Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Thursday, July 02, 2009

As a judge I have long held a front row seat to the wreckage left behind by our culture of disposable marriage and casual divorce. No-fault divorce was a response to a very real problem. The social and legal landscape that preceded it largely prevented casual divorce, but it often trapped people in abusive marriages. But no-fault divorce's broad acceptance as an unquestioned social good helped usher in an era that fundamentally altered the seriousness with which marriage is viewed.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

"But no-fault divorce's broad acceptance as an unquestioned social good helped usher in an era that fundamentally altered the seriousness with which marriage is viewed."

Oh No! This sort of Opinion will not stand with the Great Defenders of Marriage!
The Fundamentalist will defend their right to marry and divorce with Impunity to any silly notion of adhering to a Covenant Before God!

Till Death Do us Part, in Good and in Bad, To Honor and Cherish ---- all just libruuul bullshit meant to undermine "christianity"!

People get bored. They're lazy. Relationships are an ongoing project, requiring constant maintenance. I've been married 18 years, and there have been plenty of challenges, believe me.

The judge makes some good points, particularly about the importance of fathers and the shameful decline of responsibility on the part of many of them. But I'm not sure making divorce more difficult is the answer.

Damned activist judges!

Sincerely;

Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich.

CBOB: You don't have to stay/be married to be a good parent. Staying in a marriage doesn't make you a good parent.

I watched a documentary about transgendered folks in Iran. Under their Islamic law you can't be gay, but the state will pay for gender reassignment. It seems many of the men to women transgendered folks wind up in prostitution. And in the Islamic Republic, prostitution requires that the hooker and John get legally married for an hour. Then they get legally divorced.

It never ceases to amaze me the bullshit of which people can convince themselves in the name of religion.

I really didn't see the point of this article -beyond stating the obvious, of course. Having grown up in a single parent household way back before they were the norm, I understand the pain of divorce on kids. On the other hand, I can't deny that getting me away from my father was the most loving and bravest act my mother ever committed on my behalf, and I'm far better off because of it.

Marriage is only sacred when legislating to homosexuals. For Christians: "Hey government. You stay out of our business. You have no say on whether or not I can marry or divorce. That's between god and i."

Till Death Do us Part, in Good and in Bad, To Honor and Cherish ---- all just libruuul bullshit meant to undermine "christianity"!

#1 | Posted by Redneckville

Exactly well put.

Words I'm sure either,exact or in context you didn't utter before you heard the words- "You are now man and wife"

#3


rwd

Maybe getting married should be as hard (BUT JUST NOT AS PAINFUL) as getting divorced.

The problem is people get married for all the wrong reasons.
When it is love, considerations such as financial security, looks, social standing, class and other superficial demands cannot and do not exist.

As it stands, marriage is a commodity. The minute it becomes too uncomfortable, the weight of its real demands too difficult to shoulder, it is tossed for a better shot at happiness.

Throw in the fact that divorce judges run kangaroo courts, dumping the weight of responsability onto the man, with generous benefits to the woman. This is why they force men to support children that are not theirs, allow women to claim rights to a mans sperm, and a whole host of absurdities.
If a divorce is granted, it should be 50/50, with both parties having to prove they are carrying equal weight and responsability, shared custody, reciprocal child support. I would also remove lawyers from the picture. They are nothing but an financial drain on the family and are often the instigators of extreme hostility.
My wife and I are married until death parts us. I am quite certain that which ever of us passes first, the other will pass shortly after of a broken heart. Of this, I have no doubt.

Love is not easy, but it does last forever.

Not to be a prick, but this womans brother clearly was not the man she, or he, thought. Perhaps, in fact, he was only a man in body, and that is truly sad. I know of many males, but few true men. Having a cock and muscle do not complete that package.

"My wife and I are married until death parts us. I am quite certain that which ever of us passes first, the other will pass shortly after of a broken heart. Of this, I have no doubt."

Lots of men say this, and to them, it happens. But you should see the gender disparity at any senior center/ retirement home. 70/30 female to male.

It'd make the old television show "Divorce Court" have a comeback. P.I.'s and attorneys would get some more lively cases, too.

