The World Health Organization

by Baidu Wercs Lee

The WHO has praised Beijing’s response to COVID-19’s spread,
despite the fact of all the many thousands that are dead.
The Chinese first detected it November 17,
then tried to hide the outbreak, whistleblowers silencing.

A study by Southhampton University found they
could have prevented 95% o’ th’ Wu Flu plague,
since China put their secrecy above confronting truth,
and still refuses to acknowledge all they did not do.

And WHO was covering for them—the Chinese Communists—
at first denying humans spread the Wu Flu—there’s no risk—
and when conceding it was possible, WHO played it down,
and of asymptomatic transfers claimed there was some doubt.

WHO cast doubt too the Wu Flu came from Chinese animals,
commending China’s attitudes—No, they weren’t damnable.
In March, the Chinese claimed it came from US Army plans.
To call it Chinese, WHO said, it would stigmatize the land.

WHO even said that China had contained the dread disease,
believing data sanctioned by the tyrant Xi Jinping.
We are so lucky to have WHO’s great information wealth,
to know that they are working overtime for World health.

 

 

 


NOTE: The Society considers this page, where your poetry resides, to be your residence as well, where you may invite family, friends, and others to visit. Feel free to treat this page as your home and remove anyone here who harasses or disrespects you. Simply send an email to submissions@classicalpoets.org. Put “Remove Comment” in the subject line and list which comment or comments you would like removed. The Society does not endorse any views expressed in individual poems or comments and reserves the right to remove any comments to maintain the decorum of this website and the integrity of the Society.

34 Responses

  1. C.B. Anderson

    I thought the final couplet of this poem was precious in its exquisite irony, but everything before that was a rather bumpy ride for me. Assonance rhymes don’t do much for, and have little appeal to, me.

    Reply
      • Monty

        To say that “nobody really cares” what appeals to the previous commenter would indicate that you know personally all the other readers of this thread, you’ve been in touch with them all, and they’ve all indeed confirmed with you that they “don’t really care” what appeals to him.

        As this is obviously not the case, would you care to apologise to the previous commenter for patently lying to him; and would you also care to admit to all the other readers of this post that it was only you – and you alone – who “didn’t really care”?

        When folks purposely misuse words in this way – saying ‘we don’t care’ when it should be ‘I don’t care’ – it’s normally an indication that they haven’t got any real confidence or conviction with what they’re saying; hence they falsely try to make it appear that others are in agreement with them, hoping it’ll give their words a bit more weight.

        It’s an oft-used trick, and it’s as old as the hills (I first became aware of it when I was still in my mum’s womb): so don’t think you’ll ever get away with such a cheap shot on these pages. You won’t.

        And regarding the fact that said commenter made a perfectly legitimate and valid reference to the blatant inconsistency of rhyming in the above piece . . I feel it’d be rather fitting to leave you with the words of R. Zimmerman: ‘Don’t criticise what you can’t understand’.

      • C.B. Anderson

        I’ll be happy to do that, if you will endeavor to grow a cerebral cortex.

    • Baidu Wercs Lee

      One of Wise’s favourite American poets is Emily Dickinson. Though he learned poetic techniques from other American writers, like Poe, Longfellow, Whitman, H. Crane, T. S. Eliot, Pound, Williams, Frost, Cummings, Ginsberg and Lowell, still it is from her that he learned to use approximate rhyme (used for various reasons, including dissonance, surprise and freedom) and to trust the ballad. Without a doubt there is no New Millennial poet’s works who have reached him as deeply as have the poems of the Amherst recluse.

      Reply
      • C.B. Anderson

        Hitch your wagon to Emily’s star if you like, Baidu, but I find much of her material virtually unreadable as well. She was sloppy and over-fond of the dash, a spinster who likely contributed to the extermination of whales, perhaps due to her failure to corral her own Moby Dick.

