He's never paid a penny in rent; as far as I know, there's no state where he has any rights to stay. That's almost beside the point, because as an alcoholic homeless person he simply won't be be able to take you to court, even if there were a law on his side.

If you have a couple of loyal friends, it'd be easy, get them all over and force him out. Otherwise, I'd call the police and say, "An abusive homeless man is in my house and I can't get rid of him." Hammer the key points: he's never paid rent; you've been asking him to leave for a long time; he yells at you; you once had an order of protection against him.

Your very existence is at stake - he is literally "hitting you where you live" - you literally cannot have a normal life until he is gone. Avoid lying if you can but hamming it up is a very reasonable suggestion.

But I strongly suggest the "a couple of big friends" strategy. Once he's really outside your house, he's out - even if he theoretically has legal rights, it's his word against yours. (And again, I don't believe that there's any state where someone can stay for a couple of weeks, contribute not a penny, and then have a legal right to stay forever as the result of that...)

perhaps even by mistake, you get a software error.

here's what I would have posted:

It's hard to believe I'm reading this correctly. Let me break this down into baby steps and you can tell me where I went wrong.

1. "Shockingly, the press appears to be more interested in events that determine the future (i.e., who will be the next president?)"

2. Important issues (like a failed war that's spent over a trillion and killed hundreds of thousands, or American torture chambers were innocent men have died in unspeakable agony) will not help determine the next President).

3. Trivial issues (like what someone's pastor said, who someone's husband slept with a decade ago, how much someone spends on a haircut) WILL help determine the next President.

4. Therefore the Press is correct to spend time on trivial issues and ignore important ones.

Aside from the ethical bankruptcy displayed by these statements, has it occurred to you that perhaps the reason Americans don't appear to care about the important issues is that the media simply hasn't reported these stories?

Has it occurred to you that even if what you say were completely correct, that the media might have an ethical responsibility to print stories of supreme importance even though readers might find them less interesting than blowjobs and hairdos?

What a dreadful man. That even one person voted for him.

I know it's a little crass but I gave you a hundred dollars or so a few months ago and it's about the best C-note I ever spent.

This particular article isn't even one of your exceptional ones, but like all your articles it's effective, and accurate, and downright pugilistic. I'd probably send you $5 pretty frequently for research or, heck, cocaine and hookers if it'd help your writing IF there were a convenient button (even a very tiny one) for me to click.

...it wasn't for the massive waste and inefficiency of industrial civilization, where buried forests, compressed for millions of years into oil, are pumped out, transformed into yogurt cups, used in a minute, then discarded, to lie forever in ever-increasing waste heaps.

This is humanity's single great long-term problem, but it's a huge one. "Global warming" is only one part of it.

It might be that we can't solve it. It might be that we will solve it before it's too late. It might well be that there is a certain point after which it is too late to fix the problem, because we will have simply run out of resources even once we see the inevitable. We might even have reached that point fairly recently, in which case we might really be the generation that destroyed the world.

but the Earth could easily support the current population and quite a bit beyond that if it wasn't for the fantastically wasteful nature of economic system that turns non-renewable resources like oil into tiny unrecyclable plastic toys to be put into Happy Meals.

Clearly the content of this article was important - look at the number of people writing in! I might even concede that some of the dislike for Clinton is due to her sex.

(Do note that there are no ads on this letters column...)

But I'm positively inclined towards women in politics; all else being equal I'd vote for a woman over a man in a heartbeat. The reason I'm strongly against Clinton, the reason I think most of "the left" is against her, is that she voted for the Iraq war.

Let me repeat this, she voted for the war. There are a million people dead, and she voted for it. You can't say that she learned anything from this dreadful mistake; she's "voted for the Iran war" with her vote on the Republican Guard.

The fact that Hillary has become a lightning rod for the anger, the sadness and the guilt we feel over the Iraq war is entirely her own doing.

She voted for the war; as a result, she must not become President. Even if she'd recanted, which she has not, the error is too large to be overlooked or excused.

This is nothing, nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with sexism. She voted for the war. Nothing else is as important.