Thursday, November 29, 2018

Michelle Obama 25 things we learned from " Becoming"

Michelle Obama's new memoir was one of Amazon's best-selling items on Cyber Monday. Here are 25 things we learned from 'Becoming.'

Nov. 27, 2018, 2:15 PM

michelle obama 1 — The cover photo of Michelle Obama's new memoir, "Becoming."

Michelle Obama's new memoir, "Becoming," is chock-full of never-before-heard stories from the former first lady's childhood and eight years in the White House.

Obama is startlingly candid about a wide variety of topics, from her shock after learning that Donald Trump had won the 2016 presidential election to her being labeled an "angry black woman" by racists.

There are plenty of heartfelt moments too, such as the kindness that President George W. Bush and first lady Laura Bush showed her after her husband, President Barack Obama, was elected, and the time she and her daughter Malia snuck out of the White House.

It's these anecdotes that made the book a top-seller on Amazon for Cyber Monday.

"Becoming," which Oprah Winfrey has already selected for her book club, is on sale wherever books are sold.

Here are some of the most interesting anecdotes Obama shares in the book:

Her family's focus on education alienated Obama from her friends on the South Side of Chicago growing up. She recalls that one day, when she was about 10, a cousin asked her, "How come you talk like a white girl?" While she denied it at the time, Obama wrote that the accusation "held a kernel of something that was confusing for both of us," adding, "We seemed to be related but of two different worlds."
A pivotal moment of Obama's life was when a college counselor told her she wasn't "Princeton material" despite being in the top of her class at a magnet school, in student government, a member of the National Honor Society, and the sister of a current Princeton student. She decided to apply anyway and got in. "I wasn't going to let one person's opinion dislodge everything I thought I knew about myself," she said.
When she got to Princeton, she realized that the other students weren't smarter than her, as she had been led to believe. "I tried not to feel intimidated when classroom conversation was dominated by male students, which it often was. Hearing them, I realized that they weren't smarter than the rest of us. They were simply emboldened, floating on an ancient tide of superiority, buoyed by the fact that history had never told them anything different."

Michelle Obama — Obama received an honorary doctorate from City College of New York on June 3, 2016.

She was not impressed with Barack before she met him in 1989, when he was assigned as her mentee while he completed a summer associateship at her law firm. The office assistants, who had seen him come in to interview, said he was cute, but Michelle said she was "unmoved" by the picture she saw of him in the staff directory: "a less than flattering, poorly lit headshot of a guy with a big smile and a whiff of geekiness."
She described Barack's style as "challenged." She recalled one night, before they started dating, when she invited him to a happy hour with her friends. "He changed out of his work clothes, I noticed, and was wearing a white linen blazer that looked as if it'd come straight out of the Miami Vice costume closet. Ah well."
Five-year-old Sasha was less than impressed with the White House when Michelle took her daughters on a tour in 2006, when Barack was a senator. When the tour guide said they were moving on to the Red Room, Sasha looked up "and blurted, in the unquiet voice of an aggrieved kindergartner, 'Oh nooo, not another ROOM!'"
After the 2008 presidential election, the Bush family invited the Obamas to the White House, as is tradition. Barack's favorite part of the tour was the gym— something he shared with President George W. Bush. Michelle's was seeing her future dressing room, which offered a view of the Rose Garden and the Oval Office. Laura Bush said that Hillary Clinton "had shown her this same view when she'd first come to visit the White House eight years earlier," and that "eight years before that, her mother-in-law, Barbara Bush, had pointed out the view to Hillary." Michelle said that looking out that window reminded her "that I was part of a humble continuum."

Barack and Michelle Obama 8 — The Obama family on election night 2008.

On her husband refusing the $100,000 in federal funds to move to and redecorate the White House: "As long as I've known him, he's been this way: extra vigilant when it comes to matters of money and ethics, holding himself to a higher standard than even what's dictated by law. There's an age-old maxim in the black community: You've got to be twice as good to get half as far."
They blasted Beyoncé in the presidential limo after walking the parade route during Barack's first inauguration.
On what it felt like to become the first black first lady: "As the only African American First Lady to set foot in the White House, I was 'other' almost by default. If there was a presumed grace assigned to my white predecessors, I knew it wasn't likely to be the same for me. I'd learned through the campaign stumbles that I had to be better, faster, smarter and stronger than ever. My grace would have to be earned."
On how the custom Jason Wu gown she wore to her first inaugural ball made her feel ready to take on the role of first lady: "The dress resurrected the dreaminess of my family's metamorphosis, the promise of this entire experience, transforming me if not into a full-blown ballroom princess, then at least into a woman capable of climbing onto another stage. I was now FLOTUS — First Lady of the United States — to Barack's POTUS. It was time to celebrate."

barack and michelle obama — Barack and Michelle Obama dance at the Western Inaugural Ball in 2009.

