Facebook--again

Don't blame the Secret Service. They are non-political. Political appointees are not.

"People familiar with the inquiry into how the Salahis were able to attend Tuesday's gala, even though they weren't on the official guest list, said the Salahis exchanged e-mails with Michele S. Jones, special assistant to the secretary of defense and the Pentagon-based liaison to the White House. It was unclear how well the Salahis know Jones, but Jones includes the Salahis' lawyer, Paul W. Gardner, as one of her 50 friends on Facebook.

Several people familiar with the Jones-Salahi correspondence, including some who requested anonymity because it's part of an ongoing investigation, said the e-mails support the Salahis' case that they were cleared to attend Tuesday night's gala." WaPo

I've talked to Columbus school teachers who've told me they are not allowed to have Facebook accounts. Sounds like a good idea for anyone in public education, academe, or government. Why do you want to tell nosy people who your friends and associates are? Especially reporters from the Washington Post who are good at gossip but not tracking down global warming myths and document screw ups? I looked up Michele S. Jones. She's another "first," and a two-fer, and maybe she just wasn't carefully vetted or wasn't given enough instruction and training on security and the importance of protecting the president from friends of friends. Or then again, perhaps she had nothing at all to do with this and the e-mails to her went nowhere.

Incidentally, far removed from this story but about social networks, have you heard of the book Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives, by Nicholas A. Christakis and James H. Fowler (Little, Brown, 352 pp., $25.99). It's reviewed at City Journal--go take a look. It's not about electronic social networks but the old fashioned type--like the brother-in-law of your best friend.

"Controlling for environmental factors and the tendency of birds of a feather to flock together—happy people prefer hanging out with other happy people—Christakis and Fowler found that we really do emulate those we care about, whether we mean to or not. Being connected to a happy person, for instance, makes you 15 percent more likely to be happy yourself. “And the spread of happiness doesn’t stop there,” they note. It radiates out for three degrees of separation, so that, say, your sister’s best friend’s husband’s mood exerts a greater influence on your personal happiness than an extra $10,000 in income would. If he gains 50 pounds, it will be that much harder for you to stay slim, as the frame of reference for what’s “normal” changes through your network. Or, on the positive side, if he quits smoking, your chances of kicking the habit improve, too, even if you’ve never met him."

Sounds like a title for next year's book club, and that maybe I've put on 10 lbs because my friend's husband can't lose weight.