http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/nyregion/03death.html?hp&ex=1167886800&en=059b8a91e7279f4e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Are we finally going to evolve enough to stop state killing?

Do we need any more evidence that there is a resignation to war in our culture; it’s more than a resignation, it’s the norm? Most people are reluctant to show outrage about Iraq because deep down they don’t want to be perceived as a pacifist, which is the worst of the worst in our culture. The sad fact is, people would rather error on the side of war.

I keep going back to a question in my head Katemcshane, one that helped prompt the original pitch. In all these video games all these kids (especially boys) are playing, killing random people gratuitously is accepted and promoted in many cases. My question is, why is not acceptable to randomly rape a women on these video games? This may be a provocative question, but I would like to know why it’s acceptable to go up to a woman character in these games and blow her head off with a machine gun, but not rape her. Of course my wish is not to see rapes on these games, it’s to see neither rapes nor gratuitous killing. Everyone knows that if you show too much sex in a movie or God forbid, a man’s penis, the movie gets the dreaded NC 17, but if you show five teenagers being gruesomely murdered, you get a PG 13.

Why Why Why are we not evolving when it comes to violence? I guess it could be a mute question when you consider are brains have “evolved” enough to envision the ultimate violent act, the means of our own destruction, the nuclear bomb.

From December 20:

Thakkus: a very important but very old question. Is there a new dimension or angle to this conversation that we’re not aware of? Someone with a new proposal about the rules for violent engagement or a new definition for just war? We need something more to go on.

travellingmind, I’m feeling something similar about this pitch. Important but age-old question that needs a new hook, talker, or core idea to propel it into a show.

enhabit: I read the tsumani article. Terrible stuff. But what show are you proposing we do about it? Which angle? The tsunami piece? The Red Cross piece? We had a Red Cross show going last year after Katrina that ultimately got sent to the Graveyard because we felt like the moment had passed before the show went on the air; are you suggesting we resurrect it? Help us out here.

From December 27:

jfink: Thanks for this pitch. I hope you don’t mind if make an example of it, because it’s a good illustration of one sort of pitch we get a lot.

The ideas and arguments you’ve laid out sound like the beginning of what I would call a “think piece,” namely, a persuasive essay that explores some idea or concept, the sort of piece that might run in Salon, Edge.org, or even on your own blog. These types of pieces can translate really well into radio shows of the sort we do, especially when the ideas are provocative and their authors are willing to come on the show and sing their sermon with one or two good interlocutors. We love it when you guys send us links to pieces like this, because they translate so well. Have you seen a controversial opinion piece that approaches some concept we think we know in some fresh way? Awesome. We want to read it. One example of a show we did like this that worked really well was the show Chelsea produced about The End of Free Will. It was “high-concept” (sort of like what you’re proposing) but it was totally fascinating.

The thing is, the reason that show worked was that we had Clay Shirky. He articulated the idea in his original piece, and then took up the mantle on the show. Plus he’s a fantastic talker. Had we not had Clay Shirky (and Jim Leff and Megan McArdle) this show would have been impossible.

So for this pitch and others like it, what you really need to give us is someone who takes up the mantle of “Google vs. Wonder” and can sell that idea on the air like their life depended on it. If you can do that, I think it could make a really interesting show. (If you think that person is you, well, it wouldn’t be the first time we put a commentor on the air as a guest, but you’d really have to “sing it,” as we say around here.) Otherwise, this is an essay I would love to read on your blog at some point when it’s fully articulated. Make sense?

(Oh, and finally, as, uh, pressing as this problem is, stu ervin, I don’t think it’s right for our show. Maybe you should take this up with your neighborhood association.)