OK, is it me or is a national convention no place for a baby? As was widely covered (yet not as much as the Democratic National Convention, interestingly), the Republican National Convention showcased many of Sarah Palin's children (and a would-be teenage groom). Among them, Palin's infant son, Trig. I thought it was a lot to take my newborn to the local diner when he was born!

Now, while the Republicans seemed a little more calm and collected than their boisterous Democratic opponents, they were still a relatively rowdy bunch. The whole point of a convention is to get people riled up for the cause, and there was a lot of that going on, especially from Palin herself. It was a loud, crowded, noisy place, which, to me, is no place for a baby. Babies need stimulation and interaction with the social world, I'm sure, but the RNC is a far cry from what good old Doctor Spock imagined. I am sure that kid was terrified. He seemed ok in the arms of family members as the rest of the RNC wailed on, but I couldn't help but think he should have been home with a nanny or a sitter.

Of course, the whole point of having her family there was to drive home the point that she's a mom and that she is a working mother, too. And, naturally, rather than focusing on real issues that truly matter to the election, the focus was all on her family. Trig has down syndrome. Bristol is pregnant. Levi will we her. Both Palin and the press have done their best to constantly remind us of these things--things which matter, sure, but they shouldn't be a part of the race for the White House. Should they? Palin and her people say keep the children out of it, yet there they were, even the littlest one, at the convention. Obama was no better--he trotted his kids out for the cute factor, no denying that.

Thoughts? Should we keep candidates' kids out of the political spotlight? If so, shouldn't they NOT be on television?

A recent article regarding birth order and relationships on AOL's Personals site got me thinking of a conversation I'd recently had with my mother. We were talking about how many kids I wanted (I have one with another one on the way). I'd said ideally I'd love to have three someday, and then the topic of the middle child--and middle child syndrome--came up. Is it really true that middle children behave a certain way? They're neither the oldest, firstborn, nor are they the baby in the family. And, just perhaps, that birth order of being in the middle has an affect on their relationships when they get older.

According to the article, written by the folks at eHarmony Advice, firstborn children make good mates because they're reliable; of course, they can also make poor mates because they're not given to spontaneity and like to maintain control. Middle-born children are more likely to be laid back, which everyone enjoys, but they're also not inclined to deal well with conflict, avoiding it at all costs. This can be both good or bad for a relationship. And the youngest, the baby of the family, can be the most fun and exciting in a relationship, but that can also translate to not being accountable for actions and abuse of power.

What about the only child? According to the article they act much like the oldest child, and make great communicators who've been around adult relationships their whole lives. Expectations are the downfall for the only child, as is moving too slowly. Is this a load of hogwash, or is eHarmony on to something here? Does birth order really affect how an adult treats his or her mates in a relationship? Or is it more a matter of nature AND nurture--how the parents treat a child regardless of birth order? I'm going with the latter on this one, as it seems to easy to pigeon-hole someone into a type of behavior based on his/her birth order. Still, some say it's as real as anything else psychology has to throw our way. What do you think?

Pic by dsearls.

We've often had the conversation here at ParentDish about how many children is enough. The answer? Well, it depends on the family. Desire, money, space, time and energy requirements all make their case in the debate, and it ultimately comes down to how much kid a parent can handle. Several people have said to me, for example, how they really wanted three children until they had two. Some, like me, who came from a small family--I was an only child--want as big a family as possible. Others think one is the magical number.

For Brad Pitt, apparently that magic number hovers somewhere near what it would take to have your own baseball team. The actor, heartthrob and life partner (or whatever you want to call him) of Angelina Jolie, who already has six children, recently admitted he'd like two more. To take matters further, he is quoted (probably WAY out of context) as saying they'll arrive within the next year. That statement, true or not (probably the latter) will do two things:

1. It will give the media, tabloids and gossip hounds even more ammunition that the twins were conceived using fertility treatments, which has been denied by the pretty pair and that they'll use such methods again to get two more children in such a short span of time (unless they adopt, and you know how long that can take, even for a celebrity: just ask Madonna); and

2. It will, indeed, give them almost enough kids for a baseball team. I mean, if Ange and Brad joined in the fun then there'd be ten of them, so you know, you could have reserves and pinch hitters and whatnot.

Safety in numbers, right? And, really, once you have six kids, what's two more? I mean, other than the baseball team thing. Good luck to the happy couple, if indeed what Brad says is true in any way, shape or form whatsoever.

It may seem like something of a bore by now, but actress Jennifer Garner has finally come clean about her pregnancy. the Alias star, married to fellow actor Ben Affleck, has caused much speculation over recent months after being photographed wearing comfortable clothing and posing her daughter, Violet, and some pretty expensive handbags in front of her swelling belly.

Not too long ago, former Alias co-star Victor Garber seemingly confirmed the news that Garner was pregnant again. He later recanted, saying his comments were taken out of context. Then her mother-in-law had a similar slip of the lip. Both Jenn and Ben refused to comment on her state of impending mommyhood until just recently, when she confirmed the news.

Now the watch is on to see how big she'll get, whether the baby will be a girl or boy, and what the name will be. These are the things the media is sure we care about and will take every opportunity to tell us. As or the Garner-Afflecks, I can appreciate wanting to keep some of the joy to yourself--they told when they were good and ready, and not a moment before that.

