I haven't read the new book, but I've read enough Hitchens in the past to know that it's absolutely impossible for Hitchens to criticize anything or anyone without calling it stupid, or at least implying it (with the corollary that only stupid people wouldn't notice).

Atheist here, but attacking God is nothing new - at least the Mother Theresa article made me straighten up a bit. Lately we've gotten this glut of books on why religion is stupid. Well, yes. But as an atheist, I only had the patience to read one - and that was Carl Sagan's elegant refutation of pseudoscience and superstition...THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD. Read a book on evolution to get the rest of you covered, and then you can move on with your life.

...this is for other atheists, by the way. In my experience, open-minded theists at least have a slight understanding of evolution and close-minded theists are so very opposed to anything that contradicts their world view that they'd never consider reading Dawkins, Hitchens, Sagan, or a 10th grade Biology text....

Golly, that's two. I apologize. No doubt Americans sleep through evolution explanations because they know it all already.

I'm a current undergrad. I can't say I appreciate hook-up culture very much - although I might change my mind if an amazing cunnilingus trend sweeps American campuses - but a lot of the distaste the older generations have for the current state of things has to do with an unconscious setting for "traditional" dating culture. It's like hanging out with someone whose parents were strict teetotalers. Even if they drink, they're always keeping this other idea of "right" in their heads.

For hook-up culture, it's much the same. You could come up with a million reasons why Americans seem more unhappy (although I think there's some connection to the increase in number of times people ask), but it's not fair to blame it on recent trends in screwing.

Even if we decide that the young nymphos are just desperate for attention, there is no harm in safe, consensual sex. The importance of virginity is a ridiculously dated notion, and the only "hos" who will suffer from their promiscuity are the ones who still believe that sex is dirty and shameful.

If you don't believe in this silliness about sexual purity, you have more options. And if someone gets their kicks - even if its just a short bit of attention - from "meaningless" sex, what's the problem? Half the country thinks you're a slut? I'm underwhelmed. Time has proven, over and over again, that at least half the country is full of idiots. Stick to the people who can think from step one (virginity does not need to be guarded like the Star of India) to step two (promiscuity, even when conducted in a way you find personally tasteless, will not lead to a young woman's ruin).

Mindset is the problem. Shame is the problem. And, sometimes, having sex with stupid people is the problem. (But you'll probably make that mistake no matter how many partners you take.)

...is getting so much bad press I feel obliged to speak up. I quite like the stuff - the Cheesecake ice cream especially - but I don't go there very often. The only way to avoid getting sick is if you've a) eaten light foods that day and b) get the smallest version available. (Which most ice cream lovers accept is a challenge in itself.)

As for the ice cream being "wrong" somehow for making you ill...eh, I'm not buying it. For many people, especially frozen yogurt partisans, it might be too sweet. But I don't think it's been studded with any more chemicals than most of what people eat (unless you are a very strict, organic-only consumer). The key here is that it is really, really rich - and punishes even slight over-eating. But you know what? Overdosing on homemade ice cream has the same effect.

Perhaps Zacharek is thinking of Hollywood 16/18, which means late 20s. I'd easily believe those characters for that age.

I read Nancy Drew when I was very young, during that 2-year girlhood period of nonstop series reading (Babysitters' Club, then Nancy Drew, then Sweet Valley High...all before Madeleine L'Engle saved me). I had great fun at the time, and of course forgot all about them until I caught the first season of Veronica Mars.

What contrast! And what a time to bring it up, now that it seems Veronica Mars is gone forever. I don't know that I'd've enjoyed the show in first grade, but in my late teens I could immediately appreciate that this was everything I wanted but never quite found in a female fiction hero. This emboldened outcast who used disarming wit and almost casual brilliance to keep a hostile township in line?!

The Nancy Drew comparison was pretty natural; brilliant blond teen sleuths solve mysteries at a fairly predictable pace. But Nancy Drew was always effortlessly perfect; even the "corrected" Nancy Drew of my youth, the one with flaws and jealous friends, led a charmed life compared to Veronica. And even "modern" Nancy wouldn't be tough enough to do what Veronica did.

But I guess we're a nation for underdogs, because Zacharek's review suggests that perfect Nancy has undergone a sort of fall from grace just like Veronica did. I'll embrace the underdog cliche, and add a little "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger." By making Nancy a misfit, even if we don't perceive a huge difference in the presentation of the character, we get a big change of potential and backstory. Could this Nancy be tough? Frothy or no, I wouldn't mind an exploration; it's not like we have Veronica anymore.

My disturbingly thorough inner dialog also occurs between my I.C. and I.M.. You don't live in NOLA, do you? I'll be your friend!