ArticleIP_3834.txt

   
   
      
         
            

            
               A Bunch
of Hot Air
            

            There are a couple of
problems with the statistics cited in Jodie T. Allen's "Killer Air
Bags."

            First, Allen overestimates
the cost of air bags. Because each consumer only pays for the air bags in his
or her own car, the cost of each life saved is no more than the cost to the
owner of a vehicle. The total cost of an air bag is $500--this breaks down to
$166.67 per year on a three-year lease. Air bags lower insurance rates; hence,
there may be savings on the above figure. And anyway, that figure would seem to
be a rather small price to pay for additional safety.

            Second, the article states
that only 1,136 lives have been saved by air bags, while 650,000 air bags have
been deployed since 1985. However, the 1,136 figure is based only on accidents
in which death might have occurred if air bags had not been installed. It does
not take into account the number of accidents in which the injuries might have
been more serious if air bags had not been installed. It also doesn't reflect
the number of lives saved that might have been lost due to accident-related
complications.

            Restraint
systems aren't perfect, but they do offer another level of protection. Being
aware that there may be a problem with air bags will help us minimize that
problem in the future--small comfort, I know, to those who have already lost
loved ones.

            
               --Michael
Solomon
            

            
               Homo
Economicus Absurdus
            

            So, the 2.97 seconds it
takes to put on your seat belt is just too long a period to make economic
sense.

            The Brookings study Jodie T.
Allen cites in "Killer Air Bags" calls, at least implicitly, for us to assign a
value to our time, and to use that to determine the value of the total time we
spend buckling up. There are (at least) three problems with this approach:

            The first lies in the
assumption that all three-second periods are worth the same. All time was not
created equal. A three-second period before getting in the shower is worth far
less than three seconds taken from the middle of my daughter's wedding.
Buckling up always occurs between activities--we are accustomed to treating
that time between activities as a buffer period during which several small
tasks are addressed and uncertainties are guarded against. So the time, in
practice, will not be missed.

            The second, related problem
is that the value of a unit of time is partially determined by the duration of
the total period in which that unit falls. Put simply, 20 uninterrupted minutes
are worth far more than 400 individually occurring three-second periods. And
you don't get to cash in your buckle-up episodes like casino chips.

            But, as the last problem
I'll outline suggests, neither of the previous two objections matters. It only
makes sense to worry about the time it takes to put on a seat belt if it
actually results in a delay in our progress. Does it? Many of us put on our
seat belts while the car is in motion. Others do so while warming up their
cars. The rest of us can live on the edge until the first red light--when we
can buckle up in obscene leisure.

            Aside
from the problems with these basic assumptions, I was duly awed and intimidated
by the complexity of Allen's analysis.

            
               --Andrew Fano
            

            
               Swollen
Insensitivity
            

            Readers of "The Culture of
Impotence," by Franklin Foer, should know that the 13-year-old Impotence
Institute of America is neither a clinic nor a business, as was inferred by the
writer. [See Slate's correction, in last week's "Readme."] In fact, it is the only
nonprofit, nonvested health association that provides impotence education. It
sponsors 55 nationwide Impotents Anonymous chapters, which were not founded by
individual doctors, as the writer states. Our helpline (800-669-1603) provides
factual and unbiased information.

            More than 50 million
Americans are involved in relationships where the man is impotent.

            Exciting developments in
impotence treatments offer millions of these men and their partners renewed
hope for a better quality of life.

            It is
unfortunate that your writer elected to treat this topic with a flippant
disregard for the emotional stress associated with impotence. The accompanying
illustration, combined with the overall tone of the article, demonstrates a
petty insensitivity to the emotional anguish of aging. Impotence is no joke. In
an article about the loss of sexual virility among older men, we find a lack of
compassion among younger men.

            
               --Marion
Parkerpresident & chief staff executiveImpotence Institute of
America
            

            
               Erection
Injection, Yes
            

            "The Culture of
Impotence," by Franklin Foer, was humorous, but also glib and smug.
Injection therapy has truly benefited hundreds of thousands of men and
women.

            I would describe the process
like this:

            A man is engaged in
foreplay, or anticipates being so engaged soon. He excuses himself briefly,
wipes the side of his phallus with a small alcohol wipe, and uses an
auto-injector to painlessly inject a small amount of medication. Over the next
five to 15 minutes, the medicine produces heaviness in, and engorgement of, the
penis. With stimulation (visual, manual, oral, fantasy), this engorgement
becomes a normal erection, with which he can satisfy his partner and
himself.

            Having treated many hundreds
of men with this technique, I must say that it is safe, effective, and
dependable. Moreover, it costs much less than $25 per use (closer to between $5
and $10). Satisfying sexual relations have helped to keep many couples
together.

            Why do
men drop out? Poor teaching, poor motivation, lack of opportunity, and, very
rarely, a failure of the treatment itself. Although this glib and witty piece
in Slate suggests this is some sort of snake-oil therapy, it certainly is
not!

            
               --Steven Varady,
M.D.Florida Center for Impotence
            

            
               Active
Faith
            

            Stephen
Chapman's response to Andrew Sullivan is riddled with reductive thinking
and cheap rhetorical tricks. Chapman doesn't realize that revelation is not a
set of propositions one accepts, but an encounter in which one is moved beyond
oneself. It's analogous to an encounter with a work of beauty. Neither the
beauty of the artwork nor the truth of Scripture's word can be proved using
some supposedly neutral line of reasoning. Instead, both are given to human
freedom, and each calls for a choice.

            But the real question is not
what faith means, but what Chapman means by "illogical" and "without evidence."
What exactly would count as "evidence" for Chapman? Clearly, many find it very
reasonable to believe that God exists, despite their adolescent need to have it
proved to them, as if metaphysics and mathematics were the same discipline. For
these people there is evidence, but not proof persuasive enough to meet the
mythological standards of neutral rationality, a standard that no philosopher
in his right mind would defend today. Is there a rational basis for thinking
that God exists? Yes, but the answer depends on what counts as "evidence," and
what one means by "rational."

            Finally, a
note on God's concern. We can, of course, continue to ask why there is evil in
the world. But, at some point, we also have to face the fact that this is the
world we live in, a world where evil often seems to triumph, and death appears
to have the last word. In this context, the cross not only inscribes God's
concern, but also proclaims, with the resurrection, God's ultimate victory, a
victory for which we can ardently work and hope.

            
               --Anthony
Kieke-Sciglitano