I know I'm late to the party, but still...

Edmund Burke wrote of the dangers of radicalism, seen most vividly in the French Revolution. Perhaps the main failing of that revolution -- like all revolutions -- was the elevation of the "intelligence" of demagogues over (true) reason, wisdom, and (most importantly) tradition. And so we saw ridiculous excesses like renaming the days and re-writing religions in the name of "reason." Burke railed against it -- and he was right.

What would Burke think of men who consider themselves, their demagogues, and their ideology superior even to the written word of the Lord? Would he consider them conservatives, as they call themselves? Of course not -- he'd consider them ridiculous revolutionaries, eager to toss wisdom, tradition -- even God -- to the trash heap in favor of their own "intelligence" and the elevation of their own names.

Rewrite the Bible if you want. Believe that your own intelligence is superior to tradition if you want. Advocate radical change and the destruction of our society in the name of your ideology if you want. I can't stop you. But could you at least, for the love of Edmund Burke, not call yourself a conservative while you're doing it? Please?

Calling yourself a conservative while advocating positions like that is like calling yourself an "intilectual." It's clear you've heard the word, clear you like to use it, but also clear that you have no idea what the fuck it means.

I'm sorry to hear of your financial troubles. If you do lose your house (and I sincerely hope you don't), I'm sure you won't leave behind much mess -- but in doing so, you also won't leave behind much of a story.

I'm sure it sounds like cleaning these houses is all about shovels full of heroin needles -- just like if you talk to a cop about his or her job, it can sound like every single person they meet on the street is a crackhead. It's not meant to be a balanced, statistical portrait of the average homeowner in financial trouble -- it's a story about a person's experiences.

Yes, the article is about her. Write what you know -- and she doesn't know the people whose houses have been foreclosed upon. All she can tell you is what it's like to be the person coming in after the damage is done.

It's an interesting perspective You take serious offense at the idea that she could be happy through this -- but is she supposed to be on the verge of cutting her wrists all the time? It's just a job. You can't empathize with everyone -- you'd go crazy -- and you're not a douchebag just because you treat your job like a job.

I've got to wonder what you think of morticians. I mean, how can they possibly watch tv, date, fall in love, go to parties, etc.? Someone just died! There's a dead person in the basement! They should be grieving! Don't they empathize with the family?!

Of course they do -- they're not bad people. But there are limits to how much misery you can take on in the world. The story of someone surrounded by misery, and muddling through it -- you find that utterly offensive for some reason. I just find it interesting.

The venom displayed by the other letter writers is disappointing. Look -- people lose their homes. Banks foreclose. If banks can't foreclose, then they can't lend -- they have to have the secured asset. If banks can't lend, you can't buy a house in the first place. This is a fact of life, and only a child would think capitalism "evil" because of it.

So banks have to foreclose. Ok. So they've foreclosed, and now the homeowners can just live there forever without paying... Except, no, really, they can't. They have to leave. The house has to be resold. The asset has to be converted back into cash. You don't like it, I don't like it, the homeowner doesn't like it, the bank doesn't like it, and on a moral level the author doesn't like it. But it's going to happen.

So the owner has to leave. It's not the bank's fault, often not the owner's fault. But it's definitely not the author's fault. But what should we do, then? Should the house just sit there, full of trash, rotting, unsellable? Or should it be cleaned, prepared, and resold? Society is better off if it's the latter. It's not evil to serve that function. It's not like the author has it in her power to save these peoples' homes, but chooses not to. She can't give the owner an extension. She can't overlook a missed payment. That's just not her role. Her only choice is to leave the house rotting, or clean it. She cleans it.

Oh, but this couple makes money off it, so they're evil...give me a fucking break. Everyone has to make money -- or else it's their home being foreclosed on. You can get rich at it? Well, not that rich -- but if you're willing to take the risk of starting your own business, accept the dangers of a sweaty, nasty, emotionally tolling job, and work your ass off -- and you get a little rich off it? Ok by me.

Yes, recessions suck, and the people who caused them suck. But you need people who will help keep the world running -- who will take the shit job and do it. That's what these people do. And, yeah, they're a bit hardened -- so what? It's a hard job, and over time you have to be a bit callous or else you just can't do it.

Giving them shit about it -- and even suggesting they kill themselves, as one writer did -- because of some misplaced anger at the recession is just childish.