Yes (I think and kind of)

Boudreaux links to a Landsburg column comparing trade restrictions to racism, and saying they violate rights. I agree that they are often like racism, and I agree they violate rights, I'm just not sure if they violate the rights of foreigners. If the guv were to stop me from trading with the business down the street, that would violate both of our rights. Stopping me from trading with Mexicans violates my rights, but do Mexicans have a right vis-a-vis the US government to trade with me? Maybe, but I'm not sure. Comparing protectionism to invading a country and stealing their property isn't really useful, Steven. I realize it's a relative short column so he can't develop a complete argument, but still, I'm a little disappointed.
Via the Balko, Adrienne grammatical pet peeve, the incorrect use of 'literally.' My problem with her post is the same one I have with most people who have this pet peeve, the solution is incorrect. Saying 'figuratively' instead wouldn't yield the intended meaning. Yes, people are using whatever term they're using figuratively and not literally, but what they mean is something along the lines of "I'm not exaggerating" or "no lie". Saying "Peyton Manning is figuratively shredding this defense" would be accurate but stupid (I realize this wouldn't be a big change for most sportscasters). To avoid awkward sentences, perhaps we should allow the word 'literally' to be used figuratively....