      • Bruce Dale Wise

        1. Ah, Melville, ah humanity! I love the verbal textures of his short stories and his novels. In some ways, I draw from his “Battle-Pieces”, and Whitman’s “Drum Taps”, too.

        2. It is true Dickinson admired Emerson’s work more than I do. He was an inspiration to her.

        3. Yes, Dickinson is the master of—the dash. I know Mr. Phillips doesn’t like the dash either.

        4. Dickinson’s writing is hardly sloppy. Her precision is not only hard to attain, but it is hard to maintain. This is not to say Dickinson’s writing doesn’t have flaws; name one writer who doesn’t have any flaws. Ironically, at least from Mr. Anderson’s comment, from my point of view, I wish she had pursued “Moby Dick”. SCP’s attack on Descartes’ clear and distinct prose shows that SCP commenters are not averse to attacking even the best of writers, e.g., MacKenzie and Hartley in various strands.

        5. All this being said, she is not my favourite poet—just among the Americans. In English poetry, Shakespeare—mainly in his plays—remains my favourite.

    • Lew Icarus Bede

      I suspect Mr. Lee is thankful for Mr. Anderson’s critique of his rhyme, mainly because it is one of his major flaws as a poet: his propensity for rhyme. In short, he uses way too much. Take a poem, like “Doctor WHO?” Not only does he have the constant flow of rhymes (exact, assonantal, etc.) at the end of each couplet; but throughout the poem (as is his usual practice) he uses internal and interlinear rhymes, like Wu Flu, and the long echoic phrases, November 17/ whistleblowers silencing. In addition, he indulges in all kinds of poetic devices, such as repetition (often for rhetorical purposes), alliteration, and puns, to mention only three. So I suspect, in a world of irony, that Mr. Lee enjoys being accused for not doing the very thing he thinks he does too much.

      Reply
  2. Damian Robin

    Hi BC Wise – You are indeed wise and have opened my eyes — though I’m stuck on the name in my frame of mind. But thanks for your words – revealing and kind.

    https://www.ntd.com/giving-the-right-name-to-the-virus-caus…

    “What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet.”
    ― William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

    “What’s the name? – The CCP virus

    We knows from whence this bug arose,
    We know from where it came.
    This bugger bug gets up your nose
    The CCP’s the same.

    Remember SARS, the hidden shame
    Of Party faking facts.
    This mongrel mugger’s much the same,
    Will CCP face facts?

    We knows from whence this bug arose,
    From near a lab it came.
    Something fishy, this up-throws,
    The Party’s words flip lame.

    Remember organ harvesting
    In hospitals now full.
    The Party is still in-vesting
    In saying this is null.

    We knows from whence this bug arose,
    We know it was Wuhan.
    We know the Party will impose
    Any Christening ban.

    Remember Uyghur education
    Preempting their wrong thoughts
    And dissidents’ dis-information
    In bleak dis-graceful courts.

    We knows from whence this bug arose,
    We know from where it came.
    This bugger bug gets up your nose
    The CCP’s the same.”

    ― Wimmian Shakebin, Roamer and Judicial balladeer

    Reply
    • Monty

      We don’t put the word ‘from’ before ‘whence’, because ‘whence’ means ‘from where’. To put ‘from’ in front of ‘whence’ is like saying ‘from from where’!

      It’s correct usage is: ‘Send him back whence he came’.

      Reply
      • Joe Tessitore

        I used it once – “from whence they come, where e’er they go” – and learned from Mr. Anderson and Dr. Salemi that it’s a tautology.

        I’ve also learned that Mr. Wise is a master grammarian as well, and was probably fully aware of what he was doing.

      • Monty

        I should point out that my above claim was directed at the commenter who used ‘from whence’ – Wimmian Shakebin . . and not at Bruce, who never used it.

      • Julian D. Woodruff

        Thinking of the magnificent “to from whence it came” in “Take back your mink” from Loesser’s Guys and Dolls.

