The Nationalized Health Care Fight That Never Was?

Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal details how the Democrats are using the stimulus plan to smuggle in nationalized health care.

If Democrats learned anything from the HillaryCare defeat, it was the danger of admitting to their wish to federalize the health market. Since returning to power, they've pursued a new strategy: to stealthily and incrementally expand government control. "What no one is paying attention to in the [stimulus]," says Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, "is that Democrats are making a big grab at the health-care sector."

The stimulus bill extends Medicare benefits to millions of people who lost work, extends COBRA benefits for years and picks up 65% of those premiums, and attacks the private market in electronic medical records. After passing SCHIP (greatly expanded from the bill Bush vetoed) they are also targeting Medicare for even more expansion.

Add it up, and Democrats may move 10 million more Americans under the federal health umbrella -- in just four weeks! Good luck ever cutting off that money. Meanwhile, the Democratic majority is gearing up for a Medicare fight, where it may broach plans to lower the eligibility age to 55.

I had been looking forward to (and dreading) what I assumed would be a major battle between Teddy Kennedy and the opponents of nationalized health care. I had hoped that, just as in the Clinton years, the American people would come to their senses and beat back the onslaught. Now I wonder if Kennedy is playing his part as a distraction--collapsing at an inaugural lunch, riding into Congress on a white horse to standing ovations and tearful accolades, all the while dramatically vowing to fight for the government takeover of health care--while the rest of Congress passes nationalization bills in the dark of night. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Mini Global Warming Roundup

Poll Numbers Down

The WSJ's "Best of the Web Today" feature by James Taranto highlights a recent NYTimes post about global warming's dropping poll numbers.

...there is a widespread belief that the voters handed President Obama a mandate to "do something" about global warming. A poll released last week by the Pew Research Center, however, calls this into question.

"According to the survey of 1,503 adults, global warming, on its own, ranks last out of 20 surveyed issues. . . ."

[The Times] also links to a Rasmussen survey that finds Americans increasingly skeptical about the science behind global warmism:

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity. . . .

In July 2006, 46% of voters said global warming is caused primarily by human activities, while 35% said it is due to long-term planetary trends.

This is quite a shift. In two years, there was a 9 point surge in the numbers of those who take the reasonable view that man is not the primary cause of global warming (assuming it's even happening).

Taranto goes on to discuss a recent study that claims that humans have already done so much damage that it will take one thousand years to fix, assuming we stop all greenhouse gas emissions right now. The following is an excerpt from an article about the study, followed by Taranto's appropriately exasperated response:

"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide, the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years," lead author Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in a telephone news conference. "That's not true." . . .

Solomon said in a statement that absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans and release of heat from the oceans - the one process acting to cool the Earth and the other to warm it--will "work against each other to keep temperatures almost constant for more than 1,000 years."

Is it absolutely crucial to the planet's future that we curtail greenhouse gases this instant, or would it not make any difference anyway? If the latter, what sense does it make to be alarmed? And that last quote by Solomon is a classic head-scratcher. We're supposed to worry that temperatures will be "almost constant for more than 1,000 years"? That's what they mean by global warming?

Weather forecast for the year 3009: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. ["The more things change, the more they stay the same" -ed]

The Boston Globe is delivered to my doorstep every morning, and since the inauguration I have noticed a sharp uptick in climate change hysteria (note: they do not say "global warming" anymore, to hedge their bets), along with calls for drastic action and obvious elation that we now have an administration that will "do something." The study by the NOAA scientist was presented as "news" in urgent tones, trying desperately to spin the interpretation of the reader towards the view that things are much worse than we ever anticipated. Taranto's derision is a welcome change, as are the poll numbers showing that people are starting to look behind the curtain.

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

Despite growing evidence calling into question the theory of global warming, increased skepticism by the public (see above), and more and more public statements by prominent scientists debunking the theories... politicians and alarmists are pushing full speed ahead.

Today, John Lewis and Paul Saunders at Principles in Practice discuss the latest high-profile scientist to speak up.

The Obama administration continues to appoint radical environmentalists who want us to commit industrial suicide on behalf of nature. Meanwhile, top-rank scientists continue to renounce claims of a coming climate disaster.

The latest scientist to voice his conclusions is retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon. As chief of several NASA programs from 1982 to 1994, Theon was responsible for all weather and climate research...

"I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009.

It is always good to have more voices speak out for reason. But Lewis and Saunders go further and examine why politicians, in the face of mounting evidence in contradiction to their stated positions, continue to push for drastic and harmful regulations to "protect the planet."

