[P]We're in a recession. I read headlines, I hear people on the street, they're all complaining. People are worried about their jobs. People want to spend less. People are worried about not having the cash for things they want. What does this all mean? What in fact, is a recession? [P]Sorry, but I'm not going to answer that, not in any studied academic fashion. Instead, let's raise a further question, if someone wants something, that they don't have, why don't they, or sombody else, produce it? In a free market, material desires appear in the marketplace, and are exchanged, using the medium of cash. Probably, at this point, my statments appear nonsensical, opaque, and possibly both. I will attempt to clear that up. [P]Put yourself in the domain of theory. I'm not talking about economic policy, yet. Let's say someone wants a sandwich. He doesn't have the money for it, because he doesn't have a job. Somebody else wants his leaky faucet fixed, but doesn't have the money to hire a repair man, for the same reason. The problem is solved when sandwich-man takes a job fixing a faucet for l.faucet-man. L.faucet-man doesn't have the money to pay him, but as there is an obvious need for sandwiches, he can take a job making them. The economy grows to support both individuals, and everyone has what they need. Such growth can then occur along the lines of each material desire, and continue to grow with desire. [P]It's simple, too simple? I'm working to pair down the terms into their most basic units, without consideration for the complexities of how an economy functions in real life. Despite such simplification, it offers a certain approach to improving economic woes such as reccession, and poverty. [P]Consider an FDR New Deal style method of applying the desire-to-work theory. First, research what desires are not being met. Next, assign unemployed workers to the associated jobs. Education can be made a part of the process, such as plumbing apprenticeships. It should become self-sustaining, and even generate economic growth, along with greater self-sufficiency.

I am going out on a limb saying this but,

Star Wars: The Clone Wars was a good movie. I felt that it's character, and dramatic quality were consistent with IV-VI. It's approach to the Jedi and connected spiritual issues worked. It does have a light quality that comes with its stylised cartoon medium, and that does have to be taken into account.
    It is largely an action movie, and I don't have a problem with that. It isn't set to take on any of the big-scale operaic concepts that IV-VI tackled, and I-III crashed into. Since it's in between the big events, we can just hang out and see what's happening in the 'verse. Some Jedi spirituality comes into play with Anakin and his apprentice, and it's handled well. I enjoyed meeting someone screwed up enough to be Anakin's Padawan. It's all viable Jedi material, and a far cry from the hashed out monkey-dribble typed out for I-III.
    There were a few flaws, which show up as symptoms from the poor writing in I-III. They are like a disease that must be crushed, as Vader sought to crush the rebellion, or preferably blown apart, as Luke did to the Death Star, and will likely have to be done so twice, then revisited in a prequel, tabletop RPG, and associated merchandise.
      * Yoda's Speech. We see the same inversions instead of a feel for a character's speech, sloppy writing.
      * Mace Windu. As with I-III, an interesting character concept, but he fails to convey anything spiritually significant, as was intended. His speech, like Yoda's, follows a pattern, instead of depicting any real depth of character. I want so much more from Windu, Lucas, you give me so much less.

Based on recent Republican claims as to Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience, I move that I be given a 1 billion dollar grant and NASA research team to head up an engineering project involving mecha and horticulture-based power sources. My experience watching Cowboy BeBop, and playing SF RPGs is immense, and I am therefore highly qualified in this area.