for the entirety of their professional relationship.

The revelation occurred during Thursday’s staff meeting when a new employee asked to be introduced to “Mr. Fenchurch,” causing Grimsby to look around confused before realizing with mounting horror that the man he’d been calling “Fetchworth” for 156 weeks was, in fact, “Fenchurch.”

“I’ve said it hundreds of times,” Grimsby reported while staring at his desk blotter in shame. “I’ve said it in meetings. I’ve said it in the elevator. I once said it at his wife’s birthday party. Nobody corrected me. Not once.”

Fenchurch, when asked why he never corrected the error, explained that “after the first few times, it seemed too awkward to mention.” By the six-month mark, he’d decided it was “easier to just live with being Fetchworth at work” and had even begun responding to the incorrect name automatically.

“I have business cards that say Fenchurch,” he noted somewhat desperately. “They’re right there on my desk. He’s seen them. Multiple times.”

The Smithsonian Institution has begun documenting what researchers call “The Name Error Trap” – a social phenomenon where incorrect name usage becomes so entrenched that correction feels more awkward than permanent identity fraud.

The situation has created what workplace psychologist Dr. Millicent Hargrove describes as “a fascinating study in social contract theory.” Grimsby can’t possibly continue calling Fenchurch “Fetchworth” now that he knows it’s wrong, but switching to “Fenchurch” would require acknowledging three years of error, which feels insurmountably humiliating.

“The ideal solution,” Dr. Hargrove suggested, “would be for Mr. Grimsby to legally change his colleague’s name to Fetchworth, retroactively making him correct all along.” However, she acknowledges this is “unlikely to gain traction.”

Other colleagues admitted they’d noticed the discrepancy but assumed either: 1) Fetchworth was a nickname, 2) Fenchurch was a nickname, 3) One of them was correct and the other wrong but they weren’t sure which, or 4) It was better to stay out of it entirely.

Secretary Dorothy Pemberton reported that she once tried to correct Grimsby but he seemed so confident that she second-guessed herself and decided maybe she was the one confused. She has spent three years wondering whether Derek’s name underwent some sort of legal change that nobody told her about.

The incident has created a domino effect of name-related anxiety throughout the office. Several employees are now questioning whether they’ve been correctly pronouncing other colleagues’ names. Harold Peterson has begun introducing himself to people he’s known for five years “just to be safe.”

Grimsby considered several options for moving forward:

• Pretending the correct name is brand new information that he’s delighted to learn
• Claiming he has a speech impediment that specifically affects the name “Fenchurch”
• Switching to calling him “Derek” exclusively and never using the surname again
• Requesting a transfer to the Buffalo office

He ultimately settled on option three, though this has created new problems as the office now has three Dereks and nobody is sure which one anyone is referring to at any given time.

Fenchurch has been gracious about the situation, saying he “completely understands” and “it happens all the time,” though coworkers report he’s told this exact same story to his wife every evening for three years, always ending with “and he still called me Fetchworth today.”

The incident has inspired several other employees to come forward with their own confessions. Margaret Thornbury admitted she’s been spelling the office manager’s name as “Gwendolyn” in memos when it’s actually “Gwendoline.” Theodore Whitmore confessed he’s not entirely sure of his own last name’s proper spelling anymore.

As of press time, Grimsby was considering changing his own name to avoid any future incidents, and Derek Fenchurch was contemplating whether “Fetchworth” might actually be the better name after all.

Nation’s Thermostats Locked in Eternal Battle Between Husbands and Wives

MINNEAPOLIS, MN – The American Society of Domestic Climate Control has released a sobering report confirming that approximately 92% of household thermostats are adjusted an average of fourteen times daily as husbands and wives wage a silent, passive-aggressive war over appropriate indoor temperatures.

“It’s like a Cold War, but about actual cold,” explained researcher Dr. Theodore Pemberton while examining data from thousands of thermostats equipped with monitoring devices. “One spouse sets it to 68 degrees. The other changes it to 72. The first returns it to 68. This continues until someone goes to bed angry, which is every night.”

The conflict typically follows predictable patterns. Husbands, who apparently possess internal furnaces that make them perpetually warm, insist temperatures above 65 degrees constitute “tropical conditions.” Wives, who seem to experience a separate climate entirely, report that anything below 75 degrees feels “like living in an igloo.”

Herbert Morrison of Cedar Rapids documented his household’s thermostat adjustments for one week. The device was changed 94 times, occasionally while the person who’d just adjusted it was still in the room, leading to what he described as “thermostatic standoffs where we both have our hands on the dial, neither willing to retreat.”

The Department of Energy estimates these temperature wars waste approximately $2.4 million annually in unnecessary heating and cooling costs. However, neither side appears willing to compromise, viewing thermostat control as “a matter of principle” and “not about the actual temperature anymore.”