This should be a huge issue for homosexuals since there is a high promiscuity rate amongst them....marriage may loose the luster.

#6 | Posted by memyselfini at 2009-07-02 03:47 PM | Reply | Flag:Knee Jerk Jerk......Hates Libr00lz sooooo bad-automatically reacts..to ANYTHING-with hatred.

Yeah! Those fucking Gays and all their divorces! They're ruining it for all of us hetero Xians.

#4 - Never said it did, Northguy. Of course you can be a good parent without being married. And of course there are happy, healthy families with only one parent. I've known plenty. But on the whole, when plausible, it's better for the kids to grow up in a two-parent family. Whether they're actually married or not is not my concern.

The decades-long decline of two-parent households, particularly in housing projects and other poor neighborhoods, is a major factor in the dysfunction in many of those neighborhoods. Boys are already filled with testosterone, and with no father around, who's their role model? Other fatherless teens? The guy with the flashy car? Dude hanging out at the liquor store?

My dad was the disciplinarian in my house. He didn't put up with foolishness. He was the bad cop to my good cop mom.

People need to acknowledge the value of two-parent families and stop pretending it doesn't matter.

"...This should be a huge issue for homosexuals since there is a high promiscuity rate amongst them....marriage may loose the luster...#12 | Posted by Liberty

Time for the Daily Moron award....

Hey, Moron: Promiscuity is only high among single people, GAY OR STRAIGHT.

Or haven't you been hitting all those SPRING BREAKS around the world for high school and colleges kids?

Or maybe Mardis Gras world wide, you know, where the women give it up for necklace beads?

Gays and Straights in relationships tend to behave monogomous, more so in the Gay community because we have to continuously fight to keep that relationship strong against a wall of B.S. from straights, like you Moron.

But if you want real promiscuity figures, Go ask Mark Sanford for it. He'll set you up with Vitter or Gingrich.

I should clarify. I don't know that divorce per se is the main problem. Divorced parents can do a reasonable job raising their kids. The bigger issue is men who just don't even attempt to be a father, whether because of divorce or because they just never did to begin with. These days there's no social taboo to having a kid out of wedlock (or at least, um, commitment-lock), and I think there should be.

Children need loving parents. It's wrong to neglect your child. And too many men neglect their kids.

what hate are you speaking of. I've always said if Christians want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage, forget about restricting homosexual, concentrate on problems with divorce.

And too many men neglect their kids.
#17 | Posted by cbob

Just as true among women. There's more to being a good parent than being the primary custodian.

Of course I say this as my 20 month old sits in front of the TV. But its Sesame Street, so I tell myself its okay.

End state sponsored control of cohabitation altogether. Get married in the church if you want.

Hey Frank, gotta throw that knee jerk flag right back at you. I think you missed the sarcasism.

And I must agree with Dumpling as far as promiscuity. For every gay bar in my town there are 20 straight bars with people getting wasted and having random hook ups.

Agreed.

Sorry, but gays didn't start AIDS.

I have alwsys wondered how AIDS was introduced to the gay community? Could it have been for form of biological warefare from someone from the religious community to proved God hates homosexuals. Remember the lovely chants from Christains during the 80's "AIDS is god's punishment for gays".

I didn't the gays STARTED aids.

I said it was first detected in the gay community.

Ok I didn't state it as such.

It first cropped up in the gay community in New York City.

It was called gay cancer at the time because they didn't know what it was until later.


rwd


So let me get this straight, AIDS is your proof that homosexuals are more promiscuious. What about herpes, crabs, syphalus, frat houses, ect?

The only group I can say for sure are most promiscuious are really good looking people.

Oh man,...read my posts.

I made no such claim.

It got dumped already so it's a no issue.


rwd

The only group I can say for sure are most promiscuous are really good looking people.


I find that to be a completely false statement.


rwd

Having see several women in my past traipse into the sunset with other dudes 35 to 45 years ago, I can say without fear of contradiction that divorce is literally a bitch.