In summary, while the vast majority of scientists are going in one direction—repudiating claims of a man-made climate disaster—politicians are going the other direction—embracing such claims and shackling industry on those “grounds.” Why? Why, as the scientific case for man-made global warming collapses, are politicians all the more determined to impose draconian controls on industry?

The answer is morality. Politics is directly dependent upon morality. Politicians who follow a morality of sacrifice will impose laws that enforce that “ideal.” Conversely, those who follow a morality of rational self-interest will act to protect our rights—including our rights to productive action.

The observations, analyses, and conclusions of scientists have never deterred those who are committed to the morality of sacrifice. This latest disparity between science and politics is yet another example of this fact. [bold added]

This is a crucial point to remember, both when trying to fathom how people could be so out of touch with the facts (i.e. reality), as well as when trying to fight the environmentalist menace. It is not only a scientific question, but more importantly a moral one.

Inside the Belly of the Beast: Do Policymakers Listen to Pundits?

Recently, a former foreign-policy adviser to Condoleezza Rice wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal concerning the impact—or lack thereof—of political punditry on the actual government officials writing policy. As a political scientist, professor, and commentator who was then asked to join Rice’s team, Eliot Cohen has seen both sides of the issue. His insights and experiences may serve as a guide for whom to target in intellectual activism (and it appears that it’s rarely the policymakers themselves) and he also offers interesting, if sometimes misguided, thoughts on what messages are most effective.

First, however, he sets the stage by describing what goes on in the corridors of power in D.C.

Two years ago, to my surprise and lasting gratitude, Condoleezza Rice asked me to become her senior foreign-policy adviser. … It has, however, occasioned some unsettling reflections on the kind of commentary in which a professor in the foreign-policy world indulges.

My first, sobering observation is that government pays only intermittent attention to talk on the outside. To a remarkable extent, in fact, government talks only to itself.

Officials in the foreign policy and defense worlds go through vast quantities of official data, briefing papers and talking points. They meet urgently with one another. … They telephone and email incessantly. [all emphasis added]

Intra-agency communication is a constant, deafening drumbeat, but this is not unique to the departments Cohen mentions. The volume of intra-agency email is astounding, and the amount of thought apparently given to each email plummets as the volume increases. The near total penetration of the Blackberry in Washington, and thus the constant mobile access to the agency email system, leads to wildfire email storms of panicked, half-thought responses to supposed crises that draw in more and more names with every iteration. Everything turns into a fire drill.

With all of this internal noise, what gets through?

I scanned the press clips, reading an opinion piece rarely, usually when it was written by someone who had a track record for good judgment. By and large, the buzz on the outside was just that -- a background noise of which I was dimly aware, unless it was either unusually nasty, or unusually perceptive, which often merely meant that it fit my own views. [bold added]

I would add that one other thing that gets noticed is bad press. In fact, it’s the constant fear of bad press that has people on edge, and it is often a negative news item or the simple suspicion that something might cause a negative news item that kicks off the Blackberry-fueled firestorms of crazed emails. I provide this context not to simply denigrate the inefficiency and stupidity of government bureaucracy—though that is of course evident—but to back up Cohen’s observations. He also comes up with a perfect analogy:

Government resembles nothing so much as the party game of telephone, in which stories relayed at second, third or fourth hand become increasingly garbled as they crisscross other stories of a similar kind ("That may be what the Russian national security adviser said to the undersecretary for political affairs on Wednesday, but it's not how the Turkish foreign minister described the Syrian view to our ambassador to NATO on Thursday.") Add to this the effects of secrecy induced by security concerns, as well as by the natural desire to play one's cards close to one's vest, and the result is a well-nigh impenetrable murk of policy making. [bold added]

What does this say about how an intellectual commentator—either through blogging, op-eds, letters to the editor, or other activities—should target his message? Quoting Henry Kissinger, he relays that "occasionally an outsider may provide perspective; almost never does he have enough knowledge to advise soundly on tactical moves." Still, Cohen goes on to say that “A tight, well-written, and carefully reasoned examination of a policy problem will bring into focus an issue that the officials have not had the time, or often the literary skill, to capture precisely. That kind of analysis is very much worth reading.” I am unclear why, after stating that policymakers pay little attention to outside buzz, such commentary would have an impact, but take that as you will.

