American climate refugees: Tragedy of a village built on ice

Their bodies are buried in the cemetery, I’m sure of it. I’ve seen the obituaries.

But neither man is dead.

No one in Shishmaref dies, I’m told — not really.

It’s about 9 a.m. as I trudge through the snow, past the cemetery and to a neighboring house. The sky is frozen in pre-dawn twilight. The sun won’t rise for hours.

An elder answers the door and welcomes me into a living room that smells of sourdough and coffee. On the shelves, above a big-screen TV: dozens of figurines carved from walrus ivory, a tradition in this 560-person Inupiat village. How meta, I think. Walrus ivory carved back into the shape of a walrus, as if the animal were reincarnated from its own tusks.

Even walruses have a second life here, apparently.

The man offers me a seat and a coffee mug.

I’m here to ask him about Esau.

Yes, one of the men in the cemetery.

But also the 19-year-old born with the same name — the hoodie-wearing kid with the faint mustache. The one, among many, who’s trying to imagine another future for this village.

A future away from this island.

The blue house

Shelton and Clara Kokeok live in a blue house at the edge of the village.

Shelton and Clara Kokeok live in a blue house at the edge of the village.

Shelton and Clara Kokeok live in a blue house at the edge of the village.

Everyone knows Shishmaref isn’t expected to last long.

Residents of this barrier island, located just south of the Arctic Circle, some 600 miles from Anchorage and only 100 miles from Russia, have been saying so for years.

To understand it, visit the tiny blue house at the edge of the land.

It’s the edge of the Earth, really. And it’s also the house where Norman grew up.

Norman, the second man in the cemetery.

Inside, an old woman sits in a wheelchair and an old man peers through the kitchen window at the Chukchi Sea. A cassette-radio buzzes with headlines from God-knows-where, but the man, Norman’s father, isn’t listening. Shelton Kokeok, a 72-year-old with palm-sized ears and a face that tragedy has worn into a grouper’s frown, is focused on the ocean. He scans it in a state of unease; creases etch his forehead. Shelton, who once was a light-hearted man, and whose kind eyes and infectious smile still hint at happier times, will be nervous until the water is frozen cement-hard. Today, in mid-December, it is the texture of a snow cone.

“It’s not really solid yet,” he tells me, forlorn. “Young ice, fresh ice, you know?”

These aren’t bored-old-man concerns.

The ice is disappearing.

And then there’s what happened to his son, Norman.

First, the ice.

Here, and across the Arctic, sea ice is forming later and thawing earlier.

That ice protects Shishmaref’s coast from erosion. Without it, punishing storms grab hunks of the land and pull it out to sea, shrinking and destabilizing the island.

Look at where the coast was in 2004 — and where it’s expected to be in 2053.

Shelton’s blue house is right on the edge of the receding coastline.

He worries it could fall in.

That happened to one of his neighbors.

A house fell off the edge of the land in 2006. The Kokeok home is shown in the background.

A house fell off the edge of the land in 2006. The Kokeok home is shown in the background.

A house fell off the edge of the land in 2006. The Kokeok home is shown in the background.

As the world warms — thanks largely to the 1,200 metric tons of carbon dioxide we humans are pumping into the atmosphere each second — the ice is disappearing. The planet has warmed about 1 degree Celsius since the Industrial Revolution, when people started burning fossil fuels for heat and electricity, creating a blanket of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. But scientists say the Arctic, the far-north, is warming twice as fast as the rest of Earth.

“I miss that cold, cold weather,” says Hazel Fernandez. I meet her in a community hall; she’d rather be fishing on the ice but says it’s still too thin. “It’s too weird. It’s too warm.”

Outside, thermometers show temperatures in the mid-20s Fahrenheit, or about minus 4 Celsius. That’s freakishly warm for December, everyone tells me. I’m wearing two coats and ski pants, and residents of Shishmaref seem to find that hilarious. This isn’t cold, they say. Their sealskin hats and mittens, the fur-lined hooded parkas — those mostly stay at home.

Fernandez, in her early 60s, fondly remembers temperatures of 30- and 40-below Fahrenheit.

But mean air surface temperatures increased more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in the Arctic region between 1960 and 2011, according to the US National Snow & Ice Data Center. Arctic sea ice, measured since 1979, was at a monthly record low in January. And the September sea ice minimum is decreasing at a rate of 13.3% per decade.

The scientific consensus is that human pollution is driving these changes.

But it’s not the science or the charts that matter most to Shelton.

It’s not his blue house, either, perched precariously on the edge.

It’s his son, Norman.

It’s that day: June 2, 2007.

The day Norman fell through the ice and died.

Esau

The stories about Esau are easy to unearth.

Like people here, they never truly die.

“What was Esau like?” I ask the elder whose home is next to the white crosses and the cemetery, in the heart of this village of wooden homes and metal-sided buildings, a place where the winter landscape is an infinity of white, where there’s no running water or sewage service, where a shower costs $3.50 at the holiday rate, a 12-pack of Sprite $12.75. Most people prefer to live off the land, hunting seal, walrus and ptarmigan and fishing tomcod as their ancestors did.

The elder replies in a tone that is airy and patient, a voice measured through time.

Esau Weyiouanna was something of a renegade in Shishmaref, he tells me. He was an individual in a place that prides itself on community — an opinionated, outspoken man in a village where many would prefer to blend with the environment. In a photo that hangs on a friend’s wall today, Esau wears purple-and-green plaid and Napoleon-Dynamite bifocals, a knowing, understanding smile on his lips. His eyebrows are angled and inquisitive, like an owl’s.

The local church in Shishmaref, Alaska.

The local church in Shishmaref, Alaska.

The local church in Shishmaref, Alaska.

Allow the elder to share one story.

Decades ago, the Christian church decided to ban some of the village’s Inupiat traditions, which had been passed from one generation to the next for centuries, if not longer. The church believed some of these traditions defied the will of God and were incompatible with its teachings. Dancing, in particular, was banned. Children of Shishmaref no longer could gather with drums made of stretched walrus stomach to move their bodies in the same artful patterns their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents always had, the elder tells me.

Esau was the rare man who could see both sides of this dispute, the kind of man who straddled worlds both modern and ancient. He served on the church board, the elder says. But he also loved the Inupiat cultural traditions — particularly the dance. So he took a stand. Esau danced boldly and in public, the elder tells me, to remind the community of the value of culture.

Today, the elder says, children are taught this dance in the local school.

This portal to the past remains open because of Esau.

Renegade, reborn

Decades later, and nearing death, Esau tried to ensure his story would continue.

He walked up to a pregnant woman and touched her stomach.

How am I doing in there? he asked.

It was a startling question, but up here in a world of ice, where no one really dies, or not for long, the meaning was clear to the mother. She knew Esau’s body soon would be laid to rest in the cemetery, and that he would be reincarnated as the child still growing inside her.

Esau Weyiouanna was declared dead on October 29, 1997.

On November 16, the woman’s child was born.

The family, following tradition, named him Esau.

Esau Sinnok.

A village renegade, reborn.

Norman

Shelton and Clara Kokeok, with a photo