RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceAuthor and Bloomberg News columnist Michael Lewis recently penned a satirical article that highlighted Occupy Princeton’s primary modus operandi. He specifically mentioned their rambunctious interruptions of J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs’ information sessions, and the broadcasting of those ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Bravo!
This is full of real insight.
A few points:
1. "Ultimately, the attendees of info-sessions are out there to look for jobs, not screw the universe."
Fine, but a major point of the Occupy Princeton movement is to reemphasize that Princetonians should be looking to work "in the nation's service and the service of all nations." One could argue that this motto ought to actively influence all our public actions, including looking for a job. Why, then, are students looking for jobs at institutions that have pretty poor track records of keeping anything but themselves in mind?
2. "Additionally, there are many jobs at Goldman that had no bearing on the financial meltdown. Financial firms hire economists, analysts, researchers, investors and statisticians that do exactly as their titles suggest."
But without these jobs, Goldman would not as easily have precipitated the financial meltdown. It's not like the people who fill these jobs would have much trouble getting a job elsewhere...or wait, maybe they would given the current unemployment rate. How'd that happen again?
3. You seem to believe that the "success" of the Occupy movement must be defined by direct and politically driven reform. I see no reason why the movement can't legitimately hold a more modest goal, like forcing Princeton students to confront the reality of their employment choices and the tension that exists between this reality and Princeton's motto. I, for one, don't expect Wall Street reform to happen quickly (what reform does?), so I'm happy to endorse a movement that may change minds, then culture, and ultimately the political status quo. And if you really think the movement should be aiming higher, then why not pursue political activism concurrently with info session interruptions.
Excellent.
Bravo.
Great points, terrible writing. To paraphrase Hemingway, do you really think big emotions come from big words? Or, in your case, from big, convoluted sentence structures? Try reading your introductory paragraph out loud (or have a friend read it to you) and you'll hopefully see my point.
"Which set of candidates one believes will positively change the status quo is a matter for serious debate and ought to be the conversation on the tip of every Princetonian’s tongue."
Obama couldn't do it. What makes you think any of the current candidates can?
effecting change, not affecting change, biddie.
@morning glory
Syntactically I have few complaints with the introductory paragraph, though the lede does leave me feeling underwhelmed. The issue that you're detecting, I believe, is the use of the passive voice, which generally lacks utility in journalistic writing.
Why is it either/or? The history of transformative political movements shows that there is often a place for in-your-face nonviolent action as well as a value to working within the system. Think the Civil Rights Movement or the role of ACTUP in the AIDS movement. In neither case would only working quietly within the system have worked alone. Bravo to the students who are willing to take the risks of engaging in acts of civil disobedience.