I occasionally (not too often) force myself to watch Lou Dobbs just in the interest of maintaining a diverse news/opinion diet. I would love to have the opportunity to challenge him on his protectionism and, specifically, his implicit argument that outsourcing offshore is evil. Primarily, I'd like ask Lou if he thinks it's evil for a U.S.-based company with U.S. operations to acquire new manufacturing equipment or information technology that enables it to conduct its operations with fewer employees. If not, then why is offshore outsourcing evil when it accomplishes the same purpose with the same impact on American workers, while also providing an opportunity for desperately poor people elsewhere to escape (or diminish) hunger and utter deprivation (which is why they'll work for far less compensation)?

Outsourcing is, on balance, a very good thing on a number of levels. First, it enables efficient capitalism, which means -- in the aggregate -- maximum productivity, optimal allocation of resources (generally speaking, with some exceptions), minimum prices of goods and services for consumers, moving jobs to people who need them most, the freeing of resources to where they are best applied (e.g., what economists call "comparative advantages" among nations -- for example, poor, low-cost labor countries producing labor-intensive products and more affluent, educated, tech-savvy countries producing high-tech or high value-added products) and as a result of all of the above, a higher material quality of life -- again, in aggregate. There is also the pragmatic point that we cannot wall ourselves off from the global economy (or at least not without tremendous price increases across much of the economy, lost jobs from our inability to export -- due to lower competitiveness and tariff wars -- and other negative consequences), so we cannot try to defy market forces and force U.S. companies to be less and less competitive.

Needless to say, some individuals suffer from outsourcing, as they do from open markets in general and even more broadly from capitalism (as opposed to pure socialism in which employment and compensation are guaranteed regardless of market forces -- at least until the whole system starts to deteriorate). I do believe that a society has some obligation to cushion the sufferring of those who are temporarily displaced, to ease the pain to a reasonable degree (e.g., unemployment benefits) and to aid in their transition to different jobs that hopefully fit better with what they can provide competitively in a global economy.

So, as I alluded to above, arguments against outsourcing are, for the most part, really arguments against capitalism. In other words, it values protection of particular jobs over a more efficient economy with all the benefits it provides for quality of life in the aggregate (i.e., for the population as a whole). The only twist is a presumed moral imperative to choose the protection of particular types of American jobs over the benefits to much poorer foreigners of shifting those jobs to them. And I would argue that, even leaving aside the moral argument that we should indeed care about a desperately poor person who happened to have the bad fortune of not being born here, forcing a substantial reduction in outsourcing (by legislation or public pressure) would harm most Americans for reasons I've explained above.

One exception to what I said above: If another country is clearly irresponsible in environmental policy or clearly, greatly abusive of labor (i.e., abusing their labor force in ways that artificially reduce wages), some exceptions are legitimate. However, labor unions and others against open markets and outsourcing often put forth exaggerated claims in these areas as a smokescreen for the unrealistic, harmful standard they are really seeking: making trade and outsourcing contingent upon foreign workers in poor countries being paid the same as American workers.

Full disclosure: I'm a management consultant and some of my clients outsource offshore (outsourcing is not the primary focus of my work, but I do occasionally advise on offshore outsourcing decisions). So there is the chance of inadvertent bias on my part. But I truly believe the opinion I’ve expressed above for the reasons I’ve given. If anyone has a different view, I encourage you to comment.

The proliferation of media has contributed to, and perhaps driven, this trend. There are certainly many benefits to the proliferation of media – we are better off as a society and as individuals not being limited to three network news anchors and our local newspaper – and on balance, media proliferation is clearly beneficial. But I lament a negative side-effect: Based admittedly on my anecdotal observations, combined with the empirical fact of the commercial success of partisan/ideologically-focused media sources, it seems that people are increasingly limiting themselves to media sources that only reinforce their current opinions, and, beyond that, that demonize those who disagree. Listeners/readers/viewers apparently do so for the emotional comfort derived from hearing an intelligent, apparently well-informed media figure (host, columnist, etc.) confirming the validity of their opinions, to be sufficiently informed to converse with like-minded friends, family, and co-workers, and to collect ammo for their next encounter with their friend on the “other side” (who must be either not too bright or not well-informed) or a stranger (who must be either an idiot, ignorant, or downright evil). In short, they use media the way a drunk uses a lamppost: more for support than illumination.

I make a point of listening to a diversity of views in the media and in conversations with others. And I don’t mean just listening for the purpose of “knowing the enemy”, but rather to hopefully learn something new, whether it reinforces or challenges my current opinion. In conversations, I pose challenging questions and arguments not to try to “win” an argument, but to draw out the best possible arguments that challenge my view, so I can consider if I should change my view, to get others to consider doing so, or at the very least to better understand and appreciate the rationale for a different opinion.