And yet it wasn't divorce that screwed up the offspring. It was their choices. And I'm not sure that anyone forced to stay in a loveless - yes, hating - relationship would have changed that. herm

The government shall have NO say in my reasons/efforts for divorce.

NEVER, it is my choice and mine ALONE.

Hey Chicken, would you agree the government should have no say in who gets married or not as well?

#31 | Posted by memyselfini

I have no problem with gay couples having the same legal rights as hetro couples, i.e. survivor benefits, etc, none whatsoever. The problem I have is where will this lead us? Polygamy, a man/woman marrying a 13 y/o boy or girl, a Dad/Daughter marriage, a Mother/Son marriage, Brother/Sister marriage? I realize this is a stretch but it could happen. Before we take the first step we should always look to see where steps 3, 4, and 5 will lead us.

#32 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-07-02 09:48 PM

Good points you made, Chickenrancher

you are comparing legal activity (homosexuality) with illegal activity (polygomy/ statuatory rape. Not necessarily a valid comparison

Chris, the blind support tool.

Chickenfucker is just listing all his personal perversions. Pay no attention to the old fart, he has an extra wide load in his Depends tonight and the attendant on his ward is taking a nap behind the dumpster again.

#34 | Posted by memyselfini

Homosexuality was illegal not too long ago. Who is to say these other activities will not be legal in the near future? Adults marrying minors was legal in the past.

Before we take the first step we should always look to see where steps 2, 3, 4, and 5 will lead us.

#36 | Posted by axe

Typical "progressive" I do not like what you say so I will talk shit about you. Nice try princess.

Chickenrancher

The slippery slope theory is for idiots. You qualify. WHY? If you think all of America will stand up for marrying 13 year old children, you are a fucking idiot. To use such a comparison for stopping gay rights shows you simply have shit for brains. Other than that, I'm sure you are a decent guy.

Pay no attention to the old fart,

#36 | Posted by axe

I see you are into age discrimination. How progressive of you.

#39 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

An intelligent person always looks forward. Thanks for the "fucking idiot" comment. Progressive all the way.

Typical "progressive" I do not like what you say so I will talk shit about you. Nice try princess.

#38 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-07-02 10:29 PM | Reply | Flag

It's called Free Speech--as opposed to the conservative way of attacking a persons job and livelihood if they don't like what the opposition is saying.

Liberals of Free Speech:

I do not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.

Conservatives on Free Speech:

Say that again, and I'll ruin your life. I'll boycott your goods, your business, slander your name, and tell any lie to smear your reputation.

If you think all of America will stand up for marrying 13 year old children,

#39 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

No I do not think "all of America" will stand up for it. Just like California, the most liberal state, voted down gay marriage did not. But that was not my point, but you failed to miss it.

Say that again, and I'll ruin your life. I'll boycott your goods, your business, slander your name, and tell any lie to smear your reputation.

#42 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Typical progressive. You must be the life of the party.

An intelligent person always looks forward.

#41 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-07-02 10:34 PM | Reply | Flag:


You have no concept of what an intelligent person does. An intelligent person look to the future with things that are possible. They don't come up with the nonsense you post. What intelligent person would think that America will suddenly want adults to be able to marry 13 year old children? No intelligent person I know would think of such nonsense. What intelligent person would think that Americans would suddenly crave more than one wife or one husband? No intelligent person would ever think such a thing.

That means you. That means you aren't an intelligent person for projecting such an idiotic future if gays are allowed to marry.

Your hatred of fellow Americans and freedom in general shows that citizenship is wasted on you. Too bad it can't be given to an individual who embraces America and freedom.

Chickenfucker,

'OLD FART' is a state of mind, not a chronological condition.

Your postings peg you as a stereotypical old fart. You may be 13 or 83, it doesn't matter. You are and will always be an old fart with a full load, while you bitch and moan and HOPE someone will be along soon AND CHANGE your diaper.

Chickenrancher takes things out of context to make a new lie--typical republican behavior. That America supports someone like you is the worst irony.

#45 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

#46 | Posted by axe

You both make me laugh. Too funny.

I am a vet who actually fought for his country, I am sure neither of you are.

Your attempts at degrading me to make yourselves feel better makes me laugh.