    • Mike Bryant

      As I am no grammarian, I post this without comment:
      “And even a brief look at historical sources shows that from whence has been common since the thirteenth century. It has been used by Shakespeare, Defoe (in the opening of Robinson Crusoe: “He got a good estate by merchandise, and leaving off his trade, lived afterwards at York; from whence he had married my mother”), Smollett, Dickens (in A Christmas Carol: “He began to think that the source and secret of this ghostly light might be in the adjoining room, from whence, on further tracing it, it seemed to shine”), Dryden, Gibbon, Twain (in Innocents Abroad: “He traveled all around, till at last he came to the place from whence he started”), and Trollope, and it appears 27 times in the King James Bible (including Psalm 121: “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help”).“
      https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10906/is-from-whence-correct-or-should-it-be-whence#10916

      Reply
      • C.B. Anderson

        Fine, Mike, but are you suggesting that mistakes, if they are repeated often enough, especially by luminaries, suddenly become correct English? I know that usage alone is the standard that informs dictionaries, but sometimes it behooves a purist to take a stand on principle. It’s a question of whether our language is evolving or devolving, methinks.

      • Mike Bryant

        I suggested nothing of the sort. In reading the rest of the page I cited, I found it interesting that this particular argument has been going on for some seven hundred years. It IS interesting and thought others might agree.

      • Joseph S. Salemi

        The construction “from whence” does appear frequently in good writers, and even can be read in the traditional version of The Apostles’ Creed: “from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.” Technically speaking, it is incorrect, since “whence” in itself means “from which place.”

        But this is an example of tautology, pleonasm (or what we today might call redundancy, or overkill). It often happens when the public perception of a word’s actual meaning begins to weaken, and unlearned speakers begin to add something to the word to make sure it is fully understood. In this case, adding “from” is a way to emphasize location and direction.

        You can see a simple example in colloquial speech. Some unlearned speakers won’t say the following sentence: “That man can’t be trusted.” Instead they might say “That there man can’t be trusted.” The added “there” is redundant and unnecessary, but it emphasizes location and direction.

      • Monty

        I wouldn’t bother, CB. It seems futile trying to enlighten someone who merely quotes from the internet because he has no personal knowledge of, or feeling for, the word ‘whence’. You and I both know that ‘from whence’ is aesthetically wrong. What’s more, we know it from our hearts, from our deep affection for our language – not from the internet. If it wasn’t me who’d initially pointed-out the error above, he wouldn’t even have replied, but he saw the chance for some puerile point-scoring, so he immediately consulted Mr Google.. and dampened his knickers when he saw that ‘from whence’ is sometimes used (erroneously) by some who know no better.

        Having always known it naturally, I’ve never before looked-up the word ‘whence’, but this morning my curiosity demanded that I do so. Predictably, the dictionary cited the following examples:
        ‘The Ural mountains, whence the ore is procured’.
        ‘He will be sent back whence he came’.
        ‘Whence does parliament derive this power?’
        I then consulted Mr Google, and it appears that ‘from whence’ is exactly as you described it above: “A mistake which has been repeated so often, it’s become to be seen (wrongly) as accepted English”.
        I then found some quotes from a few modern-day grammarians:
        “‘From whence you came’ is an improper redundancy.”
        “‘From whence’ is technically redundant”
        “Those who say ‘from whence it came’ either don’t know what ‘whence’ means, or they’re worried that the reader may think they’ve made a mistake by not putting the proposition ’from’. These people should forget about ‘whence’, and simply write: ‘where it came from’.”
        “‘From whence’ has been used incorrectly for hundreds of years.”

