On the republican VP candidate

It's kind of weird to think that on the tickets in the US there's a man the age of my husband, and a woman (almost) my age. It's even more impressive to think that she has managed to pursue a demanding career while giving birth to five children, the youngest born April 2008. The youngest also has Down Syndrome.
Apparently, Palin declared herself surprised since "her other pregnancies went so well". On the other hand, she's pro-life, so she decided to continue the pregnancy, after discussing with her husband.
Everybody is saying how nice this is, to see somebody who really believes in what she says (Palin is very strongly pro-life).
Somehow, I'm not so impressed. Palin went back to work three days after the child was born. It seems evident that, whoever has to spend hours and hours bringing this baby to the doctor, to the logopedist, to the physical therapist, etcetera, it will not be Ms Palin. So what will she do? Maybe nurse him. Spend some "quality time" with him. I mean, whatever time she can spare for her already existing children - the eldest is going to Iraq in September, but the other 3 still at home.
So let's recap. This woman chose to have a child at an age where she knew that Down Syndrome had a very high likelyhood. She knew that she was well to do enough that she wouldn't have to give up her job, and her life, and her husband, and her other children, to take care of the newborn however sick he was. So she made the same decision I made, when I decided not to test my feti for genetic anomalies. I knew that it wouldn't be the end of my life, either (although I'm sure glad that mine are so far healthy).
I fail to see how this example has any relevance to the many, many women who choose to abort a handicapped fetus. Or who choose an abortion for a million different reasons, most of which Ms Palin has no experience of.
Still, if she's the choice, maybe the Republican will stop saying that Obama is unexperienced? McCain is 72 and a cancer survivor; the chances that his VP will be promoted President are definitely significant.

Against parenting.com

I actually don't have anything against them. Except for the immensely imbecile article they wrote, which appeared on cnn (and I saw via Feministing). Title: Boys will be boys, girls will be girls from birth.
They have a list of "scientific facts" none of which is accompanied by even the remotest reference. The nearest they go to a reference is saying that a study was carried out by "psychologists at Cambridge, England" - and it is in fact a study on something strange, namely whether one-year old would rather look at talking faces or at windscreen wipers. Seems totally irrelevant to me.
The few studies (some more are mentioned without a reference, all of a similar kind) are interspersed with the journalist's prejudice, for which no reference is even attempted: e.g., that girls have more interest in clothing and shoes than boys do.
Of course I could make a big case of how I have precisely one child (my son C#2) who really cares about clothing, and especially shoes, and how he has recently (age 5) discovered jewels and is perpetually asking for becklaces and bracelets. But I won't. I'll just sit there and worry about the antifeminist backlash on both sides of the Atlantic, after having learned that Obama chose a 65-year old catholic as vp, and is being increasingly wishy-washy about the abortion issue.