“If you can keep the evening stuff to a dull roar that would great! There are just so many events,” gripped Bergdorf Goodman’s Linda Fargo to a publicist at Naeem Khan’s Valentine’s Day show. [sigh] The fashion week life!

We’re content to note that she had little reason to complain after Mr. Khan presented his excellent collection of glitzy daywear and dramatic metallic gowns. “That’s perfect for Lady Obama!” pointed a transfixed assistant editor. The Observer agrees…

Ms. Obama first wore a stunning Naeem Khan gown to a state dinner for the prime minister of India, back in 2009. She went returned to the designer in 2011, to wear one of his frocks to make nice with German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. Here are five outfits we want to dress Michelle Obama in, along with the matching occasion!

Adrien Field, in America (Patrick McMullan)

In March 2011, The Observer wrote about the Vibe stylist and self-published author Adrien Field, a self-styled society mainstay who’d written a book on young people who go to parties. He was surprised his novel hadn’t been purchased by a publishing house: “Between Vibe, writing for the Huffington Post, my blog, going out and gathering press about myself—I don’t know anyone as compelling as myself.” He loved the spotlight and all that New York’s fashion scene had to offer a svelte, canny young thing.

That “loved” is in past tense; the climb is over. The Transom has learned that Mr. Field has given up on the dream of New York demi-stardom; on his blog, he recently wrote that he had sold his possessions and gone off on a vision quest to India. “I need to grow,” he wrote. “And for that, I need new experiences, a different environment, and new challenges … I want to be completely unencumbered, all my possessions packed into two suitcases.” He sold all of his possessions!

Mr. Field indicated to the Transom that the journey isn’t just about personal growth. “I came to India partly for business,” he said, “but mostly because you can only grow so much by staying in one place.” The location may change, but old habits die hard; Mr. Field has blogged about visiting a “rather trendy restaurant” in Delhi and visiting “a club called Hype in the [sic] Shrangri-La Hotel.” When not out on the town, Mr. Field has noted “littered-filled streets and poverty.” He’s a year wiser, now, and tweeted that he was debating how to spend his birthday: “Half of me wants to check into an Ashram, the other half a room in the Taj.”

Thank you, India!

ddaddario@observer.com :: @DPD_

Not so, the BBC reports:

"The possibility of involvement of the global CEO... looks remote," [Guragon police chief SS Deswal] said on Wednesday, according to Press Trust of India news agency.

The investigation was instead focusing on several of the bank's employees in India, he said.

Citigroup has also issued a statement saying that the charges are "completely without basis." Mr. Pandit, you're free to go.

mtaylor [at] observer.com | @mbrookstaylor

As this individual well knows, Citi identified the fraud and immediately reported the matter to the regulators and law enforcement agencies. His claims against senior executives are completely without basis and we intend to contest them vigorously. It was on Citi complaint that the Gurgaon police lodged an FIR and are currently investigating the matter. Citi will continue to work with the authorities on this investigation.

Running a global franchise sometimes means getting in international spats with the police. Just ask Citigroup boss Vikram Pandit, who is in some hot water back in his native India, where the authorities allege that Citibank's Guragon branch was siphoning off depositor money and using it to play the stock market. The Times of India reports that Citigroup's retired executive vice chairman, William Rhodes, and several high-level Citi employees are also being named in the complaint.

At stake are 300 crore, or 3 billion rupees, or $66 million U.S.

Sanjiv Agarwal, a rich investor from India, filed the complaint. According to India-news site NDTV, Shivraj Puri, branch manager in Guragon, was arrested last week and interrogated by police. Mr. Puri apparently ratted on Mr. Pandit and his other bosses:

Puri has allegedly told the police that the top rung of Citibank was aware of how his scam worked.

Puri reportedly promised corporate clients and High Net worth Individuals (HNIs) high-return schemes. He deposited their money in accounts in the names of his family and friends, and then diverted the money to the markets.

This considerable blow to Citigroup's customer service reputation follows recent efforts to refurbish the company's relationship with clients. Opening a brand-new space-age banking branch  on one side of the world doesn't exactly make up for defrauding customers on the other.

Clarification: William R. Rhodes retired from Citigroup last year. He was a senior vice chairman, not the chairman -- as the article previously stated. We regret the confusion.

(We came across this story via TheStreet.com and The Wall Street Journal.)

mtaylor [at] observer.com | @mbrookstaylor

The normal ebb and flow of American politics requires this dance which includes one step back for every two steps forward. On climate, there are powerful forces arguing that we should not reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless China and India are also required to reduce emissions. This argument that the developing world must be treated the same way we are is simply an excuse for inaction by those who are not yet convinced that we have a climate crisis. The developing world will also need to make the transition to renewable energy, but should be expected to follow rather than lead developed nations in this transition.

There are also Europeans who think that the climate regime we establish must include mandatory targets enforceable by the United Nations. I understand the European perspective, and after a century of world wars it easy to see why Europe decided to form a real union and dial back their national sovereignty. However, the rest of the world is still a collection of sovereign nations and I promise you that is not going to end any time soon.

The United States, by virtue of its military dominance, and the government of China, by virtue of its increasing economic and military might, are not about to cede authority to the United Nations- or anyone else. This means that climate policy must be based on the self interest of these still very sovereign states.  Our goal should be to imitate the imperfect international regime that seeks to control nuclear weapons.  That regime is firmly based on national self interest.  No nation is going to unilaterally disarm just as no nation is going to unilaterally dismantle their economy to stop emitting greenhouse gasses.  As imperfect as the nuclear regime is, for the sixty plus years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no nation state has ever deployed a nuclear weapon.  No sane national leader would consider using these weapons. What does the control of nuclear weapons have to do with climate policy? It’s all about the definition of national self interest.

Reduction of greenhouse gasses may or may not be in the long-term interest of the U.S., China, or Europe, but the transition to a fossil fuel free economy is in everyone’s self interest. There is a broad consensus that preventing global warming and maintaining the viability of our planet’s ability to sustain life are important goals. Although it is hard to argue against these goals, most nation states still manage to act as if the planet doesn’t matter.  The key is to turn enlightened long-term self interest into short-term national interest and real-world public policy. While there is no danger of running out of fossil fuels in the short-term, in the long-term these finite resources will be depleted. Laws like the Waxman-Markey climate bill, which cap allowable emissions of greenhouse gasses, will gradually raise the price of fossil fuels and encourage energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy. A gradual, well managed transition to a green economy is in our national interest as well as in the world’s interest.

Why is a green economy in our national interest?  The national interest here is in not being left behind. The real goal, of critical importance to economic well being, is to ensure that we don’t fall behind other nations in the race to devote as little of our wealth as possible to energy. Waxman-Markey contributes to that goal. If other nations find a way to run their economies with lower cost energy, the United States will be less able to compete in the global economy.  Our goods and services will tend to cost more than those made in other nations. Public policy that pushes low cost renewable energy is in our national interest.

Opponents of the transition to a non-fossil fuel economy will do the same thing this time they did when the U.S. Senate rejected the Kyoto accords. They will argue that a cap on emissions is the functional equivalent of unilateral disarmament. That is why the comprehensive approach of Waxman Markey represents a breakthrough and a more effective policy direction. This time we have embedded climate regulation in energy policy.  Climate policy is not simply about preserving the planet; it is about preserving the competitiveness of our economy in the global marketplace.

This does not tell you why I am confident that a climate bill and a health bill will emerge from this Congress. While Congress can sometimes act irrationally, it focuses first and foremost on its own survival.  In this case I am counting on the self interest of the Democrats in control of Congress. In 2010, one third of the Senate and all of the House of Representatives must face the electorate. Mid-term elections typically result in reduced margins for the President’s party. The Democratic Party’s goal is to stay in charge as the new Congress forms in 2011.   To win, the Democrats need a successful President. They need to prevent their opponents from defining the terms of these debates, as conservatives did through the summer. For the Democrats to maintain control of the Congress they need to face the electorate with three accomplishments: 1. A growing economy; 2. The start of national health policy, and; 3. A climate and energy bill.

Niccolo Machiavelli once said that “it is much more secure to be feared than to be loved.” Similarly, self interest is a more reliable predictor of politics and policy than idealism is. By moderating the impact of boom and bust capitalism, government policy in the 20th century preserved entrepreneurship and the market economy into the 21st century. By pushing our economy toward a more efficient green energy economy, we will preserve our prosperity through the 21st century.  We will do this because survival and prosperity are in our self interest.

It would be, Mr. Obama said, “a new beginning—a new dawn of American leadership to overcome the challenges of the 21st century.”

Except, perhaps, in the one place where order is needed most.

The terrorist attacks in Mumbai that killed more than 170 people have rendered instantly quaint the president-elect’s blueprint to use aggressive diplomacy to engineer a stable relationship between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan, and to formulate a regional approach to winning the war in Afghanistan.

Furthermore, Pakistan and India experts say, Mr. Obama’s plan to invest billions of dollars in non-military resources in Pakistan is endangered by the economic crisis at home, and by Pakistan’s less-than-sympathetic status following the attacks.

After running as the antidote to Mr. Bush’s foreign policy, it’s not even clear anymore whether Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton will be able to do anything significantly different from the Bush administration in the world’s most intense hot spot.

“They are going to have to run to catch up with events,” said Stephen Cohen, the author of The Idea of Pakistan and a prominent scholar at the Brookings Institution on issues relating to the subcontinent.

Mr. Cohen said that the attack in Mumbai “makes it harder to pursue the kind of policy that he had conceived of, which is support the Pakistanis, work on the Indians to help us support the Pakistanis so we can be better off in Afghanistan. I think from a Pakistani and Indian point of view, forget about it. 

“The Indians,” he said, “are not going to want to normalize with Pakistan now, not for a long time.”

Somewhat ironically, given the largely rapturous international reaction to the election of the cosmopolitan and internationalist Mr. Obama, his diplomatic options for dealing with both Pakistan and India may be especially limited.

Officially, there is no shortage of goodwill. In a Dec. 2 appearance on Larry King Live, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said: “I think there’s a world romance with Obama. And we all in Pakistan—throughout the world there’s a romance to Obama, and we are looking forward to working with him.” He also called Mrs. Clinton “an excellent choice” for secretary of state.

But there is also the lingering specter of Mr. Obama’s remarks during the campaign—which drew a sharp rebuke at the time from Mrs. Clinton—that he would pursue “high-value terrorist targets” inside Pakistan if the Pakistanis failed to do so. Since then, militarily effective American incursions into Pakistan—denounced regularly by the Pakistani government—have grown enormously unpopular there, and have provided India with a potential rationale for launching a unilateral response to the Mumbai attacks.

“I didn’t think it was a good move at the time,” said Daniel Markey, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “I think he is paying a price for it just off the bat in terms of his diplomatic relationship with the Pakistanis. It would have been much more positive if he didn’t say it.”

Mr. Obama’s political outreach to India won’t be much simpler.

The Bush administration saw the nation as a counterweight to China in the region and pushed through a controversial deal, independent of recognized nonproliferation treaties, that permitted civilian nuclear trade between the U.S. and India. (Mr. Obama initially opposed the deal on the grounds that it gave India a “blank check” that could encourage an arms race in the region. He eventually supported the bill, which passed in October, when some of his restrictions, including measures meant to deter stockpiling, were implemented.)

But the president-elect’s restrained posture on India was perceived by the country’s political leadership as a snub, according to India experts.

“Over the life of the Bush administration, they saw a major breakthrough with India on this nuclear deal and major shifts in the nature of government-to-government interactions with India,” said Mr. Markey. “Most people that I’ve talked to on the Obama side are more inclined to see the next period with India as one of consolidating those gains and maybe pushing ahead on some things that are more economic. But it is not by any stretch the priority, really, that Pakistan is.”

This, theoretically, is where Mrs. Clinton could help.

“She’s a known quantity,” said Nicholas Platt, a former ambassador to Pakistan under George H. W. Bush and the president emeritus of the Asia Society in New York. “She’s known in the area. She’s got stature.”

Mr. Platt said that the Clinton name was especially popular in the region because Bill Clinton, when he was president, had taken steps to improve relations with India and worked to defuse tensions between the two nuclear powers.  

Together with Mrs. Clinton at the press conference on Dec. 1, Mr. Obama dismissed their old disagreements as campaign hyperbole and argued for a foreign policy that “skillfully uses, balances and integrates all elements of American power.”

After the attacks in Mumbai, which are suspected to be the work of the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, advisers to Mr. Obama said he intended to seize on the tragedy as an opportunity to apply pressure on Pakistan to work with India and the United States and to abandon the extremist elements they have created, nurtured and deployed in the past to further their foreign policy goals.  

With Pakistan’s cooperation, India could respond with concessions to help resolve the Kashmir question. Pakistan could turn its military attention to Afghanistan, and the United States could begin injecting cash for health care, education and nation-building projects that would eventually serve to make Pakistan less dangerous and radical and nuclear.

But that is clearly a very best-case scenario.

“We should not be delusional that doing chummy things that are welcomed in that part of the world will get them to make the concessions or the hard decisions that we would like,” said Les Gelb, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He added that Pakistanis consider India a much greater threat than the Taliban, and “we’re not going to make that go away by providing more Pakistanis with refrigerators.”

Among the other problems for Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton will be that they don’t have an obvious interlocutor in Pakistan. The new democratically elected government has made helpful statements (“We must all stand together to fight out this menace,” Mr. Zardari told the Financial Times), but exercises little control over the Pakistani military or intelligence.

Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, for example, has trained and supported Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. Militant groups widely believed to have links to the agency have perpetrated attacks against the Indian Parliament and the Indian embassy in Afghanistan.

The view among many Pakistan experts is that the Pakistani military prefers an unstable Afghanistan because that keeps it less susceptible to Indian influence.

Some experts warn that unrealistic demands on Mr. Zardari will only weaken him and pave the way for yet another military coup or, nightmarishly, hasten the failure of a nuclear-armed state.

Meanwhile, across the eastern border, Manmohan Singh, India’s prime minister, is under pressure to make a show of anger toward Pakistan, especially given upcoming elections in the spring in which an emboldened Hindu nationalist opposition is strongly favored.

During the Dec. 1 press conference, Mr. Obama said he had told Mr. Singh that “Americans stand with the people of India in this dark time. And I am confident that India’s great democracy is more resilient than killers who would tear it down.”

“I think the Obama approach was always putting the Indians off because it put them at the end of a chain,” said Mr. Cohen. “And the chain began with Afghanistan and then Pakistan and then only India, despite all the rhetoric about India being a great country, blah, blah, blah. They clearly did not see India as a major strategic player in Asia.”

That sort of skepticism, in turn, will make it that much more difficult for the Obama administration to round up support for a regional approach to solving Afghanistan by way of Kashmir.

“Obviously, the Obama regional framework in the next few weeks or months is on ice,” said Vanda Felbab-Brown, also of the Brookings Institution.

According to most of the experts interviewed for this article, Mr. Obama is receiving advice on the issue of Pakistan from Bruce Riedel, a former C.I.A. operative and a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

Mr. Riedel did not return requests for an interview, but in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this year, he said that he knew from experience, from when the United States backed the armed resistance to the Soviet Union in the 1980s, that it was impossible for insurgents to lose in Afghanistan as long as Pakistan provided a safe haven. Still, he said, “any American leader that was told that we had very good intelligence, at a certain point and a certain time, will act on that intelligence. And they should. But, you have to be sure it’s really, really good intelligence. And not a setup that someone is deliberately trying to put you in.”

He added, however, that “Predator strikes are not a long-term solution.”

(Another expert on the region reported to be advising Mr. Obama, Jonah Blank, a senior adviser to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also declined to comment during the course of the transition.)

Asked during the press conference in Chicago if India also had the right to pursue high-value targets inside Pakistan, Mr. Obama responded, “I think that sovereign nations obviously have a right to protect themselves. Beyond that, I don’t want to comment on the specific situation that’s taking place in South Asia right now.”

“Indian incursions have a fundamentally different quality to them than anything that we do,” said Mr. Markey. “Despite the fact that the Pakistanis really, really don’t like that we’re doing this, it’s not just a game.”

He added, “To kind of even signal a yellow light to Indian reprisals is a bad step. I don’t think that’s what Obama is doing. But I think that hawks in India will be looking for opportunities.”

In other words, after all the heady expectations built up for the prospective foreign policy super-team of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, they’re going to have to be extremely careful, first and foremost, to do no harm.

“Ninety-nine percent of the issues that face people who face international affairs are coping issues, not solving issues,” said Mr. Platt. “One percent you can solve every once in a while.”

jhorowitz@observer.com

Mr. Ferris begins his book in the halcyon days of the dot-com boom. The employer is an unnamed advertising company. Jobs are secure, benefits generous and career fulfillment a luxury everyone can afford. “We thought moving to India might be better, or going back to nursing school. Doing something with the handicapped or working with our hands. No one ever acted on these impulses, despite their daily, sometimes hourly contractions. Instead we met in conference rooms to discuss the issues of the day.”

But then the economy sours, clients dry up, and the company starts letting people go. The layoffs begin as a steady trickle, like sniper attacks, and build to a torrent, leaving whole swathes of the office desolate, cubicle ghost towns. The survivors—huddled together at the coffee bar or strategizing in a colleague’s office—live in fear. They struggle to look busy before the ax falls. The rules have changed. Despite all the blather about quitting to become a rafting instructor, no one wants to pack up while others look on with the same thought: “thank god it wasn’t me.”

Our chorus of idiosyncratic protagonists all belong to the same advertising team. The story, such as it is (I challenge you to find an arc), evolves from swapped anecdotes as they band together in the collective struggle of their days. Mr. Ferris’ observations are often ticklish, making the book feel like the one we have rattling in our heads. But the slippery monotony of the tone—coasting along on “we saw” and “we heard”—deprives it of any sort of narrative build, or investment in the characters. “Some of us knew how to turn a misshapen paper clip into a projectile that could hit the ceiling,” he writes. “If our attention was drawn to the ceiling, we usually recounted our tiles.” I snickered with familiarity, but I also felt a little bored.

Still, Mr. Ferris does breezily capture some larger truths about professional wage-slavery. “We were delighted to have jobs. We bitched about them constantly.” Sartre’s play No Exit comes to mind: Hell isn’t fire and brimstone; it’s close quarters with other people. Or maybe it’s just a job we desperately need and thoroughly despise.

Emily Bobrow is an editor at Economist.com.

The survey was conducted by the Association of Foreign Investors in Real Estate, based in--of all places--Madison, Wis.

L.A., San Francisco and Seattle round out the top-five.

The full release after the jump.

- John Koblin

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Big Apple Bobs to Top Among Foreign Real Estate Investors

Washington (January 24, 2007)--For the first time since 2001, New York has emerged as foreign investors number one US city for commercial real estate, ousting former top contender, Washington, DC to the second place seat. The remaining cities rounding out the leading five in 15th annual survey conducted by the Association of Foreign Investors in Real Estate (AFIRE), include: Los Angeles holding firm in third place since last year; San Francisco also staying the same; and Seattle displacing San Diego in the fifth place seat, up from the ninth spot in 2005 and fifteenth in 2004. The survey reflects the buying preferences of members of the association who collectively own $601 billion of real estate globally, including $184 billion in the US. The survey was conducted among AFIRE members by The Center for Real Estate, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

This year's survey also found that US real estate investment strategies for 2007 and beyond will include properties traditionally considered to have higher risk. Respondents to the survey say that "value-added" real estate is expected to comprise 25% of their portfolio in 2007, up six percentage points from 2006.

"The findings reflect investors' desire to invest in US real estate despite macro uncertainties and competition from US institutional investors," added Francois Ortalo-Magne, Robert E. Wangard Chair in Real Estate, The Center for Real Estate, University of Wisconsin-Madison. "Consequently, they are showing a greater willingness to consider diversification strategies into secondary markets, outside of the core property types, and with creative financing and ownership structures."

New Measures to Place New Capital
Members say that new measures to place new capital in the US market over the next five years will draw on:
• off-market transactions,
• the development of joint-ventures, and
• the execution of a broader focus and geographic diversification.

Thirty percent of respondents said they would explore new property types as part of their US investment strategy. These include:
• infrastructure,
• resorts,
• senior housing,
• storage,
• student housing,
• research and science projects, and
• the acquisition of real estate companies.

Changes in US Property Type Preferences
1. Office buildings (unchanged from 2005)
2. Multi-family (missing first place by a fraction of a point)
3. Hotels (down from number two in 2005)
4. Industrial (unchanged from 2005)
5. Retail (down from number three in 2005)

Investment Levels to Increase
Globally, this year's survey indicates a median investment of $500 million dollars by respondents in cross-border real estate investments in 2007, including $250 million in the US. In 2006, the median investment was $400 million globally, with $200 million targeted to the US. "It is significant that for the second year in a row, the portion of the investment targeted to the US has remained consistent," adds James Fetgatter, chief executive of the organization.

Global Trends
• While London remains the top global city for cross-border real estate investment, New York regains the number two spot, rising from third place in 2005, and fourth place in both 2004 and 2003. Washington, DC, which has held the number one or number two spot globally since 2002, falls into fourth place. Paris climbs from fourth place to third, and Tokyo maintains the fifth spot.

• While the USA remains the preferred global country for foreign investors' real estate dollars, only 23% of respondents say it has the best potential for capital appreciation, down from 44.4% in 2005 and 53.8% in 2004.

• India emerges as the country having the second highest potential for real estate capital appreciation, up from sixth place in 2005. Eighteen percent of survey respondents say real estate in India provides the second best opportunity for capital appreciation. The US has always held the number one spot, but this is the narrowest margin (5%) between first and second place in the survey's history. With 15% of survey respondents' votes, real estate in China continues to rank third.

• Among top Asian countries for investors' dollars, Japan and China remain in the first and second slots. India moves into third from fifth while Singapore falls from third to fourth place to tie with Hong Kong.

• In terms of global appeal, the survey shows significant upward movement for Stockholm, from 29 to eight.

• Among Eastern European countries, Romania appears for the first time among the top five targets for investors' dollars. The top three Eastern European countries remain the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. Survey respondents who are targeting Eastern Europe for real estate investment have allocated an average of $340 million to the region.

• Respondents say they expect Australians to be the top foreign competitors for US real estate, displacing Germany which held the number one spot since 1999.

Portfolio Compositions: Global and US
Not surprisingly, both globally and in the US, office buildings are the mainstay of respondents' portfolios.

• Respondents hold a slightly higher percentage of office buildings in the US (56% to 50%) than they do globally.

• They hold a slightly higher percentage of retail globally than they do in the US (22% to 18%).

• Both globally and in the US, respondents say multi-family comprises 12% of their portfolio.

AFIRE members have a common interest in preserving and promoting investment in cross-border real estate. Founded in 1988, AFIRE currently has nearly 200 members representing 17 countries. AFIRE is located at 1300 Pennsylvania, NW, Washington, DC; (202) 312-1400. www.afire.org.
###

“Going to India for a month without phone or Internet access was even more appealing as I could finally escape any association with that site,” he wrote in an e-mail on Nov. 28. Mr. Blasberg said that he was now in London, where he’d stopped off for a few days after traveling in India with his friend, the model Jacquetta Wheeler.

The plan didn’t go quite as smoothly as he might have liked. Days before his trip, he sent out a mass e-mail informing his many friends that he would be out of e-mail and phone contact. One recipient, Lauren Davis, mass-replied, according to socialiterank.com, inquiring “how Socialite Rank would be updated now that he is gone in Taj Mahal land.” The site went on to speculate that the slight would set off a feud of epic proportions.

Indeed, in today’s socialite milieu, there are few worse things than to be fingered as the author of the anonymous Web site.

“It’s become something that is pitting friends against friends,” said a certain “It” boy who asked to remain anonymous. “You see someone you know and you like, and you have to wonder: ‘Wait, can I talk to that person? Is he involved in the site?’ It’s made going out much less fun.”

Bring on the suspects!

“I am a full-time publicist, not a part-time blogger. I don’t even have a computer at home,” said Bonnie Morrison of KBK, who has also been named as a suspect. “My friends and I are always hazarding guesses about who’s behind it. One time a friend had a laptop sticking out of her bag at a dinner party, and we all started make jokes that she was doing socialiterank.com.”

So who is behind the site? The Web site only conducts interviews by e-mail “due to our strict confidentiality,” someone wrote from its e-mail address, and its proprietor signs its e-mails “SR Team.”

“It really has become the best parlor game of the season,” said Ms. Morrison. “I’ve heard people say Peter”—that’s Peter Davis—“but I’ve also heard people say Hud Morgan. And he always accuses me of doing so, so I’m going to give it right back to him and go with Hud.”

Men’s Vogue writer Hudson Morgan would not comment for this article.

“All I know is that I don’t do it,” said Peter Davis, a fashion features director at Fashion Week Daily. “I heard that it’s hosted in Germany and registered in Pennsylvania, so whoever’s behind it has obviously gone to lengths to cover their tracks.”

“People think that it’s me because Tinsely [Mortimer] is rated No. 1 and she’s my sister-in-law,” he said.

“Derek Blasberg is the kind of talented Mr. Ripley who would write this,” said one boy about town.

“I don’t even know how to blog,” said Douglas Friedman, photographer and regular partygoer. “It’s a ridiculous site to begin with; I have nothing to do with it.”

Faran Krentcil, a Fashion Week Daily chick, is another suspect. Some believe she writes another anonymous socialite blog. “You can polygraph me and make swear to every deity in the world,” said Ms. Krentcil. “I think if you read everything, you’ll see it’s not my style.

“Plus,” she said, “I would have ranked Julia Roitfeld a lot higher. She would have been my No. 1. I think she’s fabulous.”

“It’s a great, great guessing game,” said full-time hostess-helper Andrew Saffir. “They very nicely profiled me. They just e-mailed me from a nebulous e-mail.”

“What I think is kind of cool is that they’ve kept it anonymous,” said Olivia Palermo, 24, who, when she is not wearing expensive dresses, is studying history at the New School. “You’ve got to give them props for that.” Ms. Palermo is currently lurking at No. 25 on the list.

Mr. Davis recently attempted to clear his name by offering an expensive group meal to the individual who outs the Socialiterankers.

“Dinner for 12 at Waverly Inn to whoever outs SR. XXOO. Let the game begin,” he wrote in an e-mail subject line. The text in the body of the e-mail was a recent Radar Online article titled “Poorly Ranked Socialite Hires P.I.”

But was she really so poorly ranked? Multiple sources have said to The Transom that Lauren Davis had indeed hired a shamus, a bloodhound, a flatfoot to investigate the site. “It’s pretty much common knowledge that she’s the one who hired the private investigator,” said one source.

“I have absolutely no comment about it,” said Ms. Davis, when asked whether she’d hired the P.I. “I feel bad for you and your editors and your readers. There are much more important things in the world.”

Ms. Davis did, however, reveal an up-to-date knowledge of the postings on socialiterank.com. She did not wish to comment on the site further.

Ms. Davis is currently ranked at No. 12, down from her earlier ranking of 7.

“It’s almost good that I offered this dinner, ’cause people are really turning up the heat,” Mr. Davis said. “I just thought it was funny to raise the stakes.”

Controversy centers on the talkback section, in which readers are allowed to post their comments. For instance, the Oct. 20 “Blasberg and Davis Exchange Nastiness, Start a Huge Feud” post received 124 comments.

“I can’t fault him for disliking Lauren, though … who doesn’t?” wrote in someone calling herself (or himself) Caroline Bingley.

The nastiness of the comments has weight for these gal-abouts, because many of the people reading and possibly commenting are members of their social circle.

“I think it was kitschy and sort of fun in the beginning, but the person or persons that started it have allowed the site—particularly the comments boards—evolve into something hurtful and, for a forum that reports and prides itself on being connected to the upper echelons of American society, completely classless,” said Mr. Blasberg.

“Everyone reads it, of course,” said Fabiola Beracasa. She is currently ranked at No. 2 on the site.

“Paris Hilton brought to light the existence of the socialite to Middle America and the world. Before, it was either models or actresses—but socialites were, most times, born into this lifestyle. That’s what fascinates people. It’s a continuous lifestyle that people are fascinated by. But it’s not all the media’s fault,” she said. “You know, it’s us posing for the cameras and going out and exploiting the spotlight for our careers.”

Alfie

It was a rough holiday for Fabiola Beracasa. New York’s No. 2–ranked socialite recently lost her right-hand man, a longhaired Chihuahua named Alfonso, when he was struck by a car at 64th and Lex.

The accident happened on Nov. 14. Alfie was two years old. The family butler had been transporting him to the vet. He had Alfie cradled in his arms as they approached the doggie hospital’s entrance.

“I guess when Alfie saw that they were going to the hospital, he squirmed and tried to make a run for it,” said Ms. Beracasa, who is the creative director for Circa, an antique-jewelry firm. “What happened was he ran into the wheel of a passing car and broke his little neck.”

Ms. Beracasa has spent the last week recuperating at the family house in Palm Beach. She had been planning to go to Japan, but she was too distraught and canceled the trip. “For a while, I couldn’t get out of bed. There’s such an incredible bond you make with a dog.”

“He was the sweetest dog,” said Ms. Beracasa. “I would be just holding him and I would tell my boyfriend, I would be like, ‘Jason, I want to change his name to Neo because he’s like the One. He was like a person, not a dog.”

Ms. Beracasa holds no ill will toward the butler, who has been with the family for over 15 years. “It could have happened to anyone,” she said.

By random coincidence, her boyfriend, Jason Beckman, had only recently bought a longhaired Chihuahua for himself. “He’s been trying to give her to me. He sees me crying and he’s like, ‘I don’t want you to be sad.’ We might name her Anouk. There’s a model named Anouk, but it’s not after her. I just like the name.”

—S.M.

Trumpsgiving

The Trump family deviated from tradition this year and spent Thanksgiving dinner at the Mar-a-Lago clubhouse. It wasn’t the same as Grandma Trump’s famously enormous home-cooked turkeys—“Sometimes they wouldn’t fit in the oven, they were so big,” said Eric Trump—but the vast buffet at the Palm Beach club had its advantages.

“We always joke that our family are all big saucers,” Mr. Trump explained. Eric, 22, is the youngest of Donald and Ivana’s brood, the little brother of Donnie Jr. and Ivanka. “We love drowning our food in gravy, so we were grateful that it was buffet style—otherwise we’d constantly have to be ordering more gravy, which would be kind of embarrassing.”

“We’ve got a phenomenal chef down there,” he said. This was by phone, on Nov. 28. The Transom is pretty sure that his mouth had begun watering and that he licked his lips at least once while talking turkey. “It was delicious. There were yams, stuffing, cranberry sauce, delicious peas and carrots, cakes—and they’ve got one of the best pastry chefs in the world at Mar-a-Lago. It was just an amazing, amazing meal.”

There was no mention of wine. The Trumps don’t drink.

Rounding out the Trump table in the main dining room that night was 8-month-old Barron, in a “standard baby outfit,” and Donald Sr. and Melania. All were in formal dress. Ivanka was off traveling in Chile. Donnie Jr. and his pregnant wife, Vanessa, were celebrating their one-year anniversary in Mexico.

They were there in spirit. “There was a lot of talk about the baby. You know it’s certainly going to transform the family. You know he or she is going to be the first in a whole new generation of Trump. We’re all very excited.”

But on that night, it was just two half-brothers of the same generation, the original baby brother and the new baby brother, all going head to head against the gravy boat.

“He’s a typical Trump: He was slamming down those mashed potatoes,” said Eric of his new little brother. He was about to walk into a meeting on a building or a new project or some such. “We’re all big eaters in our family. I can tell that Barron’s going to keep up that tradition. My mom used to joke that it was more expensive to feed me than to pay for my education.”

Oh, you know you’re curious!

Eric graduated from Georgetown last May. He took a couple months off to travel and, just a couple months ago, quietly started working for dad. It’s what he’s always wanted to do. He feels it in his veins.

“I always say it’s the Trump gene. As far back as I can remember, I loved Legos, and I’d always erect the most elaborate Lego cities,” said the bright-eyed, baby-faced new executive when The Transom ran into him at one of his first public events earlier this month. Like Donnie, he has an ample head of hair, but his is blond and he spikes it up. “It’s just something that’s in our blood.”

He said he’s currently working on projects in Chicago, Dubai, Las Vegas and Mexico. “I’m constantly traveling, and I really enjoy it.”

And he’s thrilled to be working side by side with his big brother—particularly now that he has the advantage when it comes to horseplay. “Donnie, being six years older, beat me up all time and, you know, I loved it and we’re still best friends to this day.” Today, li’l bro has at least three inches and 20 pounds on Donnie Jr. “It’s a lot of fun now that I’m bigger than him. We still push each other around a little bit. It’s great, it’s healthy, especially when we work together 24/7.”

All the young Trumps have their defining interests and characteristics: Donnie enjoys the outdoors and rock-climbing, Ivanka likes clothes and stuff, and Eric has his tool collection.

“I was always fascinated with tools. I still love tools. I always tell people: ‘For Christmas, I want gift cards for Home Depot,’” he said.

It wasn’t easy for the young lad to choose a favorite amongst his vast collection. He said it would definitely have to be a woodworking tool. He hemmed and hawed for a nearly a minute. “I really like my chisels,” he said.

—S.M.

The Transom Also Hears ….

On Monday night, outside Lovely Day on the Lower East Side, Mary-Kate Olsen and her scruffy arm candy, Max Snow, were having a private party in her enormous blacked-out S.U.V. A witness reports that the couple were acting about as sloppy as one of those awesome bag-lady dresses the diminutive twin favors.

“They were yelling stuff and laughing,” said the observer, who also noted that Ms. Olsen was wearing a fur coat, a fedora and some Balenciaga boots. “Then four of her girlfriends came out of Lovely Day, and they all got in the S.U.V. Before leaving, they threw a bunch of crap out the window—some cups and bags, but also a whole roasted duck. Like the kind you see in Chinatown. It was totally gross, but also kind of funny, because of course what else is Mary-Kate going to do with a roasted duck?”

Out west on Saturday night, the Spur posse was once again regulating on La Cienega. The über-bachelor crew of Leonardo DiCaprio, Kevin Connolly and Lucas Haas showed up at Hollywood’s AREA after 1 a.m. A guest reports: “Leo and his friends acted like they owned the place. They demanded a booth and had Lily Semel kicked out of hers so they could sit. Her dad runs Yahoo! Those guys need to check their egos. They’ve gone from being the cute young actors that are the life of the party to a few old guys trying to score with young babes. It’s kinda pathetic.”

—S.M.