Your obfuscating my points, labelling me--whether anarchist or something else--and so on is so disingenuous and logically specious that I don't have time to respond to it all. A selection:

"And your Himmler quote is just a lame example of Godwin's law, since obviously ANYTHING the Nazis ever said about ANYTHING must be wrong."

Whereas anything said in response to a quote about the Nazis MUST be right, correct?

"It can't possibly be the case that he was just talking about the basic requirements of running a state, whether it be a fascist, socialist, or democratic one."

It could be, but instead it was a statement reflecting on the essential nature of anti-democratic governments: consolidation of power, including that which grows out of the barrel of a gun.

Say, there's another good quote...

I have a life outside salon.com so I'll have to put off tearing apart much of the rest of your argument for later, sorry.

I'm not sure I share your level of distrust of big governments, but thanks for providing some uncommon insights--which usually only those who've possessed one of those hefty insurance policies can appreciate. You obviously have, or do.

Anyone who's lived in LA, SF, or Seattle can appreciate the workings of liberal facism, or smiley-face facism as I call it: rapacious fines, corrupt city gov't, outlandish fees, poor infrastructure, pretty high crime, insufficient policing, and so on. Only those with the most trusting natures can think these gov'ts give a flying f*ck about their citizens.

I'm a left myself, and never thought I'd quote Ted Nugent, whom I find repugnant, overall, but he makes a good point: life is the most precious gift, to not recognize and neutralize threats to it is pretty much the greatest sin. That's the gist of it anyway. And whether that threat is a meth-head breaking into your house, or the Feds deciding to spin up the generators at the detention camps, 50 million armed and trained citizens seeking merely to defend democracy--not initiate "mob rule" are a comforting thought.

God didn't make man equal, Samuel Colt did.

"To level the playing field now, we'd have to let people have their own tanks and nukes."

Read the end of my first post.

"Anyway, it seems like the premise here is that we would be in a situation where violent uprising would be reasonable. This deeply troubles me."

So again, advocating a balance of power between citizens and government means I'm being troubling? Of course I'm only talking worse-case scenario!

Is the prospect of living in a dictatorship, where undesirables are disappeared, less troubling to you? Because that's the only situation in which I or anyone else with my argument in mind is talking about: the worst-case kind.

@ cherylsass: Nice to hear. It's the only post of yours I've read but I like your sass! It is cheryl...sass...isn't it?

Anyway, seconding the point above about transcript vs. video:

Reassuring transcript:

"What we want to have happen is for Sen. Obama to be nominated by a unified convention of Democrats."

As she actually spoke it:

"What we want to have happen is for....(4-second pause)...Sen. Obama to be nominated by a unified convention of Democrats."

And with the same limp-lettuce lack of enthusiasm as at her concession speech. However you want to parse her words, it's obvious that she's resigned, at best. I wouldn't doubt she wishes daily for Obama to crash and burn.

And then she follows that with the suspiciously code-word-heavy;

"And so that my delegates feel they've had a role and their legitimacy has been validated," which is followed as if scripted by a question on nominating her by role call, in answer to which her last statement, that if her delegates try to nominate her via roll-call (delegates/role) it's "beyond my control," i.e. her legitimacy as the party's nominee would be validated.

I'd think it's crazy too if I hadn't hear her do verbal triple axels around a lot of things, but most importantly among them this, for the last two years. And why do her "delegates" need to be "validated?" Her delegates are aware it's a numbers game and in that they have a role: they join a column based on how their districts vote. Or if Superdelgates, based on their personal convictions if not, as delegate, on the votes of their constituents. If either don't jump her ship then they're being, literally, validated.

Who wants validation are the PUMA's, and that's who she means, or more generally all of the "it's not over til it's over" crowd. That's obvious.

Do you get that feeling of lawyerliness from Obama? Yes, but there are lawyers, and then there are lawyers....

As to the age of the Chinese gymnasts, two comments:

First, it's possible the Chinese cheated on that.

Second, Chinese look young for their age so it's possible even He Kexin is 16.

But 99% of Americans seem so sure she's not.

Having spent over a decade in East Asia and being fluent in Chinese, I have a bit more educated view than most, and it's 50/50 IMO.

Anyway, being smaller and lighter means, well, smaller and weaker. It's not necessarily an advantage. So I hear a lot of whining.

I was at the Seoul Olympics in '88, there was a lot of nationalism there too.

The commentary from day one has been typically nationalistic. Like the "the Chinese are trying to emphasize the positive aspects of their culture/history." That was sickening to hear more than once: do you think Chinese commentators would comment on the lack of a slavery and/or lynching scene in a similar performance in the US? Okay, they might, but they're supposedly victims of constant nationalistic propaganda, not us. Right.

Politics inevitably get mixed up in the Olympics, and though I'm internationally minded I'm proud too when "our girls/guys" do well. But I've cheered on the underdogs still more. I guess I'm unusual that way.