Obama said she had to walk a "thin line" when it came to dressing. "I was supposed to stand out without overshadowing others, to blend in but not fade away. As a black woman, too, I knew I'd be criticized if I was perceived as being showy and high-end, and I'd be criticized also if I was too casual. So I mixed it up. I'd match a high-end Michael Kors skirt with a T-shirt from Gap. I wore something from Target one day and Diane von Furstenberg the next."
She noticed two things at her husband's first speech before a joint session of Congress. The first was the lack of diversity, which she called "glaring" and "embarrassing" for "a modern multicultural country." She was also disappointed in the behavior of the Republicans, who "stayed seated through most of" his speech, "appearing obstinate and angry, their arms folded and their frowns deliberate, looking like children who hadn't gotten their way." She said that after the event, she wondered whether "there was any path forward."
She found life in the White House patriarchal. "Barack was now surrounded by people whose job was to treat him like a precious gem. It sometimes felt like a throwback to some lost era, when a household revolved solely around the man's needs, and it was the opposite of what I wanted our daughters to think was normal."
On why she decided to start the White House garden: "I knew what mattered to me. I didn't want to be some sort of well-dressed ornament who showed up at parties and ribbon cuttings. I wanted to do things that were purposeful and lasting."

She was giving a speech when news of the Sandy Hook shooting broke. As soon as she wrapped up, her aides informed her of what had happened and said her husband wanted her to return to the White House right away. "This would be the only time in eight years that he'd request my presence in the middle of the work day," she said, adding: "When I walked into the Oval Office, Barack and I embraced silently. There was nothing to say. No words."
Bo and Sunny, the family's two dogs, acted as surrogates of sorts for Malia and Sasha. "Knowing that Malia and Sasha were basically off-limits, the White House communications teams began requesting the dogs for official appearances ... They made excellent ambassadors, impervious to criticism and unaware of their own fame."
Michelle was extremely anxious on election night 2012. The first lady sent a text to aides early in the night to ask how things were going, but she didn't get a response and feared that Mitt Romney had pulled ahead. She said she was "just about ready to pass out from the anxiety" when Barack entered their bedroom, completely relaxed. "We're kicking butt," he said. "It's basically done." She later learned that the service on her phone had disconnected and that her texts never sent.

obama inauguration — Barack taking the oath of office with Michelle by his side in 2013.

Michelle and Malia sneaked out of the White House to see the presidential residence bathed in rainbow lights after the monumental Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015. They strode past guards but ran into issues when the door they were trying to use was locked. Staff members led them to loading doors where they were able to get out to view the lights together. "Malia and I leaned into each other, happy to have found our way here," she said.
Queen Elizabeth II had a sassy remark when she urged Michelle to sit next to her on the drive back to Windsor Castle during their last meeting, even though Michelle and Barack were told that Barack would get that seat. "'Did they give you some rule about this?' [the queen] said, dismissing all the fuss with the wave of her hand. 'That's rubbish. Sit wherever you like.'"
On why she decided to give a speech supporting Hillary Clinton at the 2016 Democratic National Convention: "Since childhood, I'd believed it was important to speak out against bullies while also not stooping to their level. And to be clear, we were now up against a bully, a man who among other things demeaned minorities and expressed contempt for prisoners of war, challenging the dignity of our country with practically every utterance."

Hillary Clinton Bill Clinton Chelsea Clinton Barack Obama Michelle Obama — Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, with the Obamas; her husband, President Bill Clinton; and her daughter, Chelsea Clinton.

