Step One: Take ordinary rant wherein you just say what you're thinking off the top of your head basically in one long sentence.
Step Two: Ask friend to praise it because you are insecure. Wait. Receive, um, criticism?
(all facts personally verified by God) Congress recently extend by twenty years the copyright protection on works written between 1923-1963 thus keeping them that much longer from the public domain. Today the Supreme Court took up this issue as certain individuals have challenged the new law. The argument for overturning the law is that these artists are dead and keeping their work protected will likely offer them no incentive to produce more art. The argument against is essentially the 'it's ours and you can't have it' rationale. Obviously, a few small corporations like Disney, Time-Warner and others have lobbied congressmen (using no money, prostitutes or gifts because that would be illegal) to pass legislation ensuring billions of dollars in licensing fees to be divided between them and Paul McCartney. It means that Lexus can use a Louis Armstrong tune to sell luxury cars because they can afford the royalties, but KIA will have to use Hall and Oats, while Mrs. Johnson's fifth grade production of Roots will settle for an Andrew Lloyd Weber outtake from Evita: Next Generation. Congress represents the people, which is a group of about four or five people who's values are CNN and Blockbuster. These people don't even know there is art from before 1960, and if there is, "What do we need to keep bringing it back for?" But has anyone bothered to ask the art what it wants? What would Louis Armstrong say about 'Mahogany Hall Stomp' being used to push frozen peas? And for that matter, what would he say about the Highland Park first grade jazz ensemble's creative de-interpretation. There is the distinct possibility that great art may be cheapened by misuse and overuse. This can only be avoided by keeping royalty fees as high as possible ensuring only the largest corporations can use the material, as they will to beneficent ends. The Lexus Corporation would surely think twice before using a Louis Armstrong classic merely to boost sales, unlike that headstrong KIA Corporation, which isn't even an American company. So I say keep royalties up, and keep great art off the street and in museums, mostly.
it's good.Step Three: Resist. Deny. Resist. Absorb. Resist. Process. Resist. Resist More. Dammit. Rewrite.
but i don't really like the 'all facts personally verified by god'. not because i really care about god. it just hits me wrong for some reason i can't explain. for some reason the Vatican would have been funnier. 'all facts personally verified by the Vatican ?' also there is one basic thing.(6) and that is the sentences are too long.(8) i can't focus if the sentences are too long. the math guy1 wrote a script that counted my ave. number of words. i think it was something like 8 words/sentence. while in the first paragraph i count, something like 23 words in your sentence. on the other hand, it is a rant, and that's something i associate with longwindedness. the basic deal is always, if you can't say it out loud....
but i really do think it is funny2 and i love the 'headstrong KIA corporation'. but Lexus isn't a part of Toyota. or is it? i totally thought that Ford made the Lexus. could be wrong.
1 Her current skin job at school.
2 Known as the sandwich. The criticism is pleasantly nestled between two buttered pieces of toast. But notice, this sandwich has quite a bit of filling.
Step Four: Try again. Feign indignation. Write about integrity.
(all facts personally verified by Joey Fatone)
Congress! They added twenty years of copyright protection to works created from 1923-1963, which means my grandson will be in a nursing home before my xylophone version of “Love Me Do” can be played on the airwaves. It means that Lexus can use a Louis Armstrong tune to sell luxury cars because they can afford the royalties, but KIA will have to use Hall and Oats, while the Pine Oaks fifth grade production of Hair will settle for an Andrew Lloyd Weber booger. The purpose of legislation is to make sure there are enough rules so everybody is happy. The purpose of this legislation is to make five billion dollars go to Paul McCartney and make him happy.
Now the Supreme Court has taken up the case because they couldn’t get out of it. The argument against is easy. All great artists are dead. So keeping their work protected will offer them very little incentive to produce more art. The argument for is essentially the “it’s ours and you can’t have it” argument. But has anyone bothered to ask the art what it wants? What would Louis Armstrong say about “Mahogany Hall Stomp” being used to push frozen peas? And for that matter, what would he say about the Pine Oaks first grade jazz ensemble’s creative de-interpretation. He'd probably actually prefer the latter. Nevertheless, there is the distinct possibility that great art may be cheapened by misuse and overuse. This can only be avoided by keeping royalty fees as high as possible, higher than possible, ensuring only the largest corporations can use the material.
I know the Lexus Corporation would surely think twice before using a Louis Armstrong classic merely to boost sales, unlike that headstrong KIA Corporation, which is capable of anything. Damn Koreans. So I say keep royalties up, and keep great art off the street and out of the hands of the Koreans.
okay. i just fixed it for you. do you like it now? the shorter sentences allow more frequent silly twists. the idea of the rant = long sentence is true in that the long sentence is sort of like a non-stop flow. one idea flowing. however - the shorter sentences and new humor tone - is a more popular product? it's just not so much a rant anymore as a dave barry column, you know, with all the feigned stupidity and marshmellows. i suppose there's nothing wrong with that except it's not really how i think. it's not the tone i personally feel inside. what about all this? these are core issues.Put sticky on refrigerator: Be More Like Dave Barry.