“I set it to 70, which is perfectly reasonable,” insisted Mrs. Dorothy Whitmore. “Then I come back twenty minutes later and he’s changed it to 64. Who can live in 64 degrees? Penguins. That’s who. We’re not penguins, Herbert.”

Mr. Whitmore countered that “70 degrees is oppressive” and that his wife “seems to want to recreate equatorial conditions in Minnesota, which violates both common sense and the laws of nature.”

Some couples have attempted to resolve the conflict through negotiation, but these talks typically break down over disagreements about what constitutes “comfortable.” One husband defined comfortable as “being able to wear a t-shirt indoors in January.” His wife defined it as “not seeing your breath when you exhale.”

The thermostat war has spawned several industries. Locksmiths report increased demand for thermostat cages, though most couples find ways to pick these locks within forty-eight hours. One inventor developed a “thermostat democracy system” where both parties vote on temperature changes, but test groups reported this just formalized the conflict without resolving it.

Marriage counselor Dr. Millicent Hargrove notes the thermostat represents deeper issues in relationships. “It’s not really about temperature,” she explained. “It’s about control, compromise, and the fundamental question of whether love means being slightly too cold or slightly too warm for the sake of your spouse’s comfort.”

Most couples answer this question with a resounding “my spouse should be the uncomfortable one.”

The gender divide is remarkably consistent across regions. Scientists have proposed theories ranging from “biological differences in temperature regulation” to “men being stubborn about sweater usage” to “women possessing thinner blood due to reasons that are probably medical.”

Some revolutionary couples have installed separate climate controls for different rooms, but report this just moves the battlefield. They now argue about whether bedroom doors should be open or closed, as leaving them open “defeats the purpose of separate zones” but closing them “feels like living in separate houses.”

The situation reaches peak intensity during transitional seasons when outdoor temperatures fluctuate wildly. Spring and fall see thermostat adjustment rates triple as couples debate whether they’re “still in heating season” or “basically in summer now.”

Mr. Ernest Potts of Toledo reported that he and his wife have achieved détente through a complex system where she controls the thermostat in exchange for him controlling the radio station in the car. “It’s not perfect,” he admitted, “but at least we’ve moved our conflict to a new venue.”

As of press time, the average American thermostat had been adjusted six times in the past three hours, and meteorologists predict this will continue until someone invents personal climate control bubbles or couples learn to compromise, whichever comes first.

Groundbreaking Study Reveals Everyone’s Sandwich Tastes Better Than Your Own

BOSTON, MA – After a comprehensive six-year investigation involving 23,000 sandwiches and countless envious glances across lunch tables, researchers at the Institute for Comparative Lunch Studies have scientifically confirmed what office workers have suspected for generations: everyone else’s sandwich is definitively superior to yours.

“The data is overwhelming,” announced lead researcher Dr. Sebastian Crumpet while eyeing a colleague’s turkey on rye with barely concealed longing. “Regardless of ingredients, preparation quality, or objective taste measures, the sandwich being consumed by the person next to you will always appear more appealing than your own.”

The phenomenon, termed “Comparative Sandwich Superiority Complex,” affects an estimated 97% of Americans who eat lunch in social settings. The remaining 3% are either lying or eating alone in their cars.

Test subject Walter Grimsby participated in a controlled experiment where he prepared two identical ham and cheese sandwiches using precisely measured ingredients. He ate one while watching a colleague eat the other. “Mine was fine,” Grimsby reported sadly. “But his looked amazing. I wanted his sandwich. It was my sandwich. I still wanted it.”

The National Institutes of Health has classified the condition as a legitimate psychological phenomenon, though they admit being puzzled about the mechanism. Dr. Millicent Hargrove theorizes it relates to “fundamental human dissatisfaction with personal choices” while Dr. Theodore Pemberton believes it’s “proof that humans are wired for envy at a molecular level.”

The sandwich superiority effect intensifies under certain conditions:

Someone else has a different type of sandwich – This triggers immediate sandwich regret and the thought “I should have gotten that instead”

Someone else has the same sandwich from a better establishment – This creates resentment toward one’s own judgment in deli selection

Someone else has the same sandwich but it looks slightly better – This spawns irrational anger toward one’s own sandwich-construction abilities

Someone else has an inferior sandwich – Wait, no, even that somehow looks better upon reflection

Office worker Mrs. Dorothy Peterson reported a particularly severe case where she brought a elaborate roast beef sandwich with horseradish and pickles, saw a colleague eating a simple peanut butter and jelly, and spent the entire lunch period wishing she’d made herself peanut butter and jelly instead.

