You're right, it's not a compliment to Solo, but instead to his ship.

I've imagined it was more along the lines of accelerating to some speed, then back down again within a certain distance. Since top speed is meaningless in space, the real comparison would be acceleration. Kind of similar to 1 to 60 in x seconds kind of remark, only replacing time with space to still have a meaningful metric, 1 to 60 in 500 feet.

Just do it twice to be sure.

1. The constitution specifically makes room for such emergencies. If you think it is meant to be laid aside for any emergency, you are probably loved by a government eager to declare emergencies.
2. Your order of operations is offensively backwards. First pass laws in your state. Why do you need to pass constitutional ammendments as your first option?
3. You don't want to speed up the amendment process. It is not that difficult to raise a hopenchange mob, the damage to our nation would be irrevocable.

Not just pretty much, it's very much that way. Even if a police officer opens fire on you, your legal options are still to comply and then fight it out in court later.

Police authority is pretty awesome, and something most citizens should be very mindful of.

I believe in principals. If your argument is sensible, it will make sense even at radical extremes. So I watch Fox with Msnbc to decide who is less crazy.

All that and billion dollar basket-weaving classes for low income canines in Springfield.

Crystal ball says:

2012 US Ratifies bill giving the FBI the authority to collect a DNA fingerprint from all citizens.
2012 Citizens sue for rights to DNA fingerprint Joe vs. USA. Judge rules fingerprint is generated from, but is not inherent to, someone's DNA; no rights exist to own your DNA fingerprint.
2013 First suspect indicted on DNA only evidence, no previous criminal record. New FBI program hailed a major success.
2016 Judge grants warrant to FBI agents to fully sequence the DNA from a federal repository of two suspects with identical DNA fingerprints.
2017 Citizens sue to deny FBI from keeping a repository of DNA Jane vs. USA. Judge rules repository is necessary to the success of the fingerprinting program, and is therefore implied in the language of the bill.
2017 DNA fingerprinting program in full force, cataloging the fingerprint of every new child.
2022 First kindergarten class taught DOE lesson 14, "How your DNA fingerprint keeps you safe."
2025 Executive order 75920; DOHHS given access to DNA repository to quantify risk of current populace to goat flu, later designated H1M1.
2026 DOHHS isn't able to identify goat flu risks, but does find an alarmingly high number of Alzheimer prone individuals.
2026 Government healthcare adjusts rates to compensate for high-risk individuals
2027 Outraged citizens sue government for rights to DNA sequences John vs. USA. Judge rules the state cannot be placed in double jeopardy citing Joe vs. USA.
2029 Legislation introduced requiring high-risk individuals pay a reproductive tax for having offspring. Legislation fails to pass.
2031 Recession strikes. Drastic new legislation is introduced giving the DOHHS the authority to mandate medical decisions for high-risk couples. This will save or create millions of new jobs. Buried in the bill is a requirement for high-risk individuals to register with their local communities as such.
2032 1419 high school sophomores are mandated an abortion for being a pregnant, high-risk individual.
2033 Investigative journalist, Todd Todsen, uncovers federal tampering of "high-risk" thresholds. Newly appointed Whitehouse Chief of Staff, Todd Todsen, journals the successes of the DNA program over the past decades.
2034 Generation DNA graduates from highschool. 64% of them are required to register with their local municipalities as gene-offenders.

And the genetic aristocracy is born.

Sure, the German Ambassador has a home country in Germany.

What is interpol's home country? If they cannot be tried here for crimes, who tries them? Where can I turn for justice if they commit a crime against me?

Interpol is international, I know in the name right, so why would they care what ANY country asks them to do?

Well maybe because:
1. The U.S. is a member nation
2. The U.S. pays the bills (like other member nations)
3. The secretary general of interpol is an American citizen, once of the U.S. Treasury. Citizenship should be enough to suggest interest in the U.S. but throw in his treasury and government ties and now you have all sort of good conspiracy theories on top.

Like any org, self preservation is goal #1. Who do you think the interpol agents operating on american soil will be working for, if not the country that preserves their existence (on our soil)?

How about, "immunity from suit and every form of Judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity"

The U.S. is giving a foreign body the ability to operate on our soil without any possible action for civil reprisal. Not a big deal for a 5 acre plot for an ambassador to operate a foreign embassy... but a foreign police authority? It throws due process out the window. I can sue my local police department if they violate my rights, I can only lube up if interpol does it.

Treaties > Constitution; that's why this limits our sovereignty.

I'm not trying to play semantics. Let me clarify what I mean, so your scrutiny is properly placed, because I'm sure you still won't agree with me. :)

For example, let's say, for one issue, climate change, we define clean as, "less than 350ppm" (yeah I can cram commas into a sentence like no other). As you point out, and I agree, this definition is different for different topics. I claimed that such a definition of clean cannot be satisfied naturally, or through technology. Keep in mind, I said that with your clean power in mind, not your clean dishes.

-Naturally-
Most C02 emissions are not man-made. Due to some natural cycle that we do not fully understand, the planet has become unclean. As the earth passes through future states, and exposed to a sun passing through future states, our definitions of "clean" will become more and more radical, but the earth will never meet them since it will continue to change in new ways.

-Technologically-
Frankly, you could create a technology that meets your standard of "clean" (solar cells manufactured using nuclear power, or whatever). However, the earth continues to change due to natural processes, and is now unclean despite your 0 emission cells. So technology can only win if it counters the natural process. We're talking about a technology with the potential to terraform, and even then, earth will continue to evolve, making it more and more difficult to counter natural trends. C02 today, Sulfur tomorrow, hyper-UV, and inevitably a dead sun. Technology, like man who created it, will always be insignificant compared to greater natural forces.

I propose a different definition of clean. Clean = natural.

Now I doubt you agree with me to this point, but I'm sure you won't agree with me after.

Consider what would happen if we didn't bury our trash or nuclear waste, didn't reduce C02, nor do we dilute toxic emissions?

You'd get the opposite of clean, a dirty earth, polluted and unusable? No, you end with a clean earth.

There are bacteria that have been able to recently (as in our lifetime) evolve and are capable of breaking down some polymers. This is one of the biggest dangers to wildlife, yet a bacteria has found a way to eliminate it.

When exposed to radiation, bacteria build a resilience (well the unresilient die, but after a couple generations...).

My point is simple. Green-types want to go back to yesterday, because of their definition of clean. But I think the earth's definition of clean is a different world where you can throw your plastic bottle to the side of the road, and the local life will use it to their benefit.

When earth doesn't suit us anymore, an absolute inevitability, we move on; although hopefully before it doesn't suit us.

We're robbing ourselves of an earth that suits our needs, by trying to isolate ourselves from earth. Why are we trying to reduce the CO2 levels on earth, and never even consider how can we adapt to the inevitable change?

Your clean power will not alter climate change, benefit the animals, mankind, or earth. It will cost you more money each month though, and as long as you're happy to pay it, whatever.

While true, the article states the proliferation risk is "none", which is not true. All it takes is one clever chemist/physicist to upgrade "none" to "practical".

That's the most vague definition I've ever seen. Besides, a self-referencing definition isn't really a definition.

When you actually try to define 'clean', you'll realize you have such a narrow definition, that no technology or natural process can satisfy it.

You green types need to rethink what "clean" means. Because whatever you think that is, it can only exist in the past and only for a short period in the past.

Th-232 produces U-233 which is the actual fuel for the reaction. U-233 can also be used to create nuclear weapons.

This article claims thorium reactors remove the threat of proliferation, but that is incorrect. This article gets 2 thumbs down for misleading the audience. We don't need to lie to people to make nuclear technology an acceptable energy source.