But for now, I leave you with this: my first full-length feature in Babytalk magazine.

The story is about language acquisition (as you’ll see in the lead, this is something far different from “learning to talk”). It incorporates personal anecdotes from yours truly and some of you readers. It catalogs advice from experts. And it offers some suggestions for how readers can help their children acquire (and love!) language at an early age.

I worked incredibly hard on the piece and am particularly proud of it. Please read it, pass it along, and feel free to comment here. Thanks.

The bad news: this scenario likely will occur more frequently in the next year, so get used to it.

That’s my crass way of notifying you faithful readers that things are changing around here, and The Daddy Dispatch will be transitioning from five times a week to two or maybe three times a week (if we’re lucky).

It’s not that I’m getting bored; on the contrary, as L grows I’ve got more to say than ever before. The goal of the blog always has been to paint a realistic picture of work-at-home fatherhood, and the reality is that the whole work/life balance thing is getting tougher. With a newly active baby and new (and exciting!) clients, all of those activities that aren’t mission-critical to the health of my family or my business must take a backseat.

Please don’t take this as goodbye. Please keep reading. Please keep submitting comments. And please keep suggesting this blog to friends.

Thanks again. And Happy Holidays.

Last week, the paper ran that article about the impacts of cone-scan technology among pediatric dentists (I blogged about it earlier this week). Since then, the Gray Lady has published two other informative-yet-disturbing articles pertaining to the development of our children.

The first, a technology piece by Matt Richtel, attempts to take a look at the impact of increased screen-time on the way our children’s brains work.

The second, a sports piece by Mark Hyman, chronicles how a number of companies are making sports training videos for children as young as six months. This latter story also notes the degree to which an alarming number of parents are purchasing these videos, intent on turning their toddlers into the next Derek Jeter.

Look, I’m all for conversation pieces. And, by and large, I’d say these pieces present a good example of unbiased, well-reported journalism. My biggest complaints are with Richtel’s piece; sure, it’s got great anecdotes but at no point does it provide readers with a service, the whole “What-can-I-do-to-help-my-kid?” bit.

As a self-proclaimed neurotic, I’d be lying if I told you these latter two stories didn’t make me tweak a bit.

Already, Powergirl and I have been spazzes about the amount of time our L spends in front of a screen (television, computer or otherwise). This story only added to the paranoia. Now it’s clear we’ll also think twice about those My-Gym classes; the minute they become too structured, we’re outta there.

And, really, that’s the bottom line. In theory, I’m not opposed to any of this stuff—cone-scan technology, screen-time or sports training videos. The keys, of course, are moderation and involvement on the part of us parents.

Are there occasions where a cone-scan is inevitable? Yes. Will our kid watch some television over the course of her life? Undoubtedly. Might she take a rock-climbing class? Perhaps.

But the minute this stuff becomes commonplace is the moment Powergirl and I have failed.

Naturally, then, Powergirl and I were freaked by a lengthy and detailed story that ran in The New York Times last week about cone-beam CT scanning technology that many pediatric dentists are using nowadays.

I won’t spoil the entire piece, but the Cliffs Notes version is this: These cone-beam scans can help dentists deal with complex cases, but research indicates that the machines generate way more radiation than is necessary to tackle everyday issues (cavities, etc.) that afflict a vast majority of kids.

What’s more, the piece concludes that these machines are zapping our kids excessively and unnecessarily, at a time when excessive and unnecessary zapping may cause cancer.

The article also suggests that this could be a case of users embracing technology for technology’s sake; though the machines generate three-dimensional images, in many cases there’s no need for anything more sophisticated than a two-dimensional image.

(As a related side note, I’ve wondered why every movie these days has to be in 3D as well. Isn’t high-definition 2D just fine? I digress.)

Anyway, if you’re a parent of a kid with teeth, give the piece a read.

My personal reaction to the list was something along the lines of, “Yeah, duh.” I mean, most healthy parents hear from Day One that they should engage in many of these practices.

Still, there is some controversy.

Read the comments on my pal’s post and you’ll see a number of San Francisco-area readers were perplexed by the inclusion of religion. Don’t get me wrong, I’m the first to question religion. But the point the magazine makes isn’t about a specific faith; it’s about the importance of spiritual or religions development, which I think everyone would wholeheartedly endorse.

Furthermore, with a growing number of Americans weighing in at statistically obese, I think the notion of being “healthy” needs some serious emphasis and/or reconsideration.

In any event, I find lists like this interesting. They’re also good bellwethers; it’s reassuring to know the experts don’t need to meet Powergirl or me to tell us that we’re doing a fine job raising our baby girl.

(The story’s headline, “Passengers Push for Child-Free Flights,” says it all.)

My stance: Segregating families on airplanes is no different from segregating African-Americans on buses back before the civil rights movement.