“It’s not rational,” she admitted. “Mine was objectively superior. But something about the simplicity of hers made my sandwich seem pretentious and overly complicated. I resented my own sandwich. I still think about that peanut butter and jelly.”

The phenomenon extends beyond mere observation. Researchers found that having someone say “Wow, that sandwich looks good” about their own sandwich significantly decreased the speaker’s enjoyment while increasing their interest in whatever sandwich inspired the comment.

Some workplaces have attempted to address the problem by having everyone eat identical sandwiches, but test groups reported this just made them envious of people who brought salads. One office banned visible lunch consumption entirely, forcing employees to eat behind privacy screens. This reduced sandwich envy but created new problems around “mystery lunch anxiety.”

The study identified one demographic immune to the effect: mothers making sandwiches for children. These women report zero interest in their children’s sandwiches regardless of preparation quality, though they remain susceptible to coveting other adults’ lunches.

Sandwich shop owners have responded to the research with mixed reactions. Some plan to install mirrors so customers can watch themselves eat, theoretically making their own sandwich appear to be someone else’s sandwich. Early testing suggests this just makes people depressed about eating lunch alone.

Dr. Crumpet’s team is expanding research to other foods. Preliminary findings suggest the phenomenon applies to “literally every food consumed in the presence of others,” with particularly strong effects for pizza slices, desserts, and anything ordered at a restaurant when someone else’s meal arrives first.

As of press time, this reporter was eating a perfectly adequate turkey sandwich while staring longingly at the photographer’s pastrami on rye and wondering if it’s too late to suggest switching.

Local Man’s Newspaper Reading Ritual More Sacred Than Religious Observance

PHILADELPHIA, PA – Area resident Harold Finchley’s morning newspaper reading ceremony has achieved such inviolable status that his family now refers to it as “Father’s Holy Hour” and treats interruptions with the same gravity as disrupting church services.

The ritual, which has evolved over seventeen years into an elaborate sequence of precise behaviors, begins at 6:30 AM sharp when Finchley descends the stairs in his robe and slippers, retrieves the Philadelphia Inquirer from the front step, and settles into his designated chair – which family members are forbidden from sitting in “even when he’s not home.”

“We don’t speak to him,” reported his wife Dorothy while demonstrating the family’s tip-toeing technique perfected over years of avoiding her husband during news consumption. “We don’t make noise. We don’t ask questions. We basically pretend he doesn’t exist until he’s finished the crossword puzzle, which signals the ritual’s conclusion.”

The ceremony follows strict protocols:

• First: Front page news, read in complete silence
• Second: Local news, during which light sighing is permitted
• Third: Sports section, accompanied by commentary directed at nobody in particular
• Fourth: Comics, the only section during which smiling is allowed
• Fifth: Crossword puzzle, during which the entire family holds its collective breath

Any deviation from this sequence causes what Mrs. Finchley describes as “a disturbance in the force that ruins his entire day and, consequently, everyone else’s.”

The Library of Congress has documented similar behavior in approximately 78% of American households with newspaper subscriptions, suggesting this represents a widespread male psychological need for “structured morning information consumption in absolute isolation.”

The Finchley children, Robert (14) and Susan (11), have learned to communicate exclusively through hand signals between 6:30 and 7:45 AM. They report this system works reasonably well except for complex concepts like “Can I have money for a field trip?” which requires elaborate charades that typically fail.

Attempts to interrupt the ritual have resulted in what family members call “The Incidents”:

The Incident of ’43 – Mrs. Finchley asked about dinner plans during the sports section. Mr. Finchley didn’t speak for two days.

The Incident of ’45 – Young Robert knocked over a glass of water during the crossword. Mr. Finchley gave up on the puzzle and was “visibly disturbed” for a week.

The Incident of Last Tuesday – A door-to-door salesman rang the doorbell during front page reading. The family speaks of this only in whispers.

Sociologist Dr. Reginald Pemberton explains that newspaper reading represents “man’s primal need for ritual, routine, and the illusion of understanding a chaotic world through organized newsprint.” He notes that for many men, the morning paper provides structure, purpose, and an excuse to ignore family members for an hour.

The Finchley ritual has become so entrenched that when the newspaper failed to arrive one Tuesday due to delivery error, Mrs. Finchley sent young Robert to purchase one from a shop three blocks away rather than face what she termed “a morning without structure.”

“He sat in his chair staring at the wall until Robert returned,” she recalled with visible trauma. “It was like watching someone whose religion had been suddenly disproven. I never want to see that again.”

Other men interviewed report similar newspaper devotion. Ernest Potts of Baltimore admits he continues reading even after finishing the paper, simply staring at articles he’s already read rather than admit the ritual has concluded. Theodore Whitmore confessed he sometimes reads sections multiple times to extend the ceremony.

