On Saturday, Dwight’s family came down for a visit. We hung out in Norman for the afternoon, first a trip to the Sam Noble Natural History Museum, and then to lunch. After lunch, Dwight’s dad wanted to go for ice cream, so we suggested the big Russell Stover shop in Moore. Dwight and I had never been in there, and were curious to check it out.

After browsing the enormous selection of candy and feeling ourselves slowly becoming diabetic, we made our way to the ice cream counter and placed our orders. While we waited, I suddenly realized which song was playing through the in-store speakers and began laughing uncontrollably. What song was it?

Marcy Playground’s “Sex and Candy.”

Either this was a coincidence of hilarious proportions, or those Russell Stover people have a wicked sense of humor.

Today marks the 30th anniversary of Star Wars.

In 100 words or less, please tell us how Star Wars has changed your life.

Or something like that.

I spent several years working as a Child Support Specialist for DHS, and two of those years were in the wild and crazy world of Paternity Establishment. My days were spent mediating between the mother and putative father, sending everyone to the phlebotomist for genetic testing (if necessary) and then haggling over the child support arrearages. Never a dull moment.

In that time, I heard my fair share of amusing, interesting, and sometimes depressing stories as to why “the kid is not my son,” but this one takes the cake:

Twin brothers Raymon and Richard Miller are the father and uncle to a 3-year-old little girl. The problem is, they don’t know which is which. Or who is who.

The identical Missouri twins say they were unknowingly having sex with the same woman. And according to the woman’s testimony, she had sex with each man on the same day. Within hours of each other.

When the woman in question, Holly Marie Adams, got pregnant, she named Raymon the father, but he contested and demanded a paternity test, bringing his own brother Richard to court.

But a paternity test in this case could not help. The test showed that both brothers have over a 99.9 percent probability of being the daddy— and neither one wants to pay the child support.

I still keep in touch with many current and former Child Support workers, and needless to say, this story has spread through our inboxes (and the inboxes of others) with a pandemic-like fury. I’ve never heard of a case quite like this one, and some interesting debate has been spawned regarding the legal ramifications of such a scenario.

However, one comment that was shared with me left me temporarily speechless:

It is another example of the government shoving decisions down someone’s throat. I think it is irrelevant who is the father. The mother knowingly and willfully slept with both. She must have known the repercussions of what would happen if she got pregnant. Even if she didn’t think this far along, “ignorance is no excuse of the law.” Therefore, I think she should be responsible for her own child support. There is no way an innocent person should pay for the woman’s stupidity, greed, and lack of morals. If she was kinky enough to sleep with identical twins…it’s a kink thing. She should be held 100% libel for being kinky. The two identical twin brothers should be held free since there is no burden of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Say what?

I don’t believe this particular comment came from a Child Support worker – I can’t imagine anyone who has spent even one day in the field having such a callous (and dare I say idiotic?) opinion. Although I know there are plenty of people like this out there, I still find myself stunned when I hear such blatantly misogynistic drivel. Surely this must be a joke.

I agree that the woman clearly should have exercised better judgment in preventing an unintended pregnancy, but I highly doubt she forced these guys to have sex with her. I’m curious as to how this commenter came to the conclusion that these men are such innocent victims. Astounding how some people’s minds work, isn’t it?

I also agree that “ignorance is no excuse,” but doesn’t it seem unfair to solely blame the woman? Last I checked, it took a little something called “sperm” to get yourself knocked up. And why is it that her morals called into question, but not the men’s? According to the article, both brothers refuse to have anything to do with the child. Whatever you want to say about the mother and her irresponsible behavior, it seems at least as irresponsible, and even more morally reprehensible, to behave as these men have in the aftermath.

I just feel sorry for the poor kid. She didn’t ask for any of this.

In just 9 days, Sarah and I are going to grasp hands, hold our breaths, and plunge into the perilous waters known as Script Frenzy.

Script Frenzy is a script-writing competition from the same people who put on NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writing Month). There are 5 Basic Rules to the competition:

1) To be crowned an official Script Frenzy winner, you must write a script of at least 20,000 words and verify this word count on ScriptFrenzy.org.
2) You may write individually or in teams of two. Writer teams will have a 20,000 total word goal for their single co-written script.
3) Script writing may begin no earlier than 12:00:01 AM on June 1 and must cease no later than 11:59:59 PM on June 30, local time.
4) You may write either a screenplay or a stage play.
5) You must, at some point, have ridiculous amounts of fun.

