Last week Porter came home with a Lego airplane. He was very excited to have me build it for him. He watched excitedly as I put each piece together. And to be honest, I had fun, too. I had tons of Legos as a kid and built all kinds of things. But the Lego of today is very different than in my day, back when the dinosaurs still roamed the Earth. My old legos were pretty plain affairs and as such could be used to make virtually anything I could imagine. Today’s Legos all are pretty specifically designed to make just one thing. Taking the airplane as an example, a large majority of the pieces included have but one function and it’s very hard to conceive of what else you could use them for except to build this plane. It’s like it’s a paint-by-number set instead of just paints that could be used to create anything. And that’s the problem, I think. Why are toy company’s making toys that no longer encourage creativity and imagination? As I look around our toy-strewn house, many, many of the toys have one purpose and can do little else. Why? Are unimaginative kids easier to control? Do they do better on assembly lines or in offices where their job is to simply file the correct TPS report? I know I’m becoming a curmudgeon (okay, I already am — beat you to it, Karen) but come on, whatever happened to Lincoln Logs, Erector Sets, Lite Brite, Legos, blocks, Tinker Toys, etc.? I see some toys like them at high end toy shops but certainly not at Toys R Us and their mainstream ilk where I presume the majority of toys are purchased. So what’s going on here? I’ve got a few guesses but they’re pretty political and will further solidify my reputation as a conspiracy nut job. So what do those of you out there think?

The box Porter’s Lego airplane came in.

The completed airplane.

Porter lifting it up, getting ready for take off.

Cleared for take off.

Getting another fake smile, although this one’s much better than the diesel smile.
Oh, and before I forget, don’t get me started on quality of workmanship. I remember Lego pieces fitting pretty tightly together so you had to really work at getting them apart sometimes. This plane falls apart without the slighest provocation. A stiff breeze and it’s in pieces. The shoddy workmanship is just appaling, especially considering how expensive these things are. Porter’s got better than average fine motor skills and he’s breaking it apart accidently constantly. The doors for example, are so precarious that it’s more common for them to fall off when opening or closing them than not. How did that one flaw alone get off the drawing board or at least past the testing stage, let alone all the other weak points in its design? Plus this just runs contrary to common sense. You’d think that if it was designed to be like a puzzle, that is to be build in one shape and that’s it, that it would at least stay together once it is built, wouldn’t you?