Where folks have been left on their own
in doldrums to wage war against legions of denials
as one government after another made fools of them,
why should governors and president choose for them
their way of dying?
The people, used to surviving against odds,
would rather roll the dice again
with the hope of beating back a weaker aggressor,
their term for a feverish infection however choking,
than locked down without cash and food
and exposed to the cruel pangs of hunger
that would inevitably drain life out of them.
The public would rather fight in their markets
than famished and quartered at home for the sacrifice
they know their lords would as usual escape.
They want to make the choice, not rigged into dying,
to fight and come out alive bruised all over
rather than cooped where hunger would pick their flesh
and leave skeletons in their unlit and hot homes.
They want to be outside on their feet fighting back
than sit at home waiting to be mauled by their principal foe;
they would rather fight the adversity of their choice.
Why should the lords choose for others, harried from all sides, their preferred way of dying?
Photo credit
