Comments on: What’s The Matter With Kids Today?

By: Publius Cato

Publius Cato — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 01:35:42 +0000

I think the effort to make both movie about youth violence was a stretch. As a story about violence in general, it made sense lust for power and greed (whichs is just another form of power-lust). It was even an interesting article on the differing worldviews of the young and old. But as a complete article on youth violence, it could have ended on page one.

By: K.

K. — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 05:40:22 +0000

I agree this is a very insightful article. I spent quite awhile reading and pondering it bit by bit.

However, I disagree that the answer is necessarily to be found within social institutions. As Antonin Scalia has said many times when discussing why the Constitution cannot be interpreted in light of current societal mores – “who decides?” As a nation we cannot even get more than 51% of our voters to agree on one man for President. How are we then to agree on the framework along which youth are to be guided?

The fact also remains that ultimately social institutions have fleeting contact (and thus inconsistent and ineffective results) with youths. You really do have to start in the home, with the parent(s). Just like to stop the cycle of domestic violence, you have to start with girls as young as late elementary school, working on their self-esteem and teaching them independence, self-sufficiency, and what is and is not acceptable behavior in a relationship. And with boys, you have to start just as young, teaching *them* how to be more secure, since domestic violence tends to be rooted in insecurity and powerlessness.

The question of how you stop the cycles when the parents are passing these same issues (insecurity, poverty, lack of education, abandonment, substance abuse, neglect) on to the next generation is one that I have yet to be resolved. So far it seems the best we can do is fight the inevitable tide and do our best to insulate society from the worst of the ones who can’t be fixed by physical means for short periods of time. It’s a high price to pay – in money on one side, and in freedom on the other.

Still – GREAT article, and definitely thought-provoking.

By: perich

perich — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:40:43 +0000

@Valatan: I don’t know that going back to give the man water was what doomed Moss. Remember, the money case had that transponder in it from the beginning. As soon as Moss steps into the world of drug-runners and corruption – by choosing to take the money – he’s doomed.

I think the movie’s point is that you can’t plan your way out of trouble; you can’t plot a path that will save you from random, senseless brutality. Or, as Chigurh puts it to Wells, “If the rule you followed led you to this place, of what use was the rule?”

@GW: Normally I’d say “tomato, tomahto,” but I’m intrigued. Could you elaborate?

By: GW

GW — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:46:52 +0000

A small quibble on an otherwise excellent article: these stories are not about society's inability to deal with youth violence, but rather about society's unwillingness to deal with the sources of youth violence.

By: Valatan

Valatan — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:45:39 +0000

Of course, the most intriguing thing I found about No Country For Old Men was what doomed Llewellyn Moss–it wasn’t his criminality or brutality or lawlessness.

It was him making the decision to bring water to the dying shootout victim in the desert. And he knew it at the time, saying that it was a bad decision. Moss was doomed by the humanity that Anton Chigurh lacked.

Institutions can do nothing to stop someone, so long as they are vile and clever enough to get what they want.