Her reaction when Donald Trump announced his candidacy, in a press conference during which he called Mexican immigrants "rapists": "I figured he was just grandstanding, sucking up the media's attention because he could. Nothing in how he conducted himself suggested that he was serious about wanting to govern."
She said she'd "never forgive" Trump for calling into question her husband's citizenship. Michelle said that when Trump started questioning Barack's citizenship, "it seemed he was just making noise in general, surfacing on cable shows to offer yammering, inexpert critiques of Barack's foreign policy decisions and openly questioning whether he was an American citizen." She said she found the birther controversy "crazy and mean spirited ... its underlying bigotry and xenophobia hardly concealed." With all the hatred directed at her husband and family, she grew concerned about their safety. "Donald Trump, with his loud and reckless innuendos, was putting my family's safety at risk. And for this, I'd never forgive him."
On Trump's "grab them by the p---y" tape: "My body buzzed with fury after hearing that tape," she said, adding that she decided to address it directly at a speech for Clinton the following week. "I felt compelled to try to address Trump's words directly — to counter his voice with my own."
Obama said she was baffled at how women supported Trump in the 2016 election. "I will always wonder about what led so many women, in particular, to reject an exceptionally qualified female candidate and instead choose a misogynist as their president."

DON'T MISS: Michelle Obama opens up about the first time she saw Barack and what their first kiss was like

NOW WATCH: The Obamas are worth $40 million — here's how they make and spend their money

Climate Shocks

Thursday, November 29, 2018 - 12:00am

Climate Shocks and Humanitarian Crises

Which Countries Are Most at Risk?

Joshua Busby and Nina von Uexkull

JOSHUA BUSBY is Associate Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. NINA VON UEXKULL is Assistant Professor at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University and Associate Senior Researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo.

Wildfires in the western United States and hurricanes on the East Coast captured media attention this summer and fall. But throughout 2018, weather events also had devastating humanitarian consequences in developing countries, from immense floods in the Indian state of Kerala to an intense drought in Afghanistan that affected millions.

Over the past decade, academics and policymakers have vigorously debated the question of whether climate change [1] poses a security threat, with particular emphasis on whether it causes internal conflict. Connections are complex, leaving policymakers to talk about climate change vaguely as a “threat multiplier” when combined with other forces. But saying that climate change is a threat multiplier isn’t all that helpful unless we know something about the characteristics that make countries more likely to experience instability.

In fact, several risk factors make some countries more vulnerable than others to the consequences of climate change. Three stand out in particular: a high level of dependence on agriculture, a recent history of conflict, and discriminatory political institutions. Research suggests that in countries that display some or all of these risk factors, climate extremes are especially likely to lead to disastrous outcomes, including violence [2], food crises [3], and the large-scale displacement of populations.

We have used these factors to identify the countries that are most at risk from climate-related instability and humanitarian crises in the coming years. In doing so, we hope to provide an early warning to policymakers about where climate impacts are likely to prove most destabilizing in the short term, and where efforts to minimize their effects are most needed.

WHICH COUNTRIES ARE AT RISK?

The map below displays the countries we consider to be at major risk of climate-driven instability. A sizeable number of countries—20, in total—combine the first two risk factors, agricultural dependence and a recent history of conflict. Countries facing these two risk factors are shown in orange. A further nine countries (Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Pakistan, Rwanda, South Sudan, Sudan, Uganda, and Yemen) have the first two factors, as well as high levels of ethnic political exclusion. These countries are displayed in red.

Why are these specific risk factors so important? High agricultural dependence means that a particularly large proportion of citizens’ livelihoods are bound up in farming. Since climate shocks such as droughts or floods tend to disrupt farming, they often translate, in countries that depend on agriculture, into widespread reductions in income and high levels of food insecurity [3]. Reduced farming income makes alternative sources of income such as rebel activity more attractive. And governments in these countries tend to extract a considerable portion of their revenue from agriculture, mostly from taxes on exports. Using data from the International Labor Organization [4], we defined a country as having a “high” level of agricultural dependence if at least 40 percent of its population worked in agriculture—a threshold that 66 countries met. In some countries, such as Malawi and Somalia, over 80 percent of the workforce is employed in agriculture.

The second risk factor, recent violence, can also combine with climate shocks to produce crises: more than 40 percent [3] of countries experiencing a food crisis in 2017 carried this double burden. More important, recent conflict is probably the best predictor that a country will have more conflict in the future [5], since these countries are likely to still have leaders and groups that can access weapons and mobilize people to fight. We used data from Uppsala Conflict Data Program [6] to identify the more than 40 countries that had recorded conflicts (defined as a conflict to which the state was a party) in the five years prior to 2018.

The third factor, discriminatory political institutions—those that marginalize certain social groups or exclude them from power—increases the risk of instability and humanitarian emergencies by making governments less responsive to segments of their population. For instance, in the event of a food shortage, marginalized groups in these countries are less likely than others to receive government aid, increasing the likelihood of a humanitarian crisis and creating grievances against the state.

