if only we had enough newsprint on which to print actual premises and conclusions!

Readers have long lamented the loss of depth in newspaper stories. And while the Times, for the most part, hangs on, directing us to page A21 for a recap of all the Kurdish history we missed, at least little mini-papers like am New York (at which I love to poke fun) don't pretend to be more than they are -- free summaries of the content of a real newspaper.

This article in USA Today -- A neo-feminist's view of abstinence -- is about one-third the length it would need to be to properly make its point. For starters, what does the author mean by "neo-feminist"? Perhaps it would be useful to address existing literature on this subject (Shalit, Crittenden, and their numerous detractors). Overall, though, the article just seems to have been cut off in the middle, or edited down from a "neo-feminist" pronouncement to a facile re-statement of views already held by readers of USA Today.

Also, I object to the phrase "the sheer prolificness of sex." What the writer meant was something about the ubiquity of sex; what she ended up saying was something more like "can you believe everyone is breeding like rabbits?" which was not the intention at all.