Opinion: In today’s pages: Colombia trade, presidential power and talking Kindles
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
The Times editorial board says President Obama’s trade agenda thus far seems broad and a bit inscrutable. But he could go a long way to alleviate fears of protectionism by pushing the free-trade deal his predecessor negotiated with Colombia quickly through Congress:
This would accomplish three things: It would lower tariffs on U.S. exports to Colombia, adding an estimated $1 billion to our economy; it would preserve our relationship with our only friend in the region; and it would demonstrate that Obama is willing to take on the ‘special interests,’ in this case union leaders, who are holding congressional Democrats hostage on the pact. The alternative is grim: If the United States continues to delay action on this, Colombia might begin to recalibrate its relationship with us and seek new, more reliable trading partners.
Amen to that. The board also endorses a bill by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) to provide more protection for good Samaritans who try to rescue injured or endangered strangers. And it bemoans Amazon’s cave-in to the Authors Guild’s complaints about the new Kindle’s text-to-speech feature.
On the Op-Ed page, blogger Jill Andresky Fraser of EconoWhiner.com asks the cheerful question, ‘How can anyone today feel safe?’ No, it’s not a piece left over from Sept. 12, 2001. It’s about job security. Columnist Tim Rutten looks at the recently released memos from previous Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and concludes that the United States came closer to ‘the brink of executive tyrrany’ than ‘even staunch critics of the White House believed.’ By ‘staunch critics’ he means himself, of course. And finally, Harvard University Professor Edward L. Glaeser urges environmentalists in California to stop their knee-jerk opposition to development and make room for more people from less temperate states:
Much of America struggles with cold winters and hot summers. Making such difficult climates comfortable for humans requires a lot of energy. By contrast, much of coastal California is pretty pleasant year-round, requiring far less energy. The natural implication is that to reduce carbon emissions, more Americans should live in temperate California.
Credit: Bob Daly For The Times