        Some of those grammarians described ‘from whence’ as a ‘tautology’ – a word hitherto unknown to me. Thus, I dug a little deeper, and it transpires that a tautology is a redundant word in a sentence: “The phone rang, so I quickly ran speedily down the stairs to answer it”.. either ‘quickly’ or ‘speedily’ is redundant, a tautology.
        “The parcel was marked as ‘fragile’, so I gently laid it down delicately on the floor”.. ‘gently’ or ‘delicately’ are redundant.
        So, when one says: ‘From whence it came’, meaning: ‘From from where it came’.. one of the ‘froms’ is redundant, a tautology. (Being now aware of the word ‘tautology’, I hope I never hear it again! To me, it means nothing more than bad diction.)

        As you said above, CB (and what I’ve now learnt to be true), the ‘from whence’ thing is a matter of purity: those who’re language purists: and those who don’t really care. The latter, it seems, have enabled a blatant mistake to become accepted practise; and the former will always know that it is, nonetheless, a mistake. The former will also know that ‘from whence’ is nothing more than an example of the devolution of our language.

      • Mike Bryant

        Monte is right as usual. Monte can see into our hearts and minds. He knows what each of us thinks and feels. Because of this, and because of his huge intellect and empathy, every one of his pronouncements holds the weight of God.

      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        Some are blessed with an omniscience that astounds; an impressive, all-knowing view that leaves others breathless with awe and stunned at the sagacious perspicacity emanating from every illuminating orifice. Sometimes, a tautology (or two) can come in quite handy – they may even bear repeating.

  3. The Memory Hole

    WHO=China/UN lapdog. Be of good cheer, the enemies of the republic in bed with the CCP are being revealed.

    Reply
    • Watcher

      Cries are not heard,
      When worlds are not safe.

      Deaths from WU say:
      WHO cannot save.

      God is somewhere,
      Watching us here,
      Kneel and cry-out
      God will come out.

      Reply
  4. Baidu Wercs Lee

    I’ve emailed Mr. Mantyk about putting the “s” in asymptomatic. I’m also thinking about retitling the poem “Doctor WHO?” after the BBC sci fi show.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      I like your idea of the new “Doctor WHO?” title – it says so much with a wry smile.

      Reply
  5. Susan Jarvis Bryant

    Poetry is an excellent medium for drawing attention to the atrocities of the world. The informative, deeply troubling series of events portrayed in this hard-hitting piece prove just that. I like the way this virus is named for what it is and the way the WHO, hiding behind the duplicitous media reports, has been revealed and shamed. Thank you for this. Mr. Wise.

    Reply
  6. Joseph S. Salemi

    Here is some new pertinent information about the Wuhan flu (referred to by Mainstream Media as “the Coronavirus”) as it has affected Italy.

    An Italian commentator (Cesare Sacchetti) , quoting the respected newspaper La Stampa, has reported that the Italian Ministry of Health has been lying about the number of dead in that country, and has been deliberately inflating the mortality figures.

    The Ministry of Health (Istituto Superiore di Sanita) published the following recently concerning deaths in Lombardy:

    “627 nuovi deceduti con coronavirus, non per coronavirus…”

    This means that there were 627 deaths with [i.e. from] coronavirus, but not through {i.e. as a result] of coronavirus.

    As both La Stampa and Cesare Sacchetti have pointed out, only 12 persons in Lombardy have actually died of the virus, and the other 615 reported deaths were from something else. The left-leaning government of Italy, through its sockpuppet Ministry of Health, is deliberately stoking panic about the virus.

    As soon as La Stampa and Sacchetti came out with this, the Italian Ministry of Health deleted that information from their website. You can be sure they won’t make a mistake like that again in their propaganda campaign to generate mass hysteria.

    As Cesare Sacchetti has said: “Attribuire tutti i morti al virus non e solo falso e antiscientifico. E di piu. E terrorismo psicologico.”

    (“Attributing all of the dead to the virus is not only false and unscientific. It is more. It is psychological terrorism.”)

    This type of official lying is also taking place in the United States. Just recently an elderly man in Pennsylvania, who had tested positive for the Wuhan flu, accidentally fell and hit his head, dying from the injury. The health authorities insisted on listing him as a “Coronavirus death.”