The political scientist Judith M. Bretthauer defines [7] “high” political exclusion as occurring in countries where at least 20 percent of the population is formally excluded from political power. Using her criteria and information from the Ethnic Power Relations [8] (EPR) dataset, we calculated that 35 countries currently have highly discriminatory institutions. Nine of those countries, indicated on the map, also had high agricultural dependence and a recent history of conflict. (At least two more countries, Cameroon and Ethiopia, had high levels of discrimination not captured by the EPR dataset.)

MAPPING DROUGHTS

Countries facing the three aforementioned risk factors will struggle to deal with climate shocks. And one of the most serious of these shocks—especially in countries that depend on agriculture—is likely to be drought and water shortage. By looking at which of our at-risk countries are either currently facing water deficits or are projected to face them in the near future, we can identify not only the countries that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change in the future but those that are already threatened by serious climate shocks.

Although water deficits are hard to measure globally, one approach is to model water balances by combining rainfall, temperature, geography, evaporation rates, and other factors to estimate water anomalies, where amounts of surface water will be higher and lower than normal. The consulting firm ISciences [9] has developed a Water Security Indicator Model[10] (WSIM), which uses both historical data and forecasts to produce a composite index of water surpluses and deficits. At our request, ISciences aggregated its subnational data and ranked all the countries in the world in terms of both the share of their population and the proportion of their territory that experienced water deficits between October 2017 and September 2018, as well as a similar list including projected water deficits until June 2019. The firm identified countries suffering a ten-year deficit, or a drought rare enough to occur on average once every ten years, and those with a more extreme 30-year deficit, which occurs on average once every 30 years.

We examined the 25 percent of countries with the worst water deficits according to ISciences’ data and cross-referenced them with our list of 20 at-risk countries. On the map below, at-risk countries without water deficits are displayed in light blue. Those that appeared in the top 25 percent of ISciences’ historical or projected lists for ten-year droughts are shown in medium blue, while those that appeared in the top 25 percent for 30-year droughts appear in dark blue.

Among the countries with both high agricultural dependence and a recent history of conflict, a few stood out in ISciences’ historical data for the twelve-month period from October 2017 to September 2018. In Afghanistan, 64 percent of the population had been exposed to a thirty-year drought; in Yemen, the figure was 43 percent, and in Somalia, 34 percent. Looking only at a share of the population, however, could mask the problems in less densely populated rural areas. Eighty percent of Afghanistan’s territory and 38 percent of the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s territory had undergone a ten-year drought, while 36 percent of Sudan’s territory suffered a 30-year drought. India was not among the top 25 percent of states in terms of exposed share of population or territory, but about 95 million Indians, or 7.2 percent of the population, had weathered a 30-year drought over the past year.

ISciences projects that Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen will continue to face water deficits through June 2019. But an additional six countries not included in the top 25 percent for ten-year or 30-year deficits in the 2017–2018 list—Chad, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Mali, and Niger—are projected to rise into the top quartile by June 2019.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Promising efforts are under way to further increase our ability to forecast political violence and food crises. The World Bank recently rolled out a pilot [11] of its Famine Action Mechanism, which tries to anticipate famine locations using machine learning. And the Uppsala University’s Violence Early-Warning System (ViEWS [12]) Project has been developing subnational conflict forecasts for Africa. Before such systems reach their full potential, however, our list can help detect which countries are likely to become hot spots of climate instability and humanitarian crises.

What should policymakers do with this information? In countries enduring large-scale violence, such as Yemen or South Sudan, the key priority clearly must be dampening armed conflict. Countries where violence has ceased, however, can benefit from building their capacities to detect and respond to crises, and from improving job opportunities [13]. Here the kinds of interventions that food policy experts have developed to prevent famines—including food and income support and crop insurance—can be of help. When a major drought hit Ethiopia in 2015, its government was able to use similar policies [14] to ward off famine, although even this success did not fully insulate [15] it from protests. And given the particular susceptibility of agriculture to changes in the climate, governments and international institutions need to urgently consider how agricultural practices can be adapted to meet these changes and prevent large declines in crop yields.

The risk factors we identify are, naturally, not the only conditions that can contribute to instability and humanitarian crises. But unabated climate change [1]is likely to amplify the challenges of these high-risk countries in decades to come. They will see more extreme consequences, and their already fragile governments will become even more hard pressed to manage violence and feed their populations. Understanding where instability is most likely to occur is an important first step to reducing risk.

Önder Özar Diplomasi Sevgisi