ClearTrap. NO-CHOICE NEWS-RACKS, LAWS TO WIGGLE OUT OF.

by Joe B.

It’s Monday, May, 6, 2002, I just got back from a two day brake away from the City.

What do I do when I’m not at work?

Loaf, sit back, watch the ‘tellie, listen to music, visit a fem friend and loaf some more.

Reading about news-rack law is way under my radar.

That’s what I was doing reading the Guardian.

20 year contract that Clear Channel can back out of anytime but the city is on the hook [Liable] for 3.4 million.

What kind of half jacked-up deal is that, what happened to mutual exit plans for both partners?

[The mega corps wanting to censor all kinds of songs in the aftermath of 9-11-2001 then said “It was only a trial balloon, oops our bad].

Lets see, Clear Channel after President B. Clinton signed the Tele-communications Act of 1996 made possible for C.C. to gobble up Radio, TV, and billboards.

C.C. is now into owning new racks which means what they deem not worthy they omit guess who has less choice if most of the news racks are owned by ‘duba-C?

I don’t know much but a 20 year deal with one company that bought out by ‘duba-C. [They fired Davy D because he and others spoke their minds about flag waving and what it still means in black ‘n brown-profiled while walking, talking, or driving in America].

Am I making sense people? This Corporate Entity not only wants to make profits but influence slightly or change your ways of thinking by controlling the newspaper(s) and by doing so the content of what is read.

Of course there are ways around this if the Supervisor’s are locked in for financial reason to make it difficult for Duba-C to lose revenue thereby making it more attractive to back out of they’re sweetheart deal.

Boycott, not a noisy one but an insidious quiet one where we leave the rack full of paper, anyone can total the racks or take papers an dump them in the trash - C.C. will replace them charging the City, but leaving them to yellow is more telling, ignoring C.C. will cost them much more that attacking them.

Freebies, this ghetto style is a slight redesign where no money is needed to buy a paper because the coin or locking mechanism’s been on the vending machine is now - lets say turned non profit.

This way the newsprint are read by those wanting to read it but C.C.’s has gained no profit and is constantly bleeding money because of their generous though unknown give-a-way.

A third way is a sarcastic parody of Clear Channel.

Your not harming them much because it is protective speech but one must be careful of slander.

Like in the TRUTH Anti-Cigarette ads on television where folks are telling the truth in funny yet factual ways all Clear can do is use humor too on the other side or bellow out angry which adds more fire to their already burning log butt.

Lastly but as important former Clear Channel employee’s who may have been fired or left on their own.

All employee’s should be treated with respect no matter their station, economic situation, because one can never know when an angry, bitter, former working employee(s) with nothing to lose can economically hurt former employer’s bottom line to the point of bankruptcy if said worker’s knew too much.

I don’t know which will work best but all three should be tried because a triple whammy is better than a single.

All I know is if Clear Channel wants to own multi media outlets to spew their slanted views let them but they should also know many people want other sides of the questions affecting their lives.

Oh, I forgot a 5th thing: That's stocking up and buying CD’s, DVD’s,
[Compact Disks, Digital Video Disks].
and rapidly out-of-date video tapes.

We can look at movies, tv, serials, cartoons and adult entertainment for years before paying or listening to Clear Channel’s drivel.

The very technology and laws that allows a Clear Channel multi media giant to rise also allows regular folks to also chose their own medium.

Clear needs our money but we don’t their one-way, one -point driven views.

Its up to each individual to chose their own content and not to have Clear decide for us.

Or maybe I got this whole News-rack law all wrong, what do I don’t know, I just want as many alternatives as I can even if I don’t like certain publications doesn’t mean I have any right to rid everybody else of the same choices.

Now I'll check out Cheney’s business deals.
...Bye