Look, I admit that some kids behave badly on planes. I also concede that in these cases, fault lies squarely with mom and dad; parents need to be mindful of other passengers when they take their children on planes. Still, to punish all of us families for the transgressions of some—it’s unfair, stupid and just plain wrong.

Oh, by the way, especially since families pay the same price as everybody else for their airplane tickets, restricting where they can sit based solely on their status as families also is a violation of civil rights.

Read the story and make up your own mind. But if you’re one of those zealots in favor of these foolish and mean-spirited efforts, hear this: You’ll find no sympathy from moi.

But not tonight. Tonight we were rooting for a common cause: the San Francisco Giants.

You see when our daughter was born, because she was born within 75 miles of San Francisco, we decided to raise her as a San Francisco Giants fan. It was as much a decision of convenience as it was an attempt at peacekeeping; by raising her with passion for a neutral team, neither I nor Powergirl had to worry about where the child’s New York baseball allegiances would wander.

Naturally, then, in the wake of the Giants’ World Series championship tonight, we’re all smiles in this house. L’s team won the big prize in the baby’s first full year as a fan.

There was quite a buildup over here to the big win.

First, when the playoffs began, I introduced my daughter to the tradition of enjoying baseball the way it is meant to be enjoyed: By listening to play-by-play over the radio. Then, once the Giants advanced to the National League Championship Series, I taught her the names of the announcers on air (frighteningly, she quickly learned how to distinguish Kuip from Kruk by tone.).

Of course when the Giants won the NLCS, the baby’s college fund got a bump from the winnings I claimed on some (killer) wagers I made in Las Vegas.

And over the last week or so, I’ve taught her how to say “Go Giants.”

All along, the plan was to get her hooked this year, save our money (I still oppose how expensive pro sports are) and schlep her to her first official game next year. Now that trip will be even sweeter (as well as more expensive).

The blog, to which Shawn posts a few times every week, is great in its honest and down-to-earth approach. It’s also hella (as we Californians like to say) funny.

Take, for example, the inaugural post about Shawn’s week on the baby-food diet. Citing Jennifer Aniston’s recent experiences eating nothing but baby food, Shawn writes about his experiences doing the same—if only for a week. In the end, he says he lost six pounds in five days. Other side effects: He didn’t get hungry during the day, and found himself awake and alert.

I also appreciated Shawn’s most recent post, which debunks the myth of the proverbial seven-year itch with statistical analysis that eight is actually the average length in years of first marriages ending in divorce.

(Also interesting in this piece was a statistic from the National Marriage Project that two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women.)

Anyway, I won’t scoop all of Shawn’s work; check it out for yourself. You’ll be glad you did.

That’s precisely why I was heartened to read about the National Wildlife Federation’s “Be Out There” campaign, which urges parents to give their children a one hour of unstructured play outdoors every day.

For some families, getting out can be challenging. That’s why the NWF provided a list of suggestions, including camping, bird-watching, gardening, making leaf-prints and geocaching.

Many of these activities are geared toward older kids; for L, we just get her outside and see what happens. Some days we’ll throw/chase the Frisbee around the park; other days she’ll insist on taking “moneys” from my pocket and tossing them into the fountain in the square. Still other days, all she wants to do is read books in the grass.

Soon enough, probably around her 2-year-old birthday in May, we’ll step up the outdoor-loving game, and spend the night in a tent or get her to “hike” with her own two feet.

So long as we’re outside, I don’t care what we do. I’m betting my daughter won’t, either.

Previously, the approach involved opening the victim’s airway first, starting mouth-to-mouth breathing and doing chest compressions last. Now, however, the AHA says that cardiopulmonary resuscitation should begin with forceful chest compressions to keep the blood circulating through the body.

Perhaps more important, the AHA says that people who haven’t been trained in CPR need not bother with providing air-passage clearance and mouth-to-mouth breathing at all.

Apparently these decisions are the byproduct of several large studies over the past five years. These studies have found that skipping the first two steps and going straight to chest compressions yields better survival rates for people who suffer cardiac arrest. Experts think that by discouraging the average citizen from giving mouth-to-mouth emergency treatment, more people will be willing to provide CPR to strangers.

Still, as a parent of a young child, I’ve got to ask: Is the new plan best for infants and toddlers who require CPR?

Interestingly, none of the stories on the change report how it potentially could impact CPR for kids. On paper, I suppose, it shouldn’t really make a difference whether the patient is a grown-up or not. Still, I don’t want to risk breaking my daughter’s ribs if I don’t have to.

Also, does this mean I need to get recertified again (re-re-certified?) with the new plan?

Readers, if you see any information about how the new strategy relates to babies, please share. I’ll do the same (perhaps in the form of an article for someone). Thanks.