One of the things that makes the drama of Shakespeare's Hamlet so compelling is the annoying trait the eponymous Prince had for attempting intrigue in the face of evidence of murder, regicide, and his clear duty. That greatest of dramatic soliloquies, "To be or not to be, that is the question" shows Hamlet's penchant for trying to be clever, when his clear duty is to act. He, and a lot of other people, die because he dithers doing that at which he is least capable, rather than taking a far more direct approach.
In the face of nearly a year's debate and discussion on a particular piece of legislation, and decades of discussion on the merits of the issue in general, NPR features a story on "Congressional Undecideds", in particular Tom Periello of Virginia. Toward the end of the story, Periello, it is said, is still undecided and will continue to read the bill before making up his mind.
At this point, after all these months of specific debate, years of general discussion, I would go to Washington, enter Rep. Periello's office, and say to him, "What the hell's your problem?" On the "question" that Periello seemed to dither for quite a while - abortion funding - the language of the bill is clear (even before the Stupak Amendment) that there will be (alas) no federal funding for abortion. Periello announces in the story that he is "satisfied" this is not the case; again, we have Hamlet having been given the facts by his dead father, dithering as to how to address the question, "What are you going to do about it?"
Speaker Pelosi is quoted in the story as saying that she does not preside over a "rubber-stamp" Congress (in contrast to recent, Republican-controlled Congresses), which is hardly the point at all. How is it possible that these men and women who are "undecided" can be so, with the text available for anyone to read, and the issues pretty clear-cut, and the stakes so high.
Just remember, Hamlet was too clever by half, and ended up dying at the end of the play. Don't be clever, folks. Be decisive.
