This editorial will appear in Wednesday's print edition.

The release of two American journalists sentenced to 12 years of hard labor in North Korea is the happy ending that – unfortunately – Americans have come to expect.

Former President Bill Clinton flew to North Korea this week to stroke Kim Jong Il’s ego and let him play the magnanimous dictator in freeing Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who were accused of sneaking into the country illegally in March.

It’s unclear whether the women crossed the China-North Korea border intentionally, accidentally or were nabbed by aggressive border guards. But what’s unmistakable is the unwitting role they played in giving North Korea, at least temporarily, the upper hand in its dispute with the U.S. over Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program.

The women’s release is indeed good news, especially for their families who had agonized over their possible mistreatment. But it undoubtedly will convince other U.S. travelers that they can be careless or daring – because the government will ride to their rescue.

=> Read more!

This editorial will appear in Wednesday's print edition.

Bank ‘hero’ needs to rechannel all that adrenaline

‘Heartless bank fires heist hero” screams a New York Post headline over an article that begins: “File this under ‘No good deed goes unpunished.’”

But not all commenters on the Post’s Web site agree, including a former bank teller who has been held up several times: “There is always (someone) who attempts to play the hero, endangering the lives of everyone in the bank.”

The tale of Seattle Key Bank teller Jim Nicholson is big news nationwide. The appeal is obvious: Teller nabs bank robber and gets fired for his trouble.

=> Read more!

Gwen Ottinger, writing in today's Washington Post, offers another reason for the U.S. Senate not to approve additional funding for the popular "cash for clunkers" program:

... even when new cars and appliances are more efficient than the ones they replace, the act of replacing them entails environmental costs not accounted for in the stimulus programs. Building a new car, washing machine or refrigerator takes energy and resources: The manufacture of steel, aluminum and plastics are energy-intensive processes, and some of the materials used in durable goods, especially plastics, use non-renewable fossil fuels as feedstocks as well as energy sources.

Disposing of old products, a step required by most incentive and rebate programs, also has environmental costs: It takes additional energy to shred and recycle metals; plastic components often cannot be recycled and end up as landfill cover; and the engine fluids, refrigerants and other chemicals essential to operating products end up as hazardous wastes.

The column has sparked a lively debate in the comments section, with many people arguing that these are cars that would have had to be junked or recycled at some point, so no (additional) harm done.

But I tend to agree with Ottinger's underlying point, that the program feeds needless new-car consumption. What are the real benefits of removing a 16 mpg car from the road years before it needs to be and replacing it with one that gets 18 mpg? What's wrong with allowing a consumer to buy a car that's used but still more fuel efficient than what he's got now?

On tomorrow's opinion pages, we're running a guest column from a local used car dealer who complains that the Cash for Clunkers, which requires dealers to destroy the engines of trade-ins, is drying up his inventory. And all of you who can't afford a new car, you'll be paying the price.