I would define a "right" as something that you can compel someone else to do for you -- e.g., you have the right to life (which means no one is allowed to kill you) and liberty (which means no one else is allowed to make you a slave), etc. If promiscuity is a right, then others can be compelled to satisfy your sexual lusts, regardless of how willing they are; if binge drinking is a right, then bar owners should be required to give you alcohol, regardless of your ability to pay. If others can't be compelled to act (or refrain from acting) in order to give you your "right", then it's not really a right at all.

I have problems with every single Republican candidate -- including those endorsed by the Tea Party whose word we can trust; there is no one I think "perfect", so in a way, I agree with my governor. However, I think that one of those we can trust will win, regardless of whether the insiders think s/he can. I can't vote for Romney should he win the Republican nomination - I simply don't think he'd be one whit better than Obama, and in some ways worse, because he'd be a liberal with an "R" after his name, so he'd either be fighting with his own party, or they'd go along with his liberal crap just because he's a Republican, much like the Republican Congress did with big-spending Bush.

I see it now. Looks fabulous!

I don't see the video either, not even a red X. :-(

Congrats on the Bruins win! :-) I have to admit, I did feel a little sorry for Luongo getting pulled after allowing 3 goals in less than the first 10 minutes of game-play, but mostly think it was poetic justice after his trash-talking Thomas's goalie skills.

My husband switched back and forth between the game and the debate; it was disgustingly obvious that the talking heads at CNN want Romney mostly or Gingrich and possibly Paul to be considered the top contenders. Although we didn't watch all the post-debate coverage, we watched several portions of it, and they only talked about those three, ignoring the other four. Scared of them? Know that a real conservative will spell trouble for Obama? Wanting to get the most liberal candidate the Republicans field? So the question becomes, why let the liberal media pick the Republican "conservative" candidate?

*like*

@NSangoma -- it's true that these distinctions have been made since 1790, although until slavery was abolished, it was necessary to know how many slaves and how many free people there were, because representation was based not on the population, but on the number of free people plus 3/5 the number of slaves. The North didn't want to count slaves at all, and the South wanted to count each slave as one person, hence the 3/5 Compromise.

I agree that "race is key to implementing several federal laws," but one might argue that those federal laws are unconstitutional or otherwise wrong, unnecessary, or damaging to the people they are supposed to help. Could you explain to me why and how the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act need census race data to monitor compliance? I'm asking seriously, because I've not read those acts.

I think that gerrymandering districts is not only wrong but damaging to the people it is supposed to help. For one thing, by keeping all the people of one group in one place, it means that they have only one representative, rather than making all representatives have to consider that one group's viewpoint and needs along with all the other groups' needs and viewpoints.