And you Father smelled of elderberries.

Good points you made, Chickenrancher

What good points? Seriously, the only "good" point is that heterosexual marriage was the first step on that slippery slope. I suppose the second step was the ever popular "I got mine, so screw you" followed by the rationalization of the "majority wins!"

#47 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

"a new lie--typical republican behavior"

I am a registered dem and have been since I was able, longer than you I would think. The difference is I am not a lemming.

Chicken, they seem to have a point about your rationale. I'm sure it works on the bigoted crowd though

#51 | Posted by memyselfini

Please explain?

Chris, the blind support tool.

#35 | Posted by memyselfini at 2009-07-02 10:24

Bull. I'm no one's blind support tool
Chickenrancher was correct in stating that if one type of marriage is allowed (say, gay marriage) it can easily lead to a slippery slope to other types of marriages as he stated below:

Homosexuality was illegal not too long ago. Who is to say these other activities will not be legal in the near future? Adults marrying minors was legal in the past.

I happen to catch a show last night about a Morman family of about 40 plus wives who had about 75 children -- all 40 plus wives were married to ONE wealthy businessman here in the U.S. who refused to identify himself on camera although his wives all did.

Sorry, it was WEIRD. I do not believe in polygamy with 3 wives let alone more than 40. And talk about confused kids!

So who is to stop polygamists from demanding they too have the right to marry legally if gays can marry? As ChickenRancher stated -- slippery slope. It needs to at least be checked out legally if we are opening a door to every kind of marriage where anyone can scream "discrimination" if they are not allowed to wed.

The Mormons are already in the court litigation process to open marriage to include polygamy--have been with the help of the ACLU.


www.worldnetdaily.com

I am a vet who actually fought for his country,

You may be a vet, but you didn't fight for this country. You hate this country and the FREEDOM it represents. You know nothing of this country or freedom.

I am sure neither of you are.

As usual, your brain is on the wrong track. You are mistaken.

Your attempts at degrading me to make yourselves feel better makes me laugh.

I'm not attempting to degrade you---you do that all by yourself. I am simply telling the truth about you.

#48 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-07-02 10:47 PM | Reply | Flag

Say that again, and I'll ruin your life. I'll boycott your goods, your business, slander your name, and tell any lie to smear your reputation.

#42 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob


That's what the gays did to Americans in CA after Prop 8 was passed.


#54 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-07-02 11:02 PM | Reply | Flag Lying ASS

Mormons aren't even mentioned in your link.

That's what the gays did to Americans in CA after Prop 8 was passed.

#56 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-07-02 11:04 PM | Reply | Flag Lying CUNT

Lying cunt is accurate for someone who takes my words out of context.

Lots of men say this, and to them, it happens. But you should see the gender disparity at any senior center/ retirement home. 70/30 female to male.

#10 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine


Couldn't that be the case because men die earlier than women?

In fact married men live longer--if the stats are the same as I recall.

That's what the gays did to Americans in CA after Prop 8 was passed.

#56 | Posted by MURPHY

We are Americans too, Murphy.

58 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-02 11:08 PM

If you keep on calling Murphy a "lying cunt" you're going to get a swift kick in your Buffalobehind!


Do you feel better now getting caught in your BS?


The gays targeted, boycotted, smeared reputations, protested out in front of businesses, and really went after anyone who they perceived as voting for Prop 8.

So don't get on some high horse and attack conservatives for Freedom of Speech issues.

---------

Mormons aren't even mentioned in your link.

#57 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob


Who do you think practices polygamy BB?

Yes, the second part of that epithet is very inappropriate. The first part is oft proven.

We are Americans too,...

#60 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-07-02 11:08 PM

I know you are, SanAntonioRogue, and it's gays like you who make it hard for those like me to vote "no" about gay marriage as I respect you from all I've seen from you here on DR.

It's the old word "marriage" again instead of "civil unions"

But if for some reason gay marriage passes, I'll try and accept it and "dance at your wedding"!

But I won't vote for it as long as y'all insist on calling it a "marriage." I'll just leave it at that as I know neither of us will change our minds but we can each respect the other's opinion.

