The navigation on your site can be done in xhtml/css within a few minutes and about 10 lines of codes, and still be cross browser compatible, and W3C happy. In fact, a lot of commercial and non-commercial text-based website do look great and still are xhtml/css valid.
If the reason for using flash is for cross browser compatibility, then you're using flash for all the wrong reasons. You might as well just use table layout, which, as opposed to flash applications, loads a lot faster. Or just use images as your text too - this way, not only does it display the way you want, it doesn't rely on the user's machine to have Flash installed.
Sure, most mainstream computers now 'should' have flash installed, but hey, not all are. And not all users have great vision like you and me. Visually impared users rely on screen readers to read... well, codes that you embed flash applications around.
Sorry, I'm not trying to have a personal go at you, but I just want to point out that the reason you justified for using flash isn't valid. I have nothing against you using flash for your navigation bar; it looks great and it works very well; nor do I have anything against making a flash based website. I would only use it where appropriate (i.e. that I'm extremely confident users would have Flash plugin installed, or I do a flash image replace; or the client specifically want it; or the website have to perform tasks that xhtml cannot (e.g. music, video))
Speaking of videos, I think the reason youtube is successful in using flash is because.. well, think back in the old days where we have to watch video in .mov or .wmv format, and you have that little window, that just wouldn't play because we dont' have the codecs for it. RealPlayer was such a pain....