I’m new to TownHall and I’ve encountered people who are inclined toward what I try to make my approach, and others who tend toward the approach I’ve criticized above. Forgive my lack of humility in making this suggestion, but I encourage the latter to try my approach. It may cause discomfort to seriously consider opposing views and their rationales, and to engage in real discussion or debate over underlying assumptions, principles and logic that may expose some weakness in the foundation beneath your current positions, but I believe each of us owes it to ourselves, to others with whom we engage in political discussion, and to America to force ourselves to make a good-faith effort to really listen to one another and ensure that our views – and the policies we advocate – are based on the best possible information and reasoning.

Of course, if you disagree with any of the above, I’ll be glad to hear why.

July 18 issue - Matthew Scully, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, is the most interesting conservative you have never heard of. He speaks barely above a whisper and must be the mildest disturber of the peace. But he is among the most disturbing.

If you value your peace of mind, not to mention your breakfast bacon, you should not read Scully's essay ''Fear Factories: The Case for Compassionate Conservatism—for Animals." It appeared in the May 23, 2005, issue of Pat Buchanan's magazine The American Conservative—not where you would expect to find an essay arguing that industrial livestock farming involves vast abuses that constitute a serious moral problem.

The disturbing facts about industrial farming by the $125 billion-a-year livestock industry—the pain-inflicting confinements and mutilations—have economic reasons. Ameliorating them would impose production costs that consumers would pay. But to glimpse what consumers would be paying to stop, visit www.factoryfarming.com/gallery.htm. Or read Scully on the miseries inflicted on billions of creatures ''for our convenience and pleasure":

"... 400- to 500-pound mammals trapped without relief inside iron crates seven feet long and 22 inches wide. They chew maniacally on bars and chains, as foraging animals will do when denied straw... The pigs know the feel only of concrete and metal. They lie covered in their own urine and excrement, with broken legs from trying to escape or just to turn ..."

It is, Scully says, difficult, especially for conservatives, to examine cruelty issues on their merits, or even to acknowledge that something serious can be at stake where animals are concerned. This is partly because some animal-rights advocates are so off-putting. See, for example, the Feb. 3, 2003, letter that Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—animals other than humans—sent to the terrorist Yasir Arafat, complaining that an explosive-laden donkey was killed when used in a Jerusalem massacre.

The rhetoric of animal "rights" is ill-conceived. The starting point, says Scully, should be with our obligations—the requirements for living with integrity. In defining them, some facts are pertinent, facts about animals' emotional capacities and their experience of pain and happiness. Such facts refute what conservatives deplore—moral relativism. They do because they demand a certain reaction and evoke it in good people, who are good because they consistently respect the objective value of fellow creatures.

It may be true that, as has been said, the Puritans banned bearbaiting not because it gave pain to the bears but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. And there are indeed degrading pleasures. But to argue for outlawing cruelty to animals because it is bad for the cruel person's soul is to accept, as Scully does not, that man is the only concern.

Statutes against cruelty to animals, often imposing felony-level penalties, codify society's belief that such cruelty is an intrinsic evil. This is a social affirmation of a strong moral sense in individuals who are not vicious. It is the sense that even though the law can regard an individual's animal as the individual's property, there nevertheless are certain things the individual cannot do to that property. Which means it is property with a difference.

The difference is the capacity for enjoyment and suffering. So why, Scully asks, is cruelty to a puppy appalling and cruelty to livestock by the billions a matter of social indifference? There cannot be any intrinsic difference of worth between a puppy and a pig.

Animal suffering on a vast scale should, he says, be a serious issue of public policy. He does not want to take away your BLT; he does not propose to end livestock farming. He does propose a Humane Farming Act to apply to corporate farmers the elementary standards of animal husbandry and veterinary ethics: "We cannot just take from these creatures, we must give them something in return. We owe them a merciful death, and we owe them a merciful life."

Says who? Well, Scully replies, those who understand "Judeo-Christian morality, whose whole logic is one of gracious condescension, or the proud learning to be humble, the higher serving the lower, and the strong protecting the weak."

Yes, of course: You don't want to think about this. Who does? But do your duty: read his book ''Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy." Scully, a conservative and hence a realist, knows that man is not only a rational creature but a rationalizing creature, putting his intellectual nimbleness in the service of his desires. But refraining from cruelty is an objective obligation. And as Scully says, ''If reason and morality are what set humans apart from animals, then reason and morality must always guide us in how we treat them."

You were warned not to read this. Have a nice day.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525632/site/newsweek/