CC - I've said many times before that I believe the legal aspect of the union between a couple - the piece of paper that bestows the governmental civil and legal rights and responsibilities should be a "Civil Union", and be the same for all couples, regardless of gender.

"Marriage" should be the term reserved for the religious blessing upon that union. There are many churches who already do that for same-sex couples. But those who chose not to shouldn't have to. And you have the right to choose your church, so if you don't approve of same-sex marriage, choose a church that does not sanction them.

Many European countries have used that system for years.

I've read your idea on it before, but many people want only a "marriage" and not a "civil union" and then another ceremony in the Church. All must get a marriage license beforehand but most people want a "marriage" only. Not have to go have a "civil union" and then have to go over to a Church for another ceremony. Obtain a marriage license and then have a marriage ceremony -- that's what the majority of this country wants right now.

I think if you gays want to make strides then accept the civil union and drop pushing marriage for now. Maybe then when more people have accepted gays having civil unions, it might be easier for others to come around an vote your way.

All must get a marriage license beforehand ...

#66 | Posted by CalifChris

Exactly CC! You have to do that anyway, so why not take 5 minutes to execute the legal document while you're there. Then proceed to have the religious blessing ceremony of your choice - or none at all.

Did you know that more civil marriages are performed now than religious ones. So people are going to city hall, getting their license, and being married by JP's, or other civil authorities.

Gee, did I scare off BBob with my threat to kick his Buffalobehind?

Come back, BBob. I don't bite. ♥

Have to do some other stuff now anyway so it's safe to come out. lol


Did you know that more civil marriages are performed now than religious ones. So people are going to city hall, getting their license, and being married by JP's, or other civil authorities.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-07-02


Probably also why there are more divorces than ever now too.

Less people receiving the Sacrament of Marriage in church combined with higher than ever divorce rates. It appears less people take their wedding vows as seriously anymore when they don't marry in church. How else can you account for the higher divorce rates.

What is the difference among two dudes doing it in a bath house without ever knowing each other's name, two women doing it after meeting at a sapphic bar never to meet again and a man and a woman doing it until they just want to switch partners?
Nothing. The basic problem has little to do with the pairings and everything to do with the premise of the pairings. That is the problem.

Probably also why there are more divorces than ever now too.

Less people receiving the Sacrament of Marriage in church combined with higher than ever divorce rates. It appears less people take their wedding vows as seriously anymore when they don't marry in church. How else can you account for the higher divorce rates.

#69 | Posted by CalifChris

Maybe so, but that wasn't the point. The point is that you already have to go to city hall to get a marriage license because it is that piece of paper that grants the civil and legal rights the government bestows on married couples.

It doesn't matter whether the marriage is performed by a judge, a JP, a guy who got a certificate from the Internet, or an ordained Clergy person.

So let the signing of that license by the parties involved and witnessed and validated by a civil authority there be the "civil union" that provides all the legal rights to couples, regardless of gender.

Then, if you desire, go have the wonderful church wedding of your dreams and get the religious sanction.

Who do you think practices polygamy BB?

#62 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-07-02 11:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Mormons do not teach Polygamy. You slander them with your ignorance. Mormons are not trying to get the ACLU to promote or get polygamy legalized. That is the ACLU's stance, not the Mormons.

If you were any kind of decent human being, you would apologize for lying. How about some links to Mormons promoting polygamy.

Murphy. Buffalo Bob is correct. The LDS Church long ago condemned that practice. I got mad at that pipsqueak from Arkansas when he attacked Mitt Romney for being Mormon. It is an active and particularly nasty prejudice the "emlightened" just can not admit is a bigotry. It is a nasty one. Avoid it.

How else can you account for the higher divorce rates.

#69 | Posted by CalifChris

There is far more mobility and opportunity for women. Most women won't put up with the bullshit of their mothers and grandmothers went through with their husbands. Many men are still caught up in the macho bullshit of the fifties--it is a hard mold to break.

It has zero to do with church and religion. Decades ago when women found it hard to get a job, and were considered little more than large children mentally---they were pretty much stuck with the man they married, and they were pretty much forced to marry if possible. With no options, they stayed married to men and perpetuated the roles we are trying to break today.