We’re going to partner on a screenplay for which we’ve already got a basic story idea that we’re toying with. But, neither of us has written a screenplay before. Neither of us has written anything this long before. It’s going to be ridiculous in at least one way, that’s for sure.

I just finished listening to a Diane Rehm podcast about the Religious Right. The guests were John Green of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention and former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie.

Okay. I have questions. Lots of questions. Nothing new, nothing terribly sophisticated, but I’ve been a Slacker Blogger lately and need a decent post with which to soothe my guilty conscience. Let’s get started.

1. Do religious conservatives really believe all this about “the coarsening of our culture?” I’m not even entirely sure what they mean by this phrase. What exactly is causing this so-called “coarsening?” Is it abortion? Gay marriage? Hollywood? Is our culture in decline because we don’t live in a country where everything is 100% Christian-approved, 100% of the time? Is it a Christian theocracy that they want? Really?

Like many aspects of religious conservatives’ pet issues, I find a certain measure of hypocrisy and cherry-picking here. For instance, I fail to see how statements such as the following don’t, in their own special way, contribute to a “coarsening of our culture”:

“AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”

–Jerry Falwell

“God is tolerant and loving, but we can’t keep sticking our finger in his eye forever. If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them.”

–Pat Robertson, after Dover, PA voters decided not to teach intelligent design in public school science classes

God may be tolerant and loving, but Pat Robertson sure doesn’t seem to be. And maybe he should’ve gotten together with Jerry Falwell, whose version of God seems to mesh up a little better with Robertson’s personal outlook.

Finally, for all the outrage over homosexuals, evolutionists, feminists and the ACLU, where is the outrage over divorce and adultery? Where is the call for action to fight things like intolerance, ignorance and hypocrisy? If you’re going to complain about the decline of western civilization, I think you need to consider all factors, not just the ones you find most convenient.

2. What’s with the Hillary Clinton hatred? Clinton’s name was mentioned repeatedly during the show, usually in the context that most socially conservative voters would vote for Satan himself before voting for her. I’m not a big fan of Senator Clinton’s, but what did she do that was so awful? Is it because she’s married to Bill? Is it because she’s a viable female candidate, and these people can’t stand the thought of a woman president? It certainly can’t be because she’s “liberal,” because she’s not. Both Clintons, at least from my perspective, fall solidly into the “moderate Democrat” category.

When posed with this question, Land said it’s because of her “policies,” but Hillary Clinton doesn’t strike me as being that much different from any of half-a-dozen other Democratic candidates. So why is she the whipping girl of the Religious Right? Which policies of hers are so offensive? Surely they’re not referring to her misguided attempt at health care reform. That was like, 15 years ago.

3. There has been some change lately within the Religious Right with regards to their pet political issues. Some notable evangelical leaders, like Rick Warren, are beginning to add issues like climate change and poverty to the Christian agenda. However, Green seemed to think that for most social conservative voters, these issues don’t have anything on the good ole’ standbys: abortion and homosexuality. That’s what gets people to the polls.

When is the rest of the movement going to catch up? Can someone please, once and for all, explain to me how a 19-year old girl having an abortion or two guys getting married is more important than how we treat our planet and poor people? No one is making you have an abortion. No one is forcing you to become homosexual. But we all have to share this planet. It’s all we have. Don’t you want to leave it in decent condition for your children and grandchildren? Don’t you want them to live in a clean, healthy and safe world? But then again, I’m sure most of you are pretty sure that you’re all going to be beamed up to Heaven sometime in the next 10 or 20 years, so what does it matter, right? Just so long as public school science classes are “teaching the controversy.”

4. Finally, why can’t anyone on the Religious Right seem to give a straight answer to any of these questions? None of these questions are brilliant products of my brain and my brain alone – in fact, most were asked by listeners who called in to the show. Each guest more or less dodged the questions. It’s very depressing to me when the leaders of a movement are unwilling or unable to answer the tough questions. All I want is someone to explain to me how much of the Religious Right’s agenda isn’t based on hypocrisy and bigotry.

Please. Make me understand. I’m tired of being mad at you.