The only acceptable interruption is catastrophic emergency, defined narrowly as “the house is actively on fire” or “someone requires immediate medical attention.” Mrs. Finchley notes that when young Susan fell and scraped her knee during crossword time, she had to assess whether the injury was “interrupt-Father-worthy” before taking action.

“It wasn’t actively bleeding,” she explained. “So I administered first aid silently and dealt with her tears through comforting hand gestures until 7:45.”

The ritual’s sanctity extends beyond the home. Mr. Finchley once refused to leave for a funeral because he hadn’t finished the comics, arguing that “Uncle Bernard would understand” and “he’d want me to know what happened to Dick Tracy.”

As of press time, Mr. Finchley was on the crossword puzzle’s final clue, and his family was preparing for the blessed moment when they could once again speak at normal volumes and exist as acknowledged human beings in his presence.

Breaking: Man Realizes He Has No Idea What Most Kitchen Gadgets Actually Do

DETROIT, MI – Local husband Frank Delacroix made a startling discovery this week while attempting to prepare dinner in his wife’s absence: approximately 70% of the items in his kitchen drawers serve purposes he cannot even begin to fathom, despite having lived in the house for twelve years.

“I opened the gadget drawer looking for a can opener and found seventeen objects that might be medieval torture devices for all I know,” Delacroix reported while holding up something with a curved blade, a wooden handle, and no obvious function. “What is this? What does it do? Why do we have three of them?”

The item in question was later identified by his wife as an “apple corer,” a term that meant nothing to Delacroix and prompted the follow-up question “why would anyone need to remove the core from an apple instead of just eating around it like a normal person?”

The revelation sparked a comprehensive investigation of kitchen implements, revealing that Delacroix’s culinary knowledge extends to approximately seven items: fork, knife, spoon, plate, cup, frying pan, and “the big pot.” Everything else exists in what he calls “the mystery zone of cooking equipment.”

His wife Dorothy, returning home to find her husband surrounded by kitchen gadgets and looking like an archaeologist examining alien artifacts, attempted to explain the purpose of each item. Her explanations only deepened the mystery.

“This is a zester,” she said, holding up a small grater-like object.

“What does it zest?” he asked.

“Citrus fruit.”

“Why?”

“To get the zest.”

“What’s zest?”

“The outer part of the peel.”

“Can’t you just use a knife?”

This conversation pattern repeated for forty-five minutes across seventeen different gadgets.

The Smithsonian Institution reports that male kitchen gadget ignorance represents one of the most persistent knowledge gaps in American households, with most husbands unable to identify or correctly use more than 30% of items in their own kitchens.

Particularly mystifying to Delacroix were:

• The melon baller (“seems like a spoon with ideas above its station”)
• The pastry blender (“looks like brass knuckles for very small hands”)
• The egg separator (“can’t you just crack eggs normally?”)
• The garlic press (“what’s wrong with chopping?”)
• The kitchen shears (“aren’t these just scissors?”)

When his wife confirmed that kitchen shears were, in fact, just scissors, Delacroix felt momentarily vindicated before learning they were “special scissors that shouldn’t be used for paper” which brought him back to confusion about why scissors needed specialization.

The gadget that most baffled Delacroix was identified as a “cherry pitter,” which led to an extended discussion about whether removing pits from cherries was worth purchasing a single-purpose device. Mrs. Delacroix insisted it was essential. Mr. Delacroix argued that humans had eaten cherries successfully for thousands of years without mechanical assistance.

“Just eat around the pit,” he suggested.

“That’s barbaric,” she replied.

This philosophical divide has apparently existed throughout their marriage without either party realizing it.

Kitchen equipment manufacturers admit that many gadgets serve “highly specific purposes that most people could live without” but argue that “specialization is the mark of civilization.” One executive noted that “any task can be improved with a dedicated tool, and the kitchen is where we prove this theory repeatedly.”

Delacroix attempted to use several gadgets without instructions, resulting in what his wife described as “carnage.” He tried to use the apple corer on a potato (“seemed like the same concept”), the melon baller to make cookies (“it’s a scoop, isn’t it?”), and the pastry blender as an actual blender (“it has blades”).

None of these experiments succeeded.

The investigation concluded with Delacroix asking his wife which gadgets he actually needed to use. Her answer: “The spatula and maybe the can opener.” When asked about the other fifteen items, she admitted “they’re nice to have” which Delacroix interpreted as “we don’t need them but they’re here now so we’re keeping them.”

As of press time, Delacroix had successfully prepared dinner using only the seven items he understood, while seventeen mystery gadgets sat unused in the drawer, waiting for the next time his wife makes something that requires zesting, pitting, or coring something he’d just as soon eat whole.

About This Issue

Bohiney Magazine – Volume 1, Issue 4 – 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.