The 15 most expensive houses for sale in America

ORIGINAL POST HERE

AND HERE

Poor Little Rich Women

By WEDNESDAY MARTIN 

MAY 16, 2015

read original post here and here

WHEN our family moved from the West Village to the Upper East Side in 2004, seeking proximity to Central Park, my in-laws and a good public school, I thought it unlikely that the neighborhood would hold any big surprises. For many years I had immersed myself — through interviews, reviews of the anthropological literature and participant-observation — in the lives of women from the Amazon basin to sororities at a Big Ten school. I thought I knew from foreign.

Then I met the women I came to call the Glam SAHMs, for glamorous stay-at-home-moms, of my new habitat. My culture shock was immediate and comprehensive. In a country where women now outpace men in college completion, continue to increase their participation in the labor force and make gains toward equal pay, it was a shock to discover that the most elite stratum of all is a glittering, moneyed backwater.

A social researcher works where she lands and resists the notion that any group is inherently more or less worthy of study than another. I stuck to the facts. The women I met, mainly at playgrounds, play groups and the nursery schools where I took my sons, were mostly 30-somethings with advanced degrees from prestigious universities and business schools. They were married to rich, powerful men, many of whom ran hedge or private equity funds; they often had three or four children under the age of 10; they lived west of Lexington Avenue, north of 63rd Street and south of 94th Street; and they did not work outside the home.

Instead they toiled in what the sociologist Sharon Hays calls “intensive mothering,” exhaustively enriching their children’s lives by virtually every measure, then advocating for them anxiously and sometimes ruthlessly in the linked high-stakes games of social jockeying and school admissions.

Their self-care was no less zealous or competitive. No ponytails or mom jeans here: they exercised themselves to a razor’s edge, wore expensive and exquisite outfits to school drop-off and looked a decade younger than they were. Many ran their homes (plural) like C.E.O.s.

It didn’t take long for me to realize that my background in anthropology might help me figure it all out, and that this elite tribe and its practices made for a fascinating story.

I was never undercover; I told the women I spent time with that I was writing a book about being a mother on the Upper East Side, and many of them were eager to share their perspectives on what one described as “our in many ways very weird world.”

It was easy for me to fall into the belief, as I lived and lunched and mothered with more than 100 of them for the better part of six years, that all these wealthy, competent and beautiful women, many with irony, intelligence and a sense of humor about their tribalism (“We are freaks for Flywheel,” one told me, referring to the indoor cycling gym), were powerful as well. But as my inner anthropologist quickly realized, there was the undeniable fact of their cloistering from men. There were alcohol-fueled girls’ nights out, and women-only luncheons and trunk shows and “shopping for a cause” events. There were mommy coffees, and women-only dinners in lavish homes. There were even some girlfriend-only flyaway parties on private planes, where everyone packed and wore outfits the same color.

“It’s easier and more fun,” the women insisted when I asked about the sex segregation that defined their lives.

“We prefer it,” the men told me at a dinner party where husbands and wives sat at entirely different tables in entirely different rooms.

Sex segregation, I was told, was a “choice.” But like “choosing” not to work, or a Dogon woman in Mali’s “choosing” to go into a menstrual hut, it struck me as a state of affairs possibly giving clue to some deeper, meaningful reality while masquerading, like a reveler at the Save Venice ball the women attended every spring, as a simple preference.

And then there were the wife bonuses.

I was thunderstruck when I heard mention of a “bonus” over coffee. Later I overheard someone who didn’t work say she would buy a table at an event once her bonus was set. A woman with a business degree but no job mentioned waiting for her “year-end” to shop for clothing. Further probing revealed that the annual wife bonus was not an uncommon practice in this tribe.

A wife bonus, I was told, might be hammered out in a pre-nup or post-nup, and distributed on the basis of not only how well her husband’s fund had done but her own performance — how well she managed the home budget, whether the kids got into a “good” school — the same way their husbands were rewarded at investment banks. In turn these bonuses were a ticket to a modicum of financial independence and participation in a social sphere where you don’t just go to lunch, you buy a $10,000 table at the benefit luncheon a friend is hosting.

But what exactly did the wife bonus mean? It made sense only in the context of the rigidly gendered social lives of the women I studied. The worldwide ethnographic data is clear: The more stratified and hierarchical the society, and the more sex segregated, the lower the status of women.