Cohen then spends a fair bit of time examining what kinds of punditry—and specifically, what kinds of policy recommendations—are most likely to be effective. He suggests two rules to follow:

1. “Never criticize a policy unless you can convincingly depict a better course of action.”
2. “Do not prescribe a policy that the current group of officials cannot hope to implement because of who they are.”

He says that one shouldn’t propose policies that clash with the core beliefs or “style” of those in power, or “something outside their range of psychological possibility.”

In other words, there is no right answer, just whatever works with their style right now. It’s not even worth one’s time to offer up an idea that isn’t pragmatic. This of course means that policy decisions are left up to the arbitrary whims of those in power—no surprise here—and that there are no objective criteria for what the government should do.

For those whose ideas are based on principles and who wish to promote rational and rights-respecting policy, it seems that there is no place in government for them. Again, this should come as no surprise to readers of this blog.

Cohen goes on to say that “the best commentary has an impact” not because the ideas are new, but because it examines an idea that was already considered (perhaps only briefly) on the inside. If we take that as a given, that leaves a question unasked... just what ideas are we talking about? What types of ideas did the insiders already consider? Based on "their range of psychological possibility," it’s probably fair to say that 99.9% of those already-considered ideas revolve around the altruist-pragmatist axis. The only differences are the exigencies of the moment.

But what happens when the commentary of outsiders directly contradicts the altruist-pragmatist premises?

The likelihood of true laissez-faire solutions or fully individual rights-respecting policies having been considered already is extremely low; those ideas are not held by our politicians, bureaucrats, or the population as a whole. Such a solution, consistently put forth, would earn the label of “impractical,” “doctrinaire,” or “idealistic.” Thus, an op-ed that puts forth a free-market solution to health care or a truly self-interested foreign policy towards Iran would have virtually no effect in Washington, even it if it happened to be read.

Objectivists often say that what is required, if real change is to happen and freedom is to be restored in America, is a broad philosophical movement and deep cultural penetration of the ideas of laissez-faire capitalism and the morality of egoism. But this is a rather abstract notion; it's hard to visualize how it would be accomplished. I think Cohen's example provides a concretization of how such cultural penetration might work. Cohen, who was an academic turned policy wonk, is just the type of person who is often tapped for policy positions in government. As Objectivism grows in academia, it follows that the pool of potential policymakers as a whole will be more sympathetic to the message.

Then, when someone writes a particularly cogent analysis of an issue—or as Cohen said, a “carefully reasoned examination of a policy problem” (such as Ray Niles' piece in The Objective Standard, "Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet")—it will have the right kind of impact in Washington, because those in government would be already receptive to the ideas in the first place.

I can't imagine the Obama team asking Tara Smith to be their Constitutional law adviser, championing objective law and individual rights, instead of Cass Sunstein, who yearns for FDR's "Second Bill of Rights" (a mishmash of "positive" rights to redistributed loot). But if America can survive another 20 years or so, I'm optimistic that it could happen.

Police News From Chicago To Nigeria

All you need to join the Chicago police force is a good uniform, apparently. This past Saturday, a 14-year-old kid walked into the Grand Crossing District station wearing an authentic uniform (sans badge and gun), signed out a walkie-talkie and ticket book, and was partnered up with another cop for a 5 hour shift. He accompanied the real cop on routine traffic stops, and no one raised any suspicions until the shift was over. Unbelievable.

Chicago has no monopoly on police incompetence, however (though they have less of an excuse). Last week, a roving vigilante mob in Nigeria handed over a goat to police, claiming that it was a shapeshifting witch who was stealing cars. The police arrested the goat.

Objectivist Roundup #79

Welcome to the January 15, 2009 edition of the Objectivist Roundup.

This week's roundup includes some great insights and analyses on a wide range of topics, written by authors--including a number of new contributors--who are animated by Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. According to Ayn Rand:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

"About the Author," Atlas Shrugged, Appendix.

And with that, I am pleased to present Objectivist Roundup #79!

---

1. Paul Hsieh presents Washington Examiner Quotes Me On Health Care posted at NoodleFood, saying, "Our ideas continue to gain traction with the public!"


2. Ed Cline presents A Singular Ambition posted at The Rule of Reason. [C. August says: In this post, Ed examines the legacy of Margaret Thatcher and how she (partially) brought England out of a socialist nightmare. It's an eye opener, and as one commenter mentioned, reading about times in history where negative trends were reversed is both informational and motivational.]


3. Paul McKeever presents Why Theft is Neither Ethical Nor Practical posted at Paul McKeever, saying, "another useful application of Yertle the Turtle."


4. Myrhaf presents Emotionalist Politics posted at The New Clarion. [C. August says: Myrhaf examines the emotionalism driving the Left's irrational hatred of President Bush.]


5. Michael Labeit presents On Marginal Utility and Marginal Intelligence posted at Philosophical Mortician, saying, "Clearing up an old issue that experiences periodic revivals by numbskulls."


6. Gus Van Horn presents Chuck that map and floor it! posted at Gus Van Horn.


7. Roberto Sarrionandia presents It was only a matter of time... posted at Tito's Blog, saying, "A few thoughts on the situation in the Middle East"


8. F L Light presents The Eleutherian Laureate: What Freedom Does posted at The Eleutherian Laureate, saying, "Eleutheria is the Greek word for freedom."


9. Rachel presents Plays well with others? posted at Brass in Pocket, saying, "Selfishness in the World of Warcraft"


10. Diana Hsieh presents Vatican Cites Environmentalist Objections to the Pill posted at NoodleFood, saying, "The coming merger of religion and environmentalism continues apace: The Vatican makes environmentalist objections to the use of the birth control pill."


11. Ari Armstrong presents Sirota's Statistics Fail to Vindicate New Deal posted at FreeColorado.com, saying, "Defenders of the New Deal plausibly argue that unemployment dropped nearly to 9 percent, rather than 14 percent, during FDR's first two terms. But they fail to show that the New Deal did anything but hamper economic recovery."


12. Rational Jenn presents Positive Discipline And Rational Self-Interest posted at Rational Jenn, saying, "This week, I wrote two lengthy posts Positive Discipline, a method of raising children without punishments or reward systems. In this post, I discuss how parenting with PD also helps me reinforce the principle of rational self-interest." [C. August says: Be sure to check out the first PD post and the extensive comments too!]


13. Khartoum presents Israel’s Offensive In Gaza posted at Philosophy, Law and Life., saying, "An analysis of the ongoing onslaught by Israel at Gaza."


14. Daniel presents Amélie and Philosophy, 3 posted at The Nearby Pen, saying, "This is the third post in a series on the movie Amelie, and the philosophy contained therein."


15. Jim Woods presents Lessons from Valkyrie posted at Words by Woods, saying, "The recent movie Valkyrie, and its underlying historical events, provides three important lessons applicable to our recent conflicts."


16. Tom Stelene presents A Conservative Christian Evicts Facts from His Argument posted at The Imaginary Philosophy, saying, "Ken Connor, like any religionist believing in the primacy of consciousness over reality, is trying to have his own facts, which, in his argument, is exactly what he falsely accuses atheists of."


17. Kendall J presents What Really Caused China's Success? posted at The Crucible & Column.


18. Doug Reich presents Cargo Cult Economics posted at The Rational Capitalist.

---

That concludes this edition of the Objectivist Roundup. Next week's host is The Rule of Reason. Submit your blog article to the Objectivist Roundup using our carnival submission form.

Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags: Objectivist Roundup, blog carnival.

Phrase of the Day

I'm blatantly ripping off RationalJenn with the title of this post... I trust she won't mind.

Via my wife, the following was uttered by my 3-year-old son today:

R: You know everything, mom! You're momniscient!*

Yes. Yes, she is.

---------
* We often teach the kids $10 words, because they ask us what the words mean when we say something and they don't know it already. Omniscient came up recently, and R. took it and made it his own, in the context of his world.

A Tale of Two Gifts

This year, while being genuinely frugal and not getting each other any significant (expensive) gifts, my wife and I still splurged as much as possible on the kids. Shopping wisely, taking into account the expected gifts from friends and family, we were able to provide a fun and happy Christmas. And as was the tradition in both of our families growing up, we made sure to allow for the one special "big present" for each of them.

For the 5-year-old
Our daughter, A., has started to show a serious art streak. Serious. Capital "S". She works in any media available to her, and carefully plans and executes whatever work she has in mind. I remember as a child that I had a few things I could draw pretty well, and most everything I did centered around those things. A. will attempt to draw anything she fancies, and most often hits it dead on. Tonight, my son (3) asked for help in drawing a picture of a princess for his mom, and I was unsure of exactly what he wanted. A. said "I can show him!" And with his blessing, A. proceeded to draw one on the chalkboard with a fancy crown, nice earrings and necklace. But she did it upsidedown. R. was sitting in front of the little letter-sized board, and A. was sitting with me in front of him. Instead of turning it around so she could draw, she showed him how to do it by drawing her picture right-side-up, for him. I couldn't believe it. I had never seen her do that, and I can only imagine it takes a fair amount of expertise and precision to be able to visualize a drawing, and then transpose it to draw it upsidedown. I was impressed, and proud.

Anyway, that's way off topic. She is very interested in art projects of all kinds, and often wants to borrow our cellphones/cameras to take pictures. This gave T. (my wife) the idea of getting her a camera as her big present. Not just a plastic kid-friendly digital camera, but a real one. Everything I've read about the kid cameras is negative. They are lacking in most every usability feature that makes digital cameras good, and just end up frustrating the kids who try to use them.

So we bought her a Nikon Coolpix S210, in purple, of course. A. is very mature and responsible for her age, and the camera was only $100 or so -- only $40 more than the kid version of a camera. We decided that it was worth it to invest a little bit more into a quality camera so that she would have the opportunity to fully explore her interest in photography if she chose to. And if she did, it would be rewarding.

Other parents we know were very skeptical. "You gave a real digital camera to a 5-year old?" But it all comes down to two things: respect for your child's current and potential skills and knowledge, and the Right Tool for the Job Principle.

The first is obvious. We want to give her the opportunity to explore her interests as much as possible. The junky kid-camera wouldn't do that, so we got her a real one. It's a very easy decision.

The second thing bears some explaining. I hold as a core principle in life that if I desire to do a job -- and implied is that I want to do it well -- one of the keys to success is that I obtain the Right Tool for the Job. Most often, this comes up in projects around the house. If I am installing hardwood flooring, rather than making do with a hammer and nails and fighting with it every step of the way, I find and purchase a pneumatic floor stapler and learn how to use it, so that the floor I install looks and functions like one done by a professional. If I am playing a sport, I don't buy the cheapest cleats I can find; I buy ones that I know will last and will do the job because any extra up-front cost will work better, longer, and result in greater value in the end.

For things that really matter... items that are crucial to the success of an endeavor... it is worth greater cost up front because what you are paying for is quality and value. If I have 6 hours of available time ahead of me to get the construction and finishing of a new wall done, if I can shave off significant time and avoid certain fatigue (and thus sloppiness) by purchasing and using a $300 pneumatic framing nailer rather than pounding in countless 10-penny nails and thus tiring myself out for the later parts of the job, then it will be worth the extra money to do it. And I know I'll need it for many other jobs over the life of the tool, and it will make every one of those jobs easier and better.

For A. and her camera, this means that it's worth the slight risk of paying for a piece of fragile electronic equipment and giving it to a young child because the potential rewards of having the Right Tool for the Job outweigh those small risks.

And so far, our decision has proven to be a good one. A. loves having a grown-up camera. She loves having the ability to take her camera and compose any photos she wants. Our only rule is that she respect people's wishes when the say they don't want their picture taken.

A. takes photos seriously. She composes them, tests different lighting conditions and angles, and has a definite vision in mind when she clicks the shutter. Often, she comes up with photos that are ones I would never take, but are quite beautiful and interesting. Here is a smattering of what she's done so far in the past couple of weeks:



I know... not a huge deal. But if you saw her standing there, looking at the light, adjusting the field of view, moving the subjects, testing... it's cool. And I like what she does.

For the 3-year-old
What is the worst toy you could get for a little boy? The noisiest, most obnoxious, most awful present?

There are many possibilities, but if I helped you out and said "would a drum set be it?", I'll bet you'd agree.

During the summer we went to a friend's BBQ party, and he has a full drum kit in the basement. R. wanted to play it, and my friend Bob was fully OK with it. R. had a blast... hitting everything as hard as he could. Bob said that I must get R. a drum set for Xmas or birthday, and I laughed it off. But we went back for another party a month later, and R. was still really into it.

We decided it was worth it to get him a drum set. The people at First Act make good instruments for kids. The kids already have an acoustic guitar that is good enough that I can tune it like I do my own acoustic, and play real songs on it. The only difference is that it's smaller. The drum kit looked to be of a similar level of quality.

Christmas morning, R. came down to find a full drum kit -- snare, tom, cymbal, bass w/ pedal -- under a blanket. He loves it. He can hit it as hard as he can (huge plus for a little boy), and he has already started to get a kick out of playing different rhythms. I have played drums a bit and can give him pointers, and he just loves experimenting.

Last weekend while I was in the basement restoring a salvaged solid wood front door that I hope to install in the coming weeks, the kids were upstairs preparing a surprise for us. All of a sudden I heard "Daaad! Come upstairs!" T. and I were told to sit on the floor, and they played a show for us; R. on drums and A. on recorder and vocals. They came up with the idea all on their own, and it was wonderful. I think my favorite part was that R. would start the song by pressing the button to turn on the siren of a little toy firetruck. That was the cue to start playing, and he was very insistent that the song not start until the siren went off. Hilarious.

You may be thinking "a drum kit? Are you nuts?!" and most of our friends hold the same opinion. But in reality, it's not significantly louder than some of the electronic trucks and other toys they have, and they don't play it all the time. There are only three rules for the drums: 1) No playing while anyone is sleeping. 2) No hitting the cymbal and only the cymbal, as hard as you can, again and again again... 3) The drumsticks are only for hitting the drums. Not the dogs, not your sibling, not the walls or the furniture or the windows...

Someone said that it sounds like the type of gift the grandparents would give, perhaps with a little hint of deviousness because they would be superstars but wouldn't have to listen to it. I don't feel that way at all. Both kids love to play it, and it's yet another creative outlet for them to explore.

These big gift-giving occasions can be stressful for the parents, worrying that the kids will like what they get while not breaking the bank. This year, I think it was a resounding success. And because their birthdays are both in December (busy month!) we won't have to start worrying about gifts again until October!

Quick Question

Has everyone received their Winter issue of The Objective Standard in the mail already? An email update from Craig Biddle on Dec 20 said that the print editions had been mailed, but I haven't received my copy yet.

Oh, and if you don't have a subscription, you're missing out on some seriously good stuff.

UPDATE: It hadn't even occurred to me to check to see how many actual business days it has been from December 20th to now. With the holidays, and the fact that the US Postal Service -- an inefficient and immoral government monopoly -- takes at least a whopping 10 days to deliver periodicals, that means I should be finding it in my mailbox in the next day or two. I could always read the articles online through my subscription, but I'd much rather have the print edition in my hands.

Alright... more waiting. Thanks, USPS!

Cautions! Must Having the Assembled Before Using

One of the annoyances of birthdays and Christmas is the assembly of overly complicated toys. If you buy smartly, however, you can avoid most of that. Just don't purchase the assembly-required Disney Princess Castle with Automated Drawbridge and Life-like Moat (TM). The more common annoyance is the impenetrable packaging of toys. Why a plastic pony or dump truck needs to be secured to the thick cardboard backing with 15 industrial-strength twist ties, a roll of tape, and a few screws is beyond me. Is it to survive the boat ride from China while retaining its attractive positioning in its hard plastic sarcophagus?

A note about packaging is that in the past few years, I have noticed an improvement in the ease of getting a toy from box to frantic child's hand. For instance, some toys no longer use the wire ties that are thicker than a 10-penny nail. Instead, they use a plastic screw with a handy flange that can easily be removed without tools. The toy itself is engineered with the packaging in mind, and the holes where the screws were are hidden on the underside of the toy. I greatly appreciate the ingenuity of these improvements, though I'm sure I'm the only person in the room at a birthday party who would be caught marveling at the improvements in toy-packaging technology.

I'm not sure why it has happened this way, but we so far have had to assemble few horribly complicated toys with indecipherable directions. I recall a large dollhouse (which was almost never used!) and a play structure (also never used!) that were nightmares to assemble, but other than that, it hasn't been too bad.

This year, however, we got a special treat. It was a seemingly simple table-top Foosball table that cost all of $25, but it took a good hour to assemble. And the best part? The instructions.

First off, we get the obligatory warning:

CAUTIONS! Must assure the product is completely correctly assembled according to the instruction before using.

Then, before the parts list, we see the first instruction. It's the first indication that we're in for something special:

RIP THE PROTECT FILM OF THE PRODUCT FACIES BEFORE INSTALL.

Now, on to the actual assembly, or "FIT PROCESS", which consists of 7 simple steps, such as

Step 3: Install the bars with athletes into the wholes of the long board.

The best part of the directions, however, is that the designers were so detailed that they included curses where appropriate.

Step 4: Insert the last long board right to the position of the bars, then screw it.

As this was perhaps the biggest pain-in-the-neck step, I took it to mean that they really thought this through. I had to scratch my head at Step 6, however:

Step 6: Insert four filature into handles and screw it.

Filature? Luckily the picture was unambiguous.

In reality, it wasn't that hard to assemble, and the color photo on the box was the biggest help, but the combination of the non-native English directions and the lack of any clear labeling of the parts made for a laughably absurd Fit Process.