TrueStory--
First off, you're right. Accountants are the most important and morally sterling people in the world so long as you subscribe to the notion that a dollar bill is actually worth more than the paper it's printed on. The problem is, nobody knows what a dollar is worth. So, two might get you a loaf of bread? Okay, there's a way to measure it's value. But we don't. It's so formulaic and obscure that it takes various teams of people to cover all of the factors involved with determining what a dollar is worth. And how well do these clusters of sterling thinkers communicate? Well .... if I apply my usual standard, that I shouldn't expect more of other people than I expect of myself--and if I look around at the state of communications at my present company, and compare that to my past experiences--well, I'd say the communication between the left hand and the right hand is darn poor. So the end result is that I dare anyone to tell me exactly what a dollar is worth, aside from one-hundred pennies, or two cups of coffee. I don't care what it equals compared to a pound-sterling, I don't care what it equals compared to the Yen.
Now, I don't care whether or not people disagree with me. That's what this forum is for. However, I might remind you that the fact we're going through this indicates you missed the point entirely, choosing instead to argue over what was already a fair-size generalization describing a process that is important to what I think will happen during Y2k.
So, if you like all people, regardless ad nauseum .... Yeah. I suppose "feeding my family" is an important enough idea to want to do something, say, immoral. I would ask you how you feel about the people at Gillette, inc., who "feed their families" by testing cosmetics on animals, except, well, I already have your answer. How far does it go? We don't accept "it was my orders" for war crimes. How about "I was trying to feed my family"?
I don't care whether an accountant is a Christian, a vegetarian, or a wife-beater. Those things I can't know about them. But I do care when someone thinks their best job is to make life more complicated--this is the standard result when accountants overstep the notion of simply accounting. I think of accountants as a social necessity: we have chosen this ugly, money-obssessed path and now must hire accountants to figure out the mess we've made. Certainly they perform a vital function, but it is a vital function supporting an extraneous, ficticious need. Ergo, it equals nothing.
And remember, your perception of my being degrading is merely that: your perception. I can say someone has a useless job. I know--I have a useless job.
Your abusive use of the word "extreme" (extreme, extreme, it's all extreme!) So tell me, then ... does it surprise you when lawyers oppose legislation capping their fees? Does it surprise me when accountants support complex tax laws that ensure a steady business flow for years to come? Would I be nearly as extreme if I said sports agents were useless? After all, somebody's gotta negotiate that six-million dollar contract and finagle your name onto a shoe.
A popular term derived from accountants seems to be "the bottom line". I'm curious, then, if you support--or even see--the bottom-line mentality possessing Western, and especially American, culture. After all, we cannot see the effect of improving public education in a ledger. Not right away, at least. Thus, the accountants advise against such a high-risk investment. The accountants can, however, magically pull a billion dollars out of thin air to build two sports arenas. Incidentally, I support these arenas; I just find it sickeningly ironic that, given a choice, the voters prefer the bottom-line mentality: locally, at least, we feel it better to have comfortable athletes than well-prepared students. Why? I can only speculate, if it's not too extreme. But I'm pretty sure it has something to do with being able to tax ticket revenues and not being able to financially tax the value of knowledge. It's a better-looking bottom line.
It seems about consistent with your presented reasoning that you think I just haven't met enough people. That's among one of your better, frequent responses. We could look at a parallel: I don't like work by the author Bob Larsen. Someone once told me I just hadn't read enough of his work. So how much should I read? The answer was sadly incoherent, but the gist of it was that I'm supposed to keep reading and keep reading until the guy publishes something that impresses me. So I could, I suppose, grab my lantern and walk the Earth, seeking an honest accountant. Would that satisfy your diversity requirements?
I will restate, to make sure I'm clear: People are people--it's hard to object to them. I cannot fault them for being black, white, yellow, Christian, Jew, Muslim .... Many things we are born with, including some of the subjective things. But something we have to choose is what we do with our lives. If accountants stuck to addition and subtraction, then hey ... it's a fair, but seemingly boring gig. However, when accountants set the terms of progress with their "bottom-line" ideas, I think we're crossing into a whole new set of ideas. If it was just adding and subtracting, I don't see the need for the title CPA. But as it is, accountants have the culture convinced the only bottom line that counts is measured in dollars. And to continue to advocate that philosophy is wrong, especially when progress toward it merely increases your own wealth.
It's not like skin color. You can stop being an accountant any day. Don't want to? Fine. Don't like the way accountants are represented? Change the way they act. But to continue to go forward in the current context is choosing to advocate its detriments. In other words, wishing ill.
You're right, I am extreme. I see a culture with certain needs and desires. I see the same culture sacking those ideas because they cost too much, and don't show on the bottom line either soon or dramatically enough. Soon enough, from any combination of circumstances, problems will reach a point where no amount of money you can throw at the problem will solve it. I could gleefully ask what good money will do then, and especially the accountants who work with it. But that's not the point: I would rather avoid the crisis. Yes, I'm a terrible extremist because my general philosophy shows we should avoid the avoidable complications of society. Would you rather treat cancer symptoms or cure the disease? After all, any accountant will tell you it's better for your bottom line to treat the symptoms. If you cure the disease, you might lose your customer. Metaphorically or literally, I feel the same way.
Tiassa
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)