Nuclear first strike threats happen as a result of a superpower standoff in the absence of peaceful cooperation. Those criteria eliminate Pakistan and India (not really superpowers capable of competing after the nuke, i.e. they have no reason to nuke us) and China (too much interdependence at present, they'd be nuking themselves in the foot, so to speak). Not that the situation couldn't change in the future, but the diplomatic situation is such that the motivation just isn't there.

Iran should also be considered as a rational actor, whatever the current rhetoric is (and if we accept that the regime itself is rational, even if Ahmadenijad is not, then between MAD, third-party AD after a nuke strike, and the lack of any reasonable expectation of benefit from nuking the US, there's no credible threat). Iran has very evident rational reasons for its current attempt to get nuclear weapons.

With North Korea you might have something, since Kim Jong Il actually does control the government. But again, even granting he's unstable, he's not incoherently insane. His worldview has an internal logic -- it just doesn't agree with the rest of us. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that developing the nuclear arsenal serves a couple of purposes there: 1) technology sale for a country starved of exportable goods; 2) a bargaining chip in ongoing negotiations with the nuclear powers; and 3) the ability to deter the US from being involved in conventional warfare on the peninsula. Given the ongoing Cheonan incident, I wouldn't be surprised if that third one was the most significant.

In short, none of those examples pose a credible threat to the US at present. There's a potential threat in the future assuming technological development and a huge change in the diplomatic and economic situations, but those are some pretty big assumptions -- you would not need larger ones to imagine a credible nuclear threat from a non-state actor.

There is no credible threat of a nuclear attack from a missile, either.

I think you are underestimating the rationality of North Korea and Iran. Kim Jong-Il is well aware of the consequences of his actions, and won't launch against anyone any time soon -- his main target would probably be South Korea anyway, and if he wanted to he could level Seoul with ballistic conventional weaponry before they could do anything about it.

Iran is not actually governed by Ahmadinejad; he's a figurehead. In any event, the logic of the situation suggests that Iran absolutely should want nukes -- but primarily as a deterrent against the other nuclear powers in its neighborhood (Israel) and the West (US). MAD not only discourages nuclear war, but conventional war as well. Getting nukes would greatly increase Iran's security and regional importance, if it can get through the dangerous phase where it looks like it might have nukes.

However, you're right that there's a credible threat of nuclear attack from a non-state actor. Thing is it won't come from an ICBM, it'll come in a suitcase, or in the back of a truck.

This is a facile tautology.
It's impossible to criticize anything without becoming a critic of that thing. Surely you aren't suggesting that we disregard every report that comes from someone with an opinion? Particularly when that opinion may be the *result* of the findings, instead of predetermining them?

Obviously the right thing to do is to keep in mind the bias of the author, but evaluate the critical report's claims on their own merits.

Not to mention the scandal & furor caused by one of the first topless statues in American history -- of a porn starlet & ex-President named George Washington.

Bare man-chest! Indecent!

Yes! This! You lighten up about OMG NAKED BODIES because prurience is no reason to delete it!
Obviously depictions of (actual, not artwork) child molestation, etc., should be removed as violations of law just about everywhere and specifically in the hosting countries. But for voluntarily portrayed, copyright-clean instances featuring consensual participants in legal acts, the mere fact that it's porn shouldn't be grounds for removing it from Wikimedia. If you've got a lot of stuff that's on the server but not referenced in any article, you might remove it as a trim to save space (WM is not Picasa). But imposing these sorts of uptight cultural standards is entirely contradictory to the spirit of a participatory medium dedicated to freedom of knowledge and information.

Not only that -- the phrase "too much unnecessary porn" implies that there is an appropriate, non-zero amount of unnecessary pornography that should be hosted on Wikimedia servers.

Because it encourages the use of this DRM in the future. Why would I pay someone to release a deliberately crippled product? If Civ V does require a live-connection DRM system, I will be sending Firaxis a letter detailing exactly why I won't be buying the next release in a series I greatly love.

What a load of horse crap.

Craigslist is a small organization providing an extremely valuable set of community services that would be negatively impacted by this meddling. Some people use it to sell sex, which is illegal in most jurisdictions. But, the last thing Craigslist needs is a bunch of officious, self-important AGs trying to make it police its tremendous trove of content to stamp out a bugaboo that will never die. Because you know what? People have always sold sex. The only difference is Craigslist is a much higher class of prostitution than the kind that lives on sketchy corners, by streetlights, or under the elevated railway.

If AGs are so sure that there's all this coded communication happening over Craigslist, then surely they can find a way to bust the people who are actually committing the crime of buying and selling sex. Why mess with the unwitting middleman? Who really gets hurt -- aside from high-class pimps, who really make money exploiting women's sexuality, and who are really impacted when the sex worker can find her own customers directly and without need for an "escort agency"?

'course, I also support the radical ideas that sex isn't an awful evil thing and that people should generally be allowed to do what they want with their bodies (even while agreeing that it's horrible that people should turn to prostitution through lack of choices, and that sex workers are so often in such a vulnerable and easily exploitable position).

Not statistically relevant. See analysis at her site.

Not quite -- an Arizona license will suffice. An out-of-state one wouldn't be construed as proof of citizenship. (Nor should it be, since driver's licenses are appropriately issued to non-citizens.)

Your Arizona license. If you're in town from New Mexico, that might be a problem for you.

...of course they want to leave people in an indefinite illegal status.
Legal citizens have a much easier time enforcing their rights in re: wages and workplace standards. Illegal immigrants are far, far easier to exploit.