Tuesday Reads: Romney vs. Perry, 9/11 Revelations, and Hormonal Effects of Fatherhood

Good Morning!! Let’s see if there’s any news out there. I didn’t see much of the Tea Party debate, because I was watching the New England Patriots crush the Miami Dolphins. That was soooo much better than watching Wolf Blitzer and the crazy people. Thanks so much to those of your who watched and documented the insanity so I didn’t have to.

According to Alexander Burns at Politico, Mitt Romney turned into an attack dog and lit into Rick Perry.

Mitt Romney went on the attack against Rick Perry at the first possible opportunity Monday night, challenging the Texas governor on whether he “continues to believe that Social Security should not be a federal program … or does he retreat from that view.”

[….]

Romney jumped in with a hit against Perry’s book, “Fed Up!” – the tome that Perry used to describe Social Security as a program that violated constitutional principles.

“Gov. Perry pointed out that in his view, Social Security is not constitutional,” Romney said.

And so on, with Perry giving weak responses. It’ll be interesting to see Romney challenge Obama on Social Security during the general election. Talk about role reversal!

Unfortunately, the latest CNN poll shows Perry still leading the rest of the Republicans in terms of electability.

Hours before the start of the first-ever CNN/Tea Party Republican debate, a new national survey indicates that Texas Gov. Rick Perry is maintaining his lead in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.

And according to a CNN/ORC International Poll, what appears to be Perry’s greatest strength – the perception among Republicans that he is the candidate with the best chance to beat President Barack Obama in 2012 – seems to be exactly what the GOP rank and file are looking for.

Paul Krugman wrote an addendum to his recent “controversial” blog post about the September 11 anniversary.

The fact is that the two years or so after 9/11 were a terrible time in America – a time of political exploitation and intimidation, culminating in the deliberate misleading of the nation into the invasion of Iraq. It’s probably worth pointing out that I’m not saying anything now that I wasn’t saying in real time back then, when Bush had a sky-high approval rating and any criticism was denounced as treason. And there’s nothing I’ve done in my life of which I’m more proud.

[….]

Now, I should have said that the American people behaved remarkably well in the weeks and months after 9/11: There was very little panic, and much more tolerance than one might have feared. Muslims weren’t lynched, and neither were dissenters, and that was something of which we can all be proud.

But the memory of how the atrocity was abused is and remains a painful one. And it’s a story that I, at least, can neither forget nor forgive.

Good for him for sticking to his guns.

Former Senator Bob Graham today called for another 9/11 investigation, because of a new report that the FBI knew of connections between the hijackers and Saudis living in Florida and never revealed those finding to Congress of the 9/11 Commission.

Ten years after the deadliest attack of terrorism on U.S. soil, new information has emerged that shows the FBI found troubling ties between the hijackers and residents in the upscale community in southwest Florida, but the investigation wasn’t reported to Congress or mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who cochaired the bipartisan congressional Joint Inquiry into the attacks, said he should have been told about the findings, saying it “opens the door to a new chapter of investigation as to the depth of the Saudi role in 9/11. … No information relative to the named people in Sarasota was disclosed.”

The U.S. Justice Department, the lead agency that investigated the attacks, refused to comment, saying it will discuss only information already released.

The results of a new study suggest that when men become fathers, their testosterone levels go down. The researchers looked at testosterone levels in a large sample of men before they married and had children and again a few years after their children were born. According to TheManlyZone.com, lower levels of testosterone could be nature’s way of making men less interested in other partners and more interested in caring for their families.

Experts say the research has implications for understanding the biology of fatherhood, hormone roles in men and even health issues like prostate cancer.

“The real take-home message,” said Peter Ellison, a professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard who was not involved in the study, is that “male parental care is important. It’s important enough that it’s actually shaped the physiology of men.”

“Unfortunately,” Dr. Ellison added, “I think American males have been brainwashed” to believe lower testosterone means that “maybe you’re a wimp, that it’s because you’re not really a man.

“My hope would be that this kind of research has an impact on the American male. It would make them realize that we’re meant to be active fathers and participate in the care of our offspring.”

That’s all I’ve got for today. What are you reading and blogging about?