Financially successful men in Manhattan sit on major boards — of hospitals, universities and high-profile diseases, boards whose members must raise or give $150,000 and more. The wives I observed are usually on lesser boards, women’s committees and museums in the outer boroughs with annual expectations of $5,000 or $10,000. Husbands are trustees of prestigious private schools, where they accrue the cultural capital that comes with being able to vouch for others in the admissions game; their wives are “class moms,” the unremunerated social and communications hub for all the other mothers.

WHILE their husbands make millions, the privileged women with kids who I met tend to give away the skills they honed in graduate school and their professions — organizing galas, editing newsletters, running the library and bake sales — free of charge. A woman’s participation in Mommynomics is a way to be helpful, even indispensable. It is also an act of extravagance, a brag: “I used to work, I can, but I don’t need to.”

Anthropology teaches us to take the long and comparative view of situations that may seem obvious. Among primates, Homo sapiens practice the most intensive food and resource sharing, and females may depend entirely on males for shelter and sustenance. Female birds and chimps never stop searching out food to provide for themselves and their young. Whether they are Hadza women who spend almost as much time as men foraging for food, Agta women of the Philippines participating in the hunt or !Kung women of southern Africa foraging for the tubers and roots that can tide a band over when there is no meat from a hunt, women who contribute to the group or family’s well-being are empowered relative to those in societies where women do not. As in the Kalahari Desert and rain forest, resources are the bottom line on the Upper East Side. If you don’t bring home tubers and roots, your power is diminished in your marriage. And in the world.

Rich, powerful men may speak the language of partnership in the absence of true economic parity in a marriage, and act like true partners, and many do. But under this arrangement women are still dependent on their men — a husband may simply ignore his commitment to an abstract idea at any time. He may give you a bonus, or not. Access to your husband’s money might feel good. But it can’t buy you the power you get by being the one who earns, hunts or gathers it.

The wives of the masters of the universe, I learned, are a lot like mistresses — dependent and comparatively disempowered. Just sensing the disequilibrium, the abyss that separates her version of power from her man’s, might keep a thinking woman up at night.

A writer and social researcher in New York and the author of the forthcoming memoir “Primates of Park Avenue.”

Derecho a ser olvidado

Corte Europea ordena a Google respetar el "derecho a ser olvidado"

Según el Alto Tribunal los derechos a la privacidad de los afectados tiene más valor que el interés general, por lo que el buscador debería ser capaz de eliminar las huellas digitales dejadas online.

por Reuters - 13/05/2014 - 17:27

El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE) respaldó a los protectores de datos al dictaminar el martes que se puede pedir a Google que elimine información sensible de los resultados de búsqueda en Internet.

El caso es de gran trascendencia dentro de la batalla entre los defensores de la libertad de expresión y los partidarios de los derechos de la privacidad, que dicen que la gente debería tener el "derecho al olvido en Internet", lo que significa que deberían ser capaces de eliminar las huellas digitales dejadas online.

El fallo del Tribunal con sede en Luxemburgo se produjo después de que un español se quejase ante la agencia de protección de datos del país europeo de que un anuncio de la subasta de su casa embargada en los resultados de búsqueda de Google infringía sus derechos a la privacidad.

El caso es uno de los muchos planteados contra Google en los que los denunciantes quieren que el buscador de Internet borre su información personal en la Web. La compañía dice que obligarle a retirar esos datos es similar a la censura.

El Alto Tribunal dijo que los derechos a la privacidad de los afectados tiene más valor que el interés general.

"Si, a raíz de una consulta efectuada, la lista de resultados muestra enlaces incompatibles en este momento con la directiva (europea), los enlaces y la información en la lista de resultados tienen que ser borrados", dictaminó el Alto Tribunal.

Los jueces dijeron que los afectados pueden pedir a Google que elimine datos sensibles o pueden dirigirse a una autoridad relevante en caso de que la compañía no cumpla con su requerimiento.

Adoptada en 1995, la directiva europea de la protección de datos está revisándose para unas reglas de protección más estrictas. No fue posible contactar de forma inmediata con Google.

La agencia española de protección de datos dijo el martes en una nota separada que la decisión del Tribunal afectará a más de 220 recursos interpuestos por Google contra resoluciones en España a favor del derecho al olvido.

En el caso tratado por el Alto Tribunal en Luxemburgo, el afectado había pedido sin éxito que Google eliminara los datos de una subasta forzosa de su casa una vez saldadas las deudas que tenía el afectado con la Administración Pública y que habían llevado a este embargo.

"Ha sido un caso muy importante, que hemos venido defendiendo durante más de dos años", dijo Joaquín Muñoz, socio del bufete Abanlex Abogados, que ha representado al ciudadano español en este caso.

"Es importante que ahora todos los usuarios de Internet conozcan las reglas de juego", agregó.

Right to Be Forgotten

"Right to Be Forgotten" Continues to Push EU Borders

Nicole Motta on Wednesday August 5, 2015 05:53:22 PM

Google rejected CNIL's request to expand the EU ruling globally, but critics fear what will happen if Google loses this battle.

Late last month, Google said that it "respectfully disagree[s] with the CNIL's assertion of global authority" on the EU ruling and asked the French watchdog to withdraw its order. Under CNIL's plan, all of Google's sites worldwide would be forced to follow the "right to be forgotten" ruling. In response, Google said that this plan is "a troubling development that risks serious chilling effects on the web" and emphasized that the right to be forgotten is not the law globally. If it were, Google said, "the Internet would only be as free as the world's least free place." By not complying with CNIL's order, Google could face fines up to €150,000.

While Google has already risked being fined for disobedience, free speech advocates are wary about the ruling's expansion. One such advocate, Emma Llansó - a free expression scholar at the Center for Democracy and Technology think tank - said, "When we're talking about a broadly scoped right to be forgotten that's about altering the historical record or making information that was lawfully public no longer accessible to people, I don't see a way to square that with a fundamental right to access to information." Harvard law professor Jonathan L. Zittrain echoed this response, saying, "France is asking for Google to do something here in the U.S. that if the U.S. government asked for, it would be against the First Amendment. That is extremely worrisome to me." CNIL is expected to respond to Google's request within the required two-month period.

In a landmark ruling in May 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) established a "right to be forgotten", or more accurately, a “right to delist”, allowing Europeans to ask search engines to delist certain links from results they show based on searches for that person’s name. We moved rapidly to comply with the ruling from the Court. Within weeks we made it possible for people to submit removal requests, and soon after that began delisting search results.

It's now just over a year later and we’ve evaluated and processed more than a quarter of a million requests to delist links to more than one million individual web pages. Whenever a request meets the criteria set by the Court for removal (which are that the information can be deemed inadequate, irrelevant, no longer relevant or excessive, and not in the public interest) we delist it from search results for that individual’s name from all European versions of Google Search.

However, earlier this summer, France’s data protection regulator, the CNIL, sent us a formal notice ordering us to delist links not just from all European versions of Search but also from all versions globally. That means a removal request by an individual in France, if approved, would not only be removed from google.fr and other European versions of Google Search, but from all versions of Google Search around the world.

This is a troubling development that risks serious chilling effects on the web.

While the right to be forgotten may now be the law in Europe, it is not the law globally. Moreover, there are innumerable examples around the world where content that is declared illegal under the laws of one country, would be deemed legal in others: Thailand criminalizes some speech that is critical of its King, Turkey criminalizes some speech that is critical of Ataturk, and Russia outlaws some speech that is deemed to be “gay propaganda."

If the CNIL’s proposed approach were to be embraced as the standard for Internet regulation, we would find ourselves in a race to the bottom. In the end, the Internet would only be as free as the world’s least free place.

We believe that no one country should have the authority to control what content someone in a second country can access. We also believe this order is disproportionate and unnecessary, given that the overwhelming majority of French internet users—currently around 97%—access a European version of Google’s search engine like google.fr, rather than Google.com or any other version of Google.

As a matter of principle, therefore, we respectfully disagree with the CNIL’s assertion of global authority on this issue and we have asked the CNIL to withdraw its Formal Notice.

We have worked hard to strike the right balance in our implementation of the European Court’s ruling and have maintained a collaborative dialogue with the CNIL and other data protection authorities, who agree with our decisions in the majority of cases referred to them. We are committed to continuing to work with regulators in this open and transparent way.

Posted by Peter Fleischer, Global Privacy Counsel

The most expensive hotel in London

Inside London's flamboyant Lanesborough hotel

The most expensive hotel in London, The Lanesborough is remarkably extravagant but does it provide bang for your buck?

BY FIONA DUNCAN AUGUST 07, 2015 12:25

After a 19-month closure and a top-to-toe refurbishment costing a reputed £80 million, the Lanesborough Hotel, overlooking Hyde Park Corner, has reopened.

Forget the shock of the new. The just-completed interiors deliver the shock of the old: an interior that displays astonishing craftsmanship but feels remarkably formal and fussy, just when the trend for hotels is to kick back, pare down, chill.

The designer was Alberto Pinto, well known for his work on private houses and yachts, though this was his first hotel (he died in 2012 and his company carried out his designs for The Lanesborough). His brief from the hotel’s long-standing general manager Geoffrey Gelardi and its owners, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, was to retain the Regency theme of the hotel, but to lighten. This he certainly achieved (the old Lanesborough was notably dark) but at the same time has added lashings of superbly crafted but fussy ornamentation and old-fashioned furniture that are easy to admire but make it hard to relax. The formerly plain ceilings, in particular, are now gilded, stuccoed and painted as if this were a royal palace.

But it’s not a palace: it’s the former St George’s Hospital, purpose-built in 1827 by William Wilkins (architect of the National Gallery) in Greek Regency style. It replaced a mansion built in 1719, and in those days surrounded by open countryside, by 2nd Viscount Lanesborough. After his death, the house became, from 1733 until it was rebuilt in 1827, St George’s.

The hospital closed in 1980, relocating to Tooting. In 1991 the empty building was transformed into the Lanesborough Hotel, at a then staggering cost of £1 million per room (there are 93). For the current refurbishment there have been only minor changes in layout. Instead, the money has been spent on decoration (whose intricacy will surely prove a housekeeping nightmare) and the latest technology (including remote door keys and Sony tablets in every room for lighting, curtain controls, room service and information).

Two spaces in the hotel remain genuinely relaxing: the mellow, intimate and ever popular Library Bar for superb cocktails, and the outdoor Garden Room for cigars. But while you can marvel at the lavish new ceiling, Wilkinson chandeliers, trompe-l’oeil marbling, 19th-century paintings, gold leaf, gilding and authentic paintwork in the Withdrawing Room (what’s with the ‘With’?) it’s hard to relax there. The same goes for the restaurant, Celèste: though a stunning room, with its powder-blue walls and glass roof, it’s too formal and full of Regency overkill for the all-day dining it offers. Nothing wrong with the food though, courtesy of talented Florian Favario, protégée of Eric Frechon, whose Epicure restaurant in Le Bristol hotel is one of the hot spots of Paris.

And nothing wrong with the service. Geoffrey Gelardi has always ensured the highest standards at The Lanesborough (he was the first to introduce butlers and they are available for all rooms here, not just suites) and so does the Oetker Collection, the German family-owned company that now manages the hotel. They share the same philosophy: guests come first. The Lanesborough is the latest in a small but impressive group of hotels owned or managed by Oetker, including Le Bristol and the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc at Antibes.

The Lanesborough remains a haven of luxury, but with its fussy, old-fashioned bedrooms and surprisingly small (but exquisitely marbled) bathrooms, even in the lavish £26,000 per night Royal Suite, many people may feel that although it’s the most expensive hotel in London, it doesn’t offer the right bang for their modern-day buck.

Doubles from £720 per night; breakfast from £28 per person.

THE LANESBOROUGH
Hyde Park Corner
London
SW1X 7TA
020 7259 5599
lanesborough.com

THE TATLER GUIDE TO CHELSEA

THE TATLER GUIDE TO CHELSEA

Heading to the Chelsea Flower Show? Then you'll want to know the hottest spots to check out while you're in the Royal Borough. By Luciana Bellini...

1) Where to sleep
The Matthew Williamson


THE MATTHEW WILLIAMSON GARDEN AT BLAKES HOTEL
Looking to stay right in the middle of Sloane heartland but don't want even the tiniest hint of chintz or taffeta? Then Blakes is the place for you. This Anouska Hempel-designed hotel has jewel-box-pretty rooms with dramatic decor (there's a LOT of black and gold) - each room is inspired by a different country, from India to China to Russia. They've even got their own Horticultural Oasis, opening in their courtyard today and running until mid-July. Designed by Matthew Williamson and installation artist Rebecca Louise Law, it's full of tropical prints, hot pink feathers and Hendrick's gin cocktails. Race you there!

2) Where to eat
Cheyne Walk

CHEYNE WALK BRASSERIE
Traipsing through novelty gardens can be hungry work, but under NO circumstances should you eat the flowers - well, unless they're the edible ones on the Cross Keys' floral-infusion menu. There you can stuff yourself silly with jasmine and mango macarons, and chocolate and beetroot cake with hibiscus, then wash it all down with rose-water bellinis. If you're after something less plant-based, then head to the Cheyne Walk Brasserie and order oysters, followed by anything cooked on their open grill - the chateaubriand for two is a firm favourite with locals out on a hot date. Sort of like an upmarket version of that spaghetti scene in Lady and the Tramp.

3) Where to drink
The Ivy

THE IVY CHELSEA GARDEN
How CLEVER of those people at the Ivy Chelsea Garden to open up just in time to cater for the horticulturally obsessed Flower Show crowd. Book a table in their delightful ivy-trellised garden and drink glass after glass of the palest rosé, served from a jeroboam almost as big as the waitress (well, this is SW3). Or head to the sun-dappled terrace at Manicomio for some Flower Show-inspired cocktails - our favourite is the Amelia's Aviator with gin, Cointreau, lavender and lychee.

4) Where to party
MAGGIE'S CLUB

As you know, Sloanes love a bit of fancy dress, which means every single nightclub in Chelsea is themed. Don some leg warmers and head to Eighties throwback Maggie's to celebrate the recent election results with fellow Tories, drink piña coladas out of fishbowls and be serenaded by Margaret Thatcher herself as you sit on the loo. Or throw on some leather chaps and pay a visit to Beaver Lodge, where you can challenge James Middleton to a beer-pong battle and down shots of bourbon with cowboys and lumberjacks. Yee-ha!

5) What to watch
The Royal Court

THE ROYAL COURT THEATRE
So you're drunk, stuffed and wearing a ridiculous outfit, but have you actually learned anything? Thought not. Time to get a culture fix then by heading to the Royal Court Theatre in Sloane Square. Go now to catch their totally bonkers version of Roald Dahl's The Twits, complete with a revolving set and a family of monkeys. Or book in for one of their backstage tours to learn all about the history of the building and check out where the scripts are read and rehearsals take place. There's also a rather nice bar downstairs. You know, just in case…

Berlín previo y posterior a la guerra

Un canal de Youtube rescata el Berlín previo y posterior a la guerra
EL HUFFINGTON POST
Publicado: 26/07/2015 18:41 CEST Actualizado: 26/07/2015 18:42 CEST

Berlin Channel es una de las sensaciones del momento el Youtube. Se trata de un canal que ha logrado rescatar material audiovisual de la capital alemana de un periodo que, más allá de ser importante en la historia local, es clave en el destino de todo occidente: los años previos y posteriores a la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

En los clips puede verse -incluso en color- cómo era Berlín en 1936, ya con Adolf Hitler en el poder pero antes de las bombas aliadas. Y también se puede descubrir -con una calidad importante y de forma vívida, gracias a ese color- cómo eran sus calles vivas, en movimiento, cuando en vez de calles lo que había eran escombros por todos lados.

La iniciativa está siendo usada incluso en centros educativos, para que también los nuevos alemanes tengan memoria.

Videos AQUI

AQUI

AQUI

AQUI

¿Darías limosna a quien pide para alcohol?

Sorprendente experimento social: ¿Darías limosna a quien pide para alcohol?
EL HUFFINGTON POST
Publicado: 30/07/2015 21:45 CEST Actualizado: 30/07/2015 21:45 CEST

El popular youtuber Coby Persin ha hecho un experimento en las calles de Nueva York cuyo sorprendente resultado ha conseguido que el vídeo se haga totalmente viral.

Persin quiso comprobar a quién ayudaría más la gente: ¿a un vagabundo que pide para comprar drogas y alcohol o a un padre soltero que pide para ayudar a su familia?

El joven se hizo pasar primero por un vagabundo con un cartel en el que decía: "No tengo hogar. Necesito dinero para marihuana, drogas y alcohol". Tal como se ve en el video, decenas de personas decidieron darle dinero al leer el cartón.

Poco después, Persin se puso a pedir con una niña y cambió el cartón por otro que decía: "No tengo casa, soy un padre soltero que necesita dinero para la familia". En esta ocasión, el youtuber asegura que nadie le dio dinero. Muchos le miraron, pero nadie se acercó.

La excepción fue una mujer, que le quiso dar algo de dinero mientras le decía: "Es todo lo que gané durante el día, pero tú lo necesitas más". Persin acabó entonces con el experimento. "Lo que usted acaba de hacer es la cosa más grandiosa del mundo. Usted no tiene hogar y aun así me dio el dinero que traía", le dijo el joven, que dio a la mujer 100 dólares como agradecimiento.