A woman received a note when she picked up her 3-year-old child from nursery school: “Your son is immature for his age.”
The mother sent a note with the boy the next week, “If you can’t be immature at 3, when can you be?”
In childhood, we remember the child who shouted, “I was safe at first! I’m taking my ball and bat and going home!” Most of us have learned to leave childish, immature behavior behind as we aged. Some, however, cherish their immaturity too much to discard it.
Sometimes it is difficult to know when to fight. It is even more difficult to be a good loser when the fight is lost. Who has not seen grown adults disgrace themselves with temper tantrums, insidious tactics or child-like spite? It is disheartening to see this same scenario in Washington, D.C. We see it all too frequently.
Remember when the Democrats stalled to prevent voting on George W. Bush’s judicial nominees in 2005? They knew that if a vote was taken, they could not block the appointments. I remember thinking how unethical and infantile such behavior was. We elect our legislators to act on our behalf, not stall. If a certain party or viewpoint loses, let them lose fair and square and move on.
That was when I first remember hearing about the “nuclear option.” Wikipedia defines the “nuclear option” as “a generic term for a set of hypothetical parliamentary maneuvers that could be used in the United States Senate to achieve approval of certain motions by a majority vote, rather than the ‘super-majority’ required by current Senate rules and precedents. The nuclear option has arisen in reaction to the frequent use of Senate rules by a minority of Senators to block consideration of a nominee for an Executive Branch or judicial position (or less frequently, a bill or resolution).”