hasn't seen at least one billboard making the claim that secondhand smoke
kills? A claim presumably based upon scientific analysis. Believing that
it's not possible to make such an analysis, I began to wonder how such
a claim could even arise. And then I remembered a story that might explain
the whole thing.
Once upon a time a Cossack officer rode into a small Russian town. As
he glanced to his left, he noticed a fence with a lot of small chalk circles,
each with a bullet hole right in the middle. He had never seen such marksmanship
before, and decided to seek out the shooter to express his admiration.
Upon making inquiries, the Cossack officer was chagrined to learn that
the marksman was an itinerant peddler named Max. His irritation was
understandable. After all, to Cossack officers, itinerant peddlers were
nothing more than dirt. To be abused, mistreated. Certainly not to be admired.
However, being an officer and a gentleman, he searched for Max until
he found him. Then with great difficulty, he complimented Max on his outstanding
shooting ability. Max replied somewhat diffidently that he really didn't
deserve any praise. You see, he couldn't shoot well at all. So what he
did to impress people was shoot holes in the fence first, and then drew
a circle around each.
Now in the case of the secondhand smoke billboards, I suspect that the
people who claim that secondhand smoke kills are not very good at scientific
analysis. And so to impress the public, they came up with the conclusion
first and then the analysis. What's significant to me is that even with
such a contrived approach, they still couldn't get the chalk circles to
completely wrap around the holes.
Think about it. |