Music, and Critique to Critiques to "Occupy Wall Street"

Let's start with some music: this is what a social movement could sound like.

There are a few quick points that I'd like to make.
1. One may say this piece of music is so happy. Try to think in the following ways: a) look at the freedom and equality of the musical elements, and how everything work together. Isn't this a reflection of an ideal society? And that's why people are enjoying this music. b) matching this positive, major key music, with a bitter 1% versus 99% world, isn't it ironic? Doesn't the movement also symbolize a postmodern, late capitalist irony?

2. Some critics said the movement lacks a clear goal, and therefore could not succeed after a quick boom in the press. I think, If the movement fails, it is not because of a lack of clear goal. If the movement succeeds, the fact that it doesn't have a clear goal plays a big role. Take these into account:
a) there are some people who are just suffering and have no idea how to get out of the vicious loop of suffering. They have their own problems. (Like the PhD who has no jobs, I think that guy doesn't represent the general PhD population!) They lack a clear goal, but would you say they shall stay home, surf the internet in the library to find jobs, instead of coming out to protest? The answer depends on whether you are a conservative or a neo-Marxist democrat who thinks that change has to be enacted in a new way.
b) There a lot of people in the movement who have ideas and plans. (To people questioning this: Zizek don't have an idea? I don't think so.) But they do not enforce it on others in order to formulate an "Occupy Wall Street Manifesto" or something akin. They were the people who have been subsumed under undesired categories, and they would not want to subsume others. In fact this is the core question of post-coloniality, and there are interesting resemblances here. It is the job of the government to negotiate between different power systems, and they are endorsed to do so by various elections. (which does not happen in Hong Kong, very unfortunately).

One thing I found out (actually stole from my professor's talking) is that looking at UK media does give a different picture of the event.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/25/egyptian-protesters-occupy-wall-street
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/27/occupy-oakland-not-beaten
Another thing that I really appreciate is the political ethics that I found.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2011/oct/26/how-occupy-wall-street-protesters-destroy-working-/
In this final article, the author explicitly states that he is a "politically conservative columnist". He states his standpoint so clearly, and implicitly tells you there are alternatives to look at this issue. In the columns in Hong Kong and China, some authors are ambivalent about this. Or, maybe they just want to tell the readers that this is the right way to look at the issue, and, if you still have a free and open mind,  that is politically unethical.