    All of this terror is being staged for political reasons.

    Reply
  7. C.B. Anderson

    Monty, as I think you have at least implied, vulgar (common) usage is as great a force promoting the degradation of our common language as anything else can ever be. I don’t give a damn whether Shakespeare did it or not. If he did, he is still Shakespeare, and if he did it on purpose, he is only Shakespeare. I don’t know who to trust these days, and I’d rather make a fool of myself defending literacy than make a fortune undermining it.

    Reply
    • Monty

      Rest assured, CB: you can and will never make a fool of yourself by “defending literacy”. The only ones making a fool of themselves are those who write ‘from whence’ unknowingly, in a misguided attempt to embellish their text; and then try to support that usage by quoting unreliable information from the internet.

      I assume you noted above the words I quoted last week from a grammarian (since when I’ve forgotten his name, but he was an Englishman, which is relevant if we’re dealing with the finer points of the English language; he was described as a ‘linguistics expert’, and he had letters in front of his name):
      “Those who say ‘from whence it came’ either don’t know what ‘whence’ means, or they’re worried that the reader may think they’ve made a mistake if they don’t add the proposition ’from’. These people should forget about using ‘whence’, and simply write: ‘Where it came from’.

      Therefore, not only are you “defending literacy”, CB, but, at the same time, you’re upholding the high standards of our language . . when others are inclined to let them slip.

      Reply
  8. Bruce Dale Wise

    I’m not sure that I have used the phrase “from whence” in my poetry. I suspect writers, like Shakespeare and Neoclassicists, like Swift (in a poem) and Pope (in his “Iliad”), may have used the phrase for its iambic pattern, though even prosists, like the King James Bible writers, DeFoe, Gibbon, Austen, Smollett, Dickens, Trollope, Emerson and Twain, used the phrase. (I appreciate Mr. Bryant’s Internet search into the matter.) Because I am unsure, although the phrase echoes in my mind (perhaps from my Biblical writings), I have decided, perhaps slightly spurred on by the fine satirical remarks of Ms. Bryant and Mr. Robin, to append a quote to the poem in its next publication.

    “From whence came this coronavirus plague? Wuhan’s the place.”
    —Wilude Scabere, from his play “Coronavirus Blues”

    After all, if even the English literary critic Dryden used the phrase (and perhaps Samuel Johnson, through Boswell, despite his “vitious” definition), one is in good company.

    Reply
  9. Nalini

    This is not a poem. It’s a piece of right-wing propaganda. I thought this was a poetry society?

    Reply
  10. Baidu Wercs Lee

    Ms. Nalini seems to think “Doctor WHO?” is not a poem, perhaps because it voices an opinion contrary to hers in a form she does not like; this really only puts her in with the majority of commenters @ SCP, from Mr. Anderson to Mr. Phillips, from Mr. Salemi to… I am thankful to Mr. Mantyk for allowing for a diversity of voices @ SCP.

    I grant that this icosa of ten couplets of iambic heptameter arranged in five four-lined stanzas is polemical; but so too has poetry been throughout the ages. Disliking a poem does not make it not a poem. In point of fact, my poetry is attempting things disliked by countless individuals of this era, not merely here @ SCP; though I must admit, this last decade has seen a growing appreciation of the kind of poetry I write. And I am so thankful for those thoughtful readers.

    Part of my willingness to indulge in such “nonpoetic” topics relates mainly to my readings in the Realists (1850-1900) and the Modernists (1900-1950), including Modernist Chinese poets. I appreciate their willingness to put anything into their poetry, including slogans, pop icons, contemporary attitudes, etc., even propaganda. Also I have been influenced by Postmodernists (1950-2000) as well, artists, such as Andy Warhol, and prosists [sic], like the New Journalists. Though my docupoetry has deep links to traditions throughout the World, it rests finally on this stage in this era.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.