Everything changes and evolves--even marriage. One man and one woman--the "traditional" christian model--wasn't traditional until the 700's---it sure didn't start with Adam and Eve--who were never married anyway. That marriages and the concept of family evolves can be seen in the bible--polygamy is considered normal. That the concept of family and raising children will change in the future is inevitable, and dictated by the forces of society.

If something happened to most of the males on the planet, I doubt the remaining males would be restricted to just one female---by society's demands.

This is why Rio is such a popular destination. Along with the Philippines.


Cause and effect. Fuck American bitches.

#74 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-03 01:29 AM

I read your entire post and it contained many truths.

However, I think many people, men and women, see our customs and traditions slipping away at such a fast pace with all these pushes for change -- including changes to marriage and what was always considered the "norm" -- it creates resentment and uneasy feelings.

Redefining "traditional marriage" to now include all sorts of combinations takes away the feeling of "security" that tradition and custom usually brings.

I think you had a valid point when you stated:

...That the concept of family and raising children will change in the future is inevitable, and dictated by the forces of society....

But I feel it will still be much further down the road before you see it happening. Later, rather than sooner.

People are not going to easily give up thousands of years of tradition to accomodate what, to them, are the much more unconventional (and radical?) ideas of a few.

Cause and effect. Fuck American bitches.
#75 | Posted by fresno500

Also why there's so much SIDA in those places too.

Phillipines and Rio say, "Thanks for nothing, American bitches."



This Judge should mind their own fucking business.

This should be a huge issue for homosexuals since there is a high promiscuity rate amongst them....marriage may loose the luster.

#12 | Posted by Liberty at 2009-07-02 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag:


Have you ever stopped to think why Gay men might be much more promiscuous than Gay women?

It all comes down to sex-drive and the removal of any of that 'I need to feel loved' stuff typical with many women. I have several friends that are gay and they said that they can get laid all the time because men share the same sex drive as them.

"we must do everything in our power to restore and preserve dignity and marals to the American family/marriage".

~ David Vitter

President of the Louisiana Family Forum

I wonder if Vitter was wearing a diaper when he said that.

Hard on kids & parents yes, but part of free choice also.

The Judge is way off the mark. Much of that hardship, for ordinary people, is rooted in the sinister transition of a System of Justice into worship of the Business Model, with only insiders being winners. Family Law also parallels the Criminal Justice System in many ways that does permanent damage to once warm family relationships.

Redefining "traditional marriage" to now include all sorts of combinations takes away the feeling of "security" that tradition and custom usually brings.

Only if you're attached to one definition of that tradition and you are unwilling/unable to change it.

The intrusion of homosexuals and the homosexual agenda on discussions of matters to which they are basically unrelated is fascinating. Here we have an article concerning the effect of divorce on parents and children, and a human tragedy, and what wh have is homosexuals appropriating the discussion saying "Look at me and my situation." Well, goody for you, fringe folks. You have your own problems, but they are not generally conception of children, and the subsequent parent-child relationship.

You folks and your disabilities are not central to everyone other person's life. You are nettlesome folks with a problem in that you somehow are cursed with a biology that is not compatible with your psychological organization. I'm sorry for you. So go. Maybe a better oriented discussion would be "Should homosexuals return to the closet?" with the exception of course, of those in fashion and hairdressing and arts and the like, who provide an insight into folks with different strokes. Go do your own things with your own folks. Stop trying tof affect and really mutilate normal interactions in civil society by intruding your problems as something that everone else needs to accommodate..

#78 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-07-04 04:32 AM

This Judge should mind their own fucking business.

Come on now, CommonSense, are you sure that you're not Obama posting in mufti. This confusion of use of the singular and the plural frequently occurs in writings identified as Obama's and not those of his pal Bill Ayers, or some ghost writer. The Obama presented to us is a phony.

"Should homosexuals return to the closet?" with the exception of course, of those in fashion and hairdressing and arts and the like, who provide an insight into folks with different strokes.

Saint John Holmes

ff

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable