You Believe The Ends Justify the Means, You'd Better Know what the Ends are

And PS, unless they're your ends, you can only discern ends by examining means and outcomes and how those are addressed when they contradict the expressed "ends," goals or motivations of the person expressing them. The proof is in the pudding is the better approach for voters and consumers.

Let's start with an Obamacare question. I don't believe Obamacare is good. You do believe Obamacare is good. We both bring up the preventive care coverage {free} of female sterilization to support our argument.

I believe Obamacare incentivizes the sterilization of women, a more complicated and expensive procedure over men because it makes it free for female sterilization and not male sterilization. You, I suppose would argue that for females looking to be sterilized it's good it's covered.

My response would be that when making that decision, females have a weaker argument to make that their male partners undergo the less invasive and cheaper procedure because Obamacare incentivizes choosing female sterilization. I would dare say that if a Republican proposed and publicized that provision of Obamacare there would have been women around the country citing it as evidence of anti-female bias comparing it to the forced sterilizations of decades ago.

The good-evil argument often is used as a cheap manipulation to create a bias in favor or against. By believing Obama is "good," neo-liberals tend to believe the expression of motivations that are cast as "good," even when it's pretty obvious that the motivation for this provision might well be about government Medicaid spending, coupling together the idea that more women will get sterilized and not have children who then will be eligible for more governmental benefits. That actually coincides more with Obamacare, the saving of governmental outlays on behalf of individuals than the reasoning that this provision was pro-woman.

This reliance and belief that they are "good" and that others are "evil" has perpetuated Obamacare bad outcomes and broken promises that ultimately evidence that the motivations expressed, the ends defined, could not have been honest at all.

If you believed Obama saying he wanted everyone to have the same healthcare his family does, as his goal, his motivation, then we should have been outraged and voiced dissent and criticism and discarded the law that immediately provided a de facto exemption for public employees who retained their superior benefits coverage and retained funding for their premiums up to 75 percent with taxpayer money. That was Obama's family's coverage and WANTING everyone to have the same coverage his family did is not at all evidenced in this exemption and the additional law passed to make sure the exemption was kept in place.

But, once you assume the expressed genuineness of Obama's motivation, you automatically become evil if you criticize, so people didn't notice or criticize strongly or loudly enough and we still pay for those public employee benefits.

If you say as Obama did that people will be able to keep their doctors and that's a goal, then omitting that provision from your 1,000 pages of law as a means to obtaining that goal is impossible, unless you didn't truthfully express your goal.

If you told people, as Obama did, that they would save $2,500 in premiums a year yet your Obamacare law makes permissible higher premiums for the old, who are one of only two classes of people who by Obamacare law can be charged 1.5 times premium and you also then raise the premiums charged to young people by changing the traditional 5:1 ratio to 3:1, meaning old people who are already being charged higher premiums under your law, 1.5 times the rate of everyone else, and young people can be charged one-third of that instead of the former one-fifth of that, the both young and old are paying more, this means that "savings" on premiums was NOT a goal and therefore you didn't truthfully express your motivations, your ends.

If you say you support early diagnosis and preventive checkups as a means of obtaining early cure and preserving public health, as Obama did, you could not reasonably, as Obamacare does, make checkups free, but everything else from testing to treatment more expensive in the form of higher out-of-pocket expenses ranging from deductibles to copay to coinsurance and requiring higher thresholds to reach the medical deduction, to ever-increasing out-of-pocket maximums, established by CMS, to excluding life-saving drugs from your plan. These are all evidence that you lied about your ends.

These neo-liberal good-evil scenarios are damaging to our country because they're dividing people based on imaginary identification of the "GOOD" motivations of neo-liberals and the "BAD" motivations of everyone else, completely discarding reality.

On what level of sanity is calling someone a Nazi when there's no evidence of the same a "GOOD" tactic in the spirit of pursuing the ends of equality and tolerance? The answer is, it's not, it cannot be. Yet I hear some pretty intelligent people expressing this belief too. It's slanderous, but it bolsters the GOOD-EVIL fallacy that today represents most of the neo-liberals I know. They're actually calling people Nazis with no evidence, no proof, simply to dramatize how "good" they the neo-liberals are, when their prejudicial, slanderous conduct is actually characterizing a group of people, Republicans, in a way designed to expose them to ridicule and contempt, hardly "GOOD."

And so it is with Brett Kavanaugh's hearings. The nobility of hearing and believing those alleging sex abuse does NOT justify disposing of all process, procedure and presumptions created to guard against false accusation and prosecution. Even with these protections in place, the number of unjust conclusions in our court systems, shows that often even these procedural protections and presumptions are inadequate.

Going backwards, removing protections, procedures and presumptions designed to protect people from false accusations that can ruin their lives is under no circumstances "GOOD." Many believe Christine Blasey Ford. That should be only part of the requirement for ruining someone else's life. Belief is evidence of belief, proof is evidence that a belief is accurate. While there are many real and valid reasons for not recalling or not having proof, they do not overcome the requirement for proof in order to fairly act and ruin someone's life.

The best reasons the media has put forth for going forward and acting on accusations made by Ford and dumping Kavanaugh include only the fact that people don't see that she's earning money from her disclosures. We got no help from Ford who merely offered as her motivation, as her end, that she felt it was her civic duty to now come forward to protect people based on her old-time memories of the incident which she apparently felt no need to disclose up to this point, though Kavanaugh has been a judge for years and civic duty one might have thought would have kicked in earlier.

We don't know Ford's motivations. We don't know whether Christine Blasey Ford's motives fulfilled some decades long emotional need, some desire for fame or a place in the history books, name recognition to help her on the job or in her future endeavors, or an opportunity for subject matter for the publish part of her publish/perish professorship or whether it truly is from some sense of newly emerging civic duty. We simply don't know. The assertion that she is to be believed because no money has changed hands that they know of and therefore she has no motive to tell her story now not only is ridiculous, because they don't know what money has to do with this yet, but presumes they understand the complexities of human motivation.

What we do know is that believing Ford's expression of her motivations should not be enough to act upon and that while we might be sympathetic and understand her scanty recall, it cannot rise to a legitimate justification to act on those accusations and negatively impact another's livelihood and reputation, which will make us accomplices in the creation of a new perpetrator class…The accuser.

Allowing people to threaten the accusation of sexual abuse is enough to destroy a person's reputation and career opportunities and is dangerous to our society, creating a new set of perpetrators whom perhaps were also victims of something but that should nevertheless not entitle them to become perpetrators. We don't want to empower women by disempowering men, it's a cruelty that reflects primitive shifts without progress and simply trades off one set of victims and perpetrators for another.

If we're going to say the ends justify the means, and use some horrendous means like slander and hearsay and mob mentality and shaming and name-calling and labeling as our means, then we'd better acknowledge that we often fail to be told or understand the real motivations and ends of an accusation, especially before we attach the labels "good" and "evil."