Congrats to Violet's mom and dad! She'll be a big sister soon!

It's hard not to do. For some, it's inevitable: Playing favorites. Parents try not to do it, grandparents too. Still, the idea persists--siblings talk about it amongst themselves and make the decisions when the grandparents don't. But what about when the grandparents do?

I can think of several instances when it's been pretty obvious that the grandparents had a favorite child. It's also been pretty obvious when the grandchild was not the favorite. To be frank, in both instances it really stunk for the kids. Sometimes, perhaps, it was because the grandparents had access to or spent more time with a particular grandchild. Sometimes, it was the direct result of having a favorite child.

In any event, having favorites is one thing--making it obvious is quite another. And, it's never fair to let it be known if you have a preference of one child over another. Yet some grandparents still exercise that option (parents too). Good Morning America online is taking a poll of how parents handle the situation when the grandparents play favorites. What are your thoughts on the subject? How do you handle it when grandma and grandpa play favorites? Or, is it something we can even help doing?

Pic by itchys on flickr.

So far, this is turning out to be a retro summer! By foregoing the organized sport/activity route, my kids are busy making themselves busy.

Two weeks ago, my budding capitalists set up a lemonade stand in our driveway. They made signs, lemonade, and used their own piggy bank money to buy supplies. They were so excited to have "customers" and I found myself surprised by how seriously they took their job.

With all this free time, there's time for elaborate dress-up games. Most mornings they come down dressed as spies in black leggings, old trench coats and a back pack full of "spy things" which consist primarily of walkie-talkies and primitive telescopes. Today they divulged their secret hiding place in the ravine by the side of the house where they "spy on the cars" that drive by.

Is Gwyneth Paltrow expecting again? Well, the rumor mill would have us think so. For a while now, speculation has been building that the Oscar-winner is either with child or planning to be that way a third time.

Now, it seems more likely than ever that the star, who is married to and has two children with Coldplay lead singer Chris Martin, is carrying a third proverbial bun in the oven. She was recently spotted with what is being called a fuller, more curvy figure. Now, that could mean she ate a sandwich or something--we all know how the media likes to jump all over any woman who bothers to consume anything other than iceburg lettuce.

Paltrow also recently commented to Harper's Bazaar Magazine that she is willing to go through a pregnancy a third time because the result is so amazing. She also commented that her father, the late Bruce Paltrow, regretted only having two children. Paltrow is already mom to Apple, who is four is you can believe it, and Moses, two. At least these sorts of rumors aren't as bad as the other kind that always circulate about Hollywood stars--that they're having a crisis in their marriages. You'll also recall not too long ago Paltrow commented she was interested in adopting, perhaps from Brooklyn.

%Gallery-23319%

Although it is a decidedly less controversial issue, many people are talking about whether or not have more than one child, especially in this terrible economy. Here in New York City, having more than one child can be such an exorbitant expense it's seen as a luxury and a status symbol to have a child at all!

For actress Kate Beckinsale, however, who is probably not so concerned about money, having more than one child is not in her interest. Kate has a nine-year-old daughter, Lily, who is so well-behaved that Kate thinks she might stop at the magic number of one.

Kate also comments that she was an only child so having only one child would suit her just fine. As an only child myself, I was always lonely and looking for someone to play with, so I made every effort to make sure my son would have a sibling. If we're all lucky, he'll have one in October. Is it better to have one or two--or eight!--children? Who can say. I think it's up to the parents and their desires. According to Kate, her little family is "a merry little bunch," so it sounds like she's found the perfect number.

Apparently the Duggar clan hasn't quite filled that quiver! Michelle Duggar, matriarch of the popular Discovery Channel program "The Duggars" and mother to seventeen children managed to surprise the entire lot live on the Today Show when she announced that once again she is expecting.

Given the fact that I am pregnant and hormonal, as well as totally in love with babies, it should come as little surprise that it gives me great pleasure to announce that someone recently gave birth to triplets--and, they are genetically identical!

I say recently, but the triplet boys were actually born December 4, 2007, putting them just over 3 months old. They were recently DNA tested when it was determined that yes, indeed, they are identical. Perhaps it is hard to tell amongst babies so small whether or not they look alike. Before I had a tot of my own I didn't give much thought to the difference in appearance of babies other than if they were wearing pink or blue. Imagine how I would feel if I had identical twins or triplets!

Well, that's just what happened to the new mommy at pyjammy.com. She is now the proud mother of three unbelievably beautiful little boys--trust me, just hop over to the blog to check out the adorable pick of them sitting in their, er, whatever those things are called that were recently recalled, now that I think about it.

Seriously, I know I am pregnant and everything, but those boys are just gorgeous. Congratulations, pyjammy mommy!

And thanks to Mike Schleifstein for the heads up! According to Mike, these triplets are a rarity indeed because the mom conceived them naturally without the help of any fertility drugs, etc. I'm not sure how rare triplets of any sort are these days, but I do recall in my middle school (and it was a relatively small school, too) there were two sets of triplets! None of them were identical, but I thought at the time that two sets of triplets was unusual (but triple the fun).