This rather bizarre combination of headline and photo caught my eye. It turns out that JaySays is upset with Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers' proposed House Concurrent Resolution 285, "Recognizing the important role that fathers play in the lives of their children and families and supporting the goals and ideals of designating 2010 as the Year of the Father," along with her anti-progressive voting record.
McMorris Rodgers submitted the resolution along with Washington Representatives Reichert, Smith, Larsen and Hastings. The text of the resolution starts out with some history about Father's Day and overall seems pretty harmless. But then these two clauses are added near the end:
Whereas it is well documented that children involved with loving fathers are significantly more likely to have healthy self-esteems, exhibit empathy and prosocial behavior, avoid high risk behaviors, have reduced antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys, have better peer relationships, and have higher occupational mobility relative to parents;
A nice sentiment, but not all fathers are loving fathers. Is the reason the U.S. imprisons more people than any other country the fault of those non-loving fathers? And what about the girls? Are loving fathers helpless in that area? What the heck is "higher occupational mobility relative to parents" and why is it so desirable?
Whereas fathers who live with their children are more likely to have a close, enduring relationship with their children than those who do not;
These feel-good resolutions are useful, especially when you have nothing better to do than wait around for someone to give you a good idea.