Annoyances of mine

Annoyances of mine


>>>>>'Nine' Pricing and Muzak<<<<<

Do you really think that an item priced at $11.99 is less than $12? Do you really think that an item priced at $8.95 is really less than $9? Are you so easily fooled, (as the retailers privately claim that you are)? And, do you go to that store BECAUSE you wish to indulge in the loud-ass Muzak that you have no hope of escaping from? Do those vibrations so titillate your sensory perception that you are elevated unto a stage of an ethereal Golconda?

Just think how nice it would be to walk into a favored store and see simple pricing ... with shopping time experienced though a veneer of peace and quiet. I ask this: Why is that peaceful paradigm so very difficult for consumers to imagine the heavenly aspects thereof?


>>>>>Holocaust Remembrance Day<<<<<

This is a day that I find to be an exercise in duplicity, mired in conundrum, and coated in selfishness. Why? Because the State of Israel refuses to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide which took place from 1912 – 1922 (primarily 1915 – 1916), that is why. But why does Israel refuse to acknowledge that sorry era? Perhaps because top Zionists were complicit in getting that horror enacted, that is why. And stating that David Lyga is being a virulent anti-Semite by broaching this subject would not only be a downright lie, but, perhaps more importantly, proof, instead, that that accusation of me is indicative of the ignorance generally manifested within the sheep-like mindset of the 'Holocaust Crowd', a crowd which refuses to observe "Holocaust Facts" in other than political and emotional terms, not in the scientific terms like any mass murder would be subjected to by police and government, worldwide.

To wit: Perhaps the phrase 'Never Again' should be turned on its ear when we find out that it was top Zionists who willfully supported and encouraged that mass killing of Armenians. At least that is what the Times of Israel boldly infers in their issue dated 7 SEP 2018, within their lengthy story entitled: "Before the Holocaust, Ottoman Jews Supported the Armenian Genocide's Architect".

A Sephardi Jew from Turkish Salonika, an Ottoman lawyer by the name of Emmanuel Carasso, along with other Balkan Zionists, initiated the formation of the Young Turks who deposed the Sultan Abdul Hamid II in July of 1908. From day one, these Zionists had formed a conspiracy to help Turkey to clear the Ottoman Empire of Christians; this cleansing came to a head with the genocide of 1,500,000 Armenians from 1915 - 1922. So, do not waste your time hating David Lyga when the 'persona' you should really be hating is the acculturated lie which you have been force-fed since birth. There really are people on this earth who are just as important as Jew. That concept should not be new. Additionally, just try calling the Times of Israel ‘ant-Semitic’ and see how far you get.


>>>>>Black History Month<<<<<

Every February comes this attempt to elevate the Black Race. Fine, but is it too cumbersome to ask you to be 'diverse' in your efforts, instead of being purposefully duplicitous? The purpose of having a month like this is to be uplifting to blacks, but, also, never to be fully transparent (as it should be). The slave trade was not a period of war in which the white man had to fight in order to obtain this precious cargo. No, the black brothers in Africa were only too happy to accommodate those white slave ships; they had set up trading posts in order to facilitate that ugly trafficking in human bodies. (This is somewhat like how, today, so very many blacks freely prey upon other blacks, for profit. Indeed, there seems to be a 'black cohesiveness' only when confronting the white man.)

But, what really and truly pisses off David Lyga regarding this so-called 'important' month is the fact that when blacks discuss the WHITE man's history they never talk about his positive achievements in making this a better world, but only his sins, evils and mistakes. On the other hand, any discussion of BLACK history MUST, perpetually, be uplifting to the black mentality, never derogatory towards blacks, and such discussions NEVER, EVER talk about the fact that the high crime rate in the USA is PRIMARILY manifested by nefarious, niggardly (yes, moderators, that is a legitimate, English language word which predates the nefarious ‘N’ word by centuries, so shut up about shutting me up) black behavior. To infer, indeed, outright state, that blacks are the ‘perpetual victims’ is not only deceptive, but is an outright lie. In sum, I say this: Blacks, maybe it is time to recognize YOUR contributions, your MANY contributions towards making your plight what it is. That would make ‘Black History Month’ complete. Maybe it is time to admit that your endless accusations of racism are simply a 'permission' for you to fail to recognize your own very many contributions toward your dilemma. Maybe it is time for you to admit that Affirmative Action is simply the 'legitimization of a blatant racism', nothing other.

Covid-19 has exposed the naked underbelly of our society. Because of the ongoing crime rate, with 99% of shootings and carjackings caused by blacks, the gentrified whites, from New York to San Francisco, are no longer so readily kissing black butt. As for me, I have become a believer in myself and feel, largely, 'to hell' with what others think about me ... or hesitate to think about the realities within our culture.

I neither need, nor heed, people who play 'make believe'. These 'myopics' will continue to live within their deceptive bubble until they drop dead from the exhaustion of playing parody. For them, reality is foe ... For them, façade is fashion.


>>>>>Semantic Precision with Race (when politics are all that is desired that one be precise with)<<<<<

A stellar example is the 'necessity' to say 'people of color' rather than the far easier to say (and imagine) 'colored people'. Why this 'colored people' phrase is such a cultural pejorative remains a dire enigma to David Lyga. (In South Africa, it is NOT.) To say that hearing 'colored people' brings back remembrances of Jim Crow seems, at least to David Lyga, to be indicative of a bird that has flown off the tracks. If 'offensive' words are so despised by blacks, then why is every 'Rap creation' peppered with endless 'nigger', 'nigger', and yet more 'nigger'? (Why do blacks embrace words they say that they hate?)

Yes, the black mindset is a duplicitous mentality, seeking 'diversity' ... when all that is really wanted is a totally black environment, exclusive of all other races. And the movement to have BLACK dorms on campuses, along with BLACK graduations, forces David Lyga to come to the conclusion that the 'Negro demand for integration' during my childhood was but a logistically precise attempt by blacks, ultimately, to run the whole show. David Lyga does not buy into the perception of blacks being deprived of anything; to infer otherwise is a cheap shot. Black problems are self-manufactured. To prove that those who disagree with me are misguided, I ask the following question: Are black people just as capable of being racists as are white people? (It is revealing to note just how many of you are insulted at the very inference.)


>>>>>Passion-Dominated Weather Forecasts<<<<<

I do not own a TV. But radio I listen to every day. Twice hourly there is a weather forecast. These forecasts seem to be infused more with ‘feeling’ than substance. Radio is not alone with this anomaly.

As a nation, we have cultivated a sense of ‘good weather’ and ‘bad weather’. To David Lyga, he asks: “Why is a cloudy, rainy day considered ‘bad’? Why is a sunny day considered ‘good’? To me, some cloudy days seem to be utterly heavenly in visual aspect. The tones are soft, the contrast is benign. (Maybe this is because I love to develop film, make prints, and have lived with such rendered tonalities for most of my life.) But, I really do not understand the need for weather forecasters to state whether the next day will be ‘pleasant’; that, I feel, is up to me to decide. Do I err?


>>>>>Abortion Rights<<<<<

This one is controversial, but the paradigm I seek to dethrone is not discussed here at all. While, inherently, I do believe that I was ‘born’ at the moment of conception in May 1949, my legal birthdate is ascribed to 21 FEB 1950. That is intuitive, in that I cannot legally mandate that feeling or perception; it remains on the back burner. Abortion as such has defenders and detractors, the defenders being ardent feminists and the detractors being largely conservative. Let us let THEM fight it out.

Instead, my rant here is to challenge the “Woman’s Right” to an abortion. Left out of this equation is the right of the male co-conspirator. Assuming both rape and incest are left out of the equation, does the male who has impregnated the female have any rights in the matter? To David Lyga, it would seem that that male has equal rights, but the feminists cut David Lyga down to size by becoming belligerent with such purported mental nonsense.

Thus, I am left with the dilemma: I feel that my concern is utterly valid, but that it will be dutifully obfuscated by the progressive mindset, (which loves to pre-empt logical and fair thinking). Am I correct, here, or do “Women’s Rights” take precedence over everything? Do men have any rights with regard to bringing that fetus to fruition?


>>>>>Mono, not Stereo<<<<<

Guess what, I never liked stereo. I find its spatial engagement to be superfluous and deceptive. I prefer mono at all times. When I play records, I hook both receiver outputs to ONE speaker and delight in hearing all fidelity without spatial interference.

In the fifties, Mercury issued classical records with their ‘Living Presence’ mono discs. I find few records as beautifully engaging as these. And, there are actually some audiophiles who agree with me on this matter.

>>>>>Bikes<<<<<

This annoyance is not merely annoying; it is very frightening to David Lyga.

I have lived in Philadelphia since 1990. In 2006 then Mayor Michael Nutter said bikes could enter the city and behave as commuting bikes could. At the time, I thought little of the migration.

At the time, bikes were rarely seen on sidewalks. If they showed up on sidewalks, they were very slow and cautious with their illegal, unmerited approach. In Rittenhouse Square they were (properly) banned by police.

Then, through the months and years, something happened. Like a legal easement, their uncontested, albeit initially nuanced approach, became hard-core legal fact, despite what the local ordinances dictated. Without enforcement, or any threat thereof, the bikes became more aggressive, ‘in your face’, and, to me at least, very scary. To many cyclists, the sidewalk became the preferred highway to speed quickly through the City because there they had no fear of automobiles or truck. Pedestrians were not equipped either to challenge a moving vehicle or protest their forced presence.

I fear walking on the sidewalk and hug buildings when I have to get somewhere on my two legs. Remember, bikes, no matter how fast they travel, are silent. At night, half of them have no lights or reflectors, making seeing them, especially if a car with shining headlights is behind them, very difficult. I have seen bikes traveling on sidewalks up to 30 mph.
Nevertheless, because cycling is of the ‘progressive mindset’ they can do no wrong. What is important to understand here is that because ‘rules’ for bikes have been slowly allowed to erode through the years, nothing a cyclist can to is considered ‘reckless’ anymore. If they hit a pedestrian, that is never their fault. Never.

To enforce this ‘bikes can do no evil’ model, we have the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, which is equipped with a retinue of lawyers who stand ready to defend any action that a cyclist can foment. Pedestrians are defenseless under this barrage of self-imposed legality. Blowing through pedestrian crosswalks when they have the red light is routine, not even noticed any more. But, again, it is the sidewalks which have been taken over which frightens me the most. Am I insane to feel this way?


>>>>>Sports Obsession<<<<<

I have never had an interest in professional sports in my entire life. But I have had to live with the endless obsessions. What drives people to obsess over whether or not ‘their’ team wins? I simply cannot understand that dire need that people have in order to feel ‘whole’. Hypothetically, I have mental images of my estranged brother potentially standing over the bedside of his dying wife. Assume that this sad period happens during the World Series. I have mental images of him checking his phone every few minutes for the latest score, almost forgetting why he is standing there. It is that nuts, folks. Why do people take ‘their’ team winning so personally?

I ask you this: Assume a situation (which is not going to happen in real life, but COULD happen, at least hypothetically). Assume that ALL of the NY Yankees were traded to the Boston Red Sox. Also, assume that ALL the Boston Red Sox were traded to the NY Yankees. My question is this: Would a diehard NY Yankees fan (who HATES the Boston Red Sox) suddenly begin to cheer obsessively for the Boston Red Sox or would he CONTINUE to cheer (the previously hated) new team members of the newly formed NY Yankees? Would the loyalties adhere to the team NAME or would they adhere to the actual TEAM MEMBERS? Answer that, please.

- David Lyga