Thus:

Remember the Bible parable of the Prodigal Son? He squandered his fortune but saw the error of his ways and crept back home. He was warmly welcomed by his father, who explained the significance of his repentance to an older brother unimpressed by the precedent being set:

This brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.

The moral core of this story turns on the fact of his sincere repentance – and an unambiguous willingness by the wastrel to work hard to put things right.

The Bible does not say that the wastrel is ‘entitled’ to carry on sponging off his relatives indefinitely – that they have to show him limitless ‘solidarity’.

As we look at Greece’s manoeuvres to persuade partners and markets to lend them yet more money to help stave off self-induced Disaster, the issues boil down to this:

• Is Greece serious about repenting its erstwhile wasteful ways?

• Is Greece capable of sustaining the sort of brisk standards now being set by Poland?

Indeed. So what are the answers?

Anna Raccoon helped lead the charge - well done her and Old Holborn. Some of the detail on the case as they report it is striking.

I don't smoke and don't like being in smoke-filled places. But I dislike even more the idea that a privately owned pub or even a private club such as the Travellers is being treated by the state as a 'public' place.

No! Go away!

Should you price them at the same rate under all circumstances to show that all races are equal?

Does selling the black one at a cheaper price send a bad racial signal?

Or does it encourage white parents to buy black Barbies for their offspring, spreading racial harmony?

Does selling the black one at a higher price when you suspect you would do better by selling it cheaper send a signal that you do not care about poorer black customers?

Aaargh.

Update:

Let's explore some of the issues.

What if you as toyshop owner thought that selling the black dolls cheaper might prompt some consumers to complain about racism and/or offend some people (but not all)?

How should you start to measure the gain which more purchasers at the cheaper price would enjoy against the gloom caused (or self-induced?) among others?

Is there any sensible way other than the price mechanism to measure the weight of rival views view on the subject? If ten people complain but 900 do not, is there any issue? Is a good enough answer to those offended along the lines of 'shop somewhere else'?

In law we have the 'eggshell skull' rule: if you do something tortious (not tortoise - that's a hard shell) and one victim just happens to be prone to incur much greater damage as a result, too bad for you when the damages claim appears.

So if something you do happens to upset a category of people (who are prone to froth themselves to be upset at such things), should the law come down against you accordingly?

Or is that a blank cheque for the most neurotic to rule the rest of us? See also those cutesy Danish cartoons.

A lot in those Barbie dolls... 

How about this other one: if eg the USA does not have to go through battle processes by putting troops in danger on the ground as in medievel times, that is either unfair or makes it too 'easy' for the USA to wage war?

Suggesting, however sophisticated the language, that superior intellects understand that “we” need to have more American GIs killed, or at risk, in order to reach the efficient equilibrium of incentives and disincentives to violence is not a winning argument.

I also think, however, that the folks inclined to make this kind of argument cannot restrain themselves from making it, because it lies at the heart of what they truly think, while also confirming both their morally superior position of “neutrality” and their intellectual superiority, too, and all the rest is merely a minor add-on.  If I sound offended by it, I am.

Me too.

And as expected, it is struggling to trundle out of the hangar and get on the runway.

The main issue in the arguments over setting up the EAS is not all about how the EU might best throw its weight around in the world.

No! Much more important matters principles are at stake. Namely:

• who gets which top jobs?
• who decides?

In one early and much criticised power-play, probably the most important overseas job in the EAS went to ... a close colleague of Commission President Barroso, who was bundled through by Barroso before the EAS was properly set up. Many Europhiles see this as at best unseemly:

The fear is that the appointment of a Portuguese official, formerly Barroso’s chef de cabinet smacks of patronage and inappropriate influence. 

Not an inspired move, if the aim is to make the EU effective?

Since then there has been the long anticipated three-way struggle between member states (keen to get EAS defined and run in such a way as to pose no threat to national foreign ministries), the European Parliament (ever scheming to extend its power) and the Commission (having hundreds of people previously serving at Commission 'representations' overseas who need placing).

Behind all that are key European policy competences. Who leads and sets the overall agenda? The Commission, the Parliament, or Member States?

Zzzz.

Meanwhile Cathy Ashton too is being attacked openly from various quarters (including France) for being 'just not up to the job'. Although some of the examples cited are a bit strange:

... some experienced EU officials say she would have done better to have waited two months in order to learn the ropes from Mr Solana and his team.

“She hasn’t had the tools she needs. When Haiti hit, she did not even have a television in her office,” said Alexander Stubb, Finland’s foreign minister.

Huh?

Good. The last thing she needs is tedious 24/7 media propaganda flickering away distractingly in the corner.

Nor should she have rushed to Haiti to 'see for herself' the earthquake devastation there. Trips like that are basically do-something resource-intensive self-indulgence by the leaders concerned.

Maybe patiently plodding along is the inglorious but overall best available approach.

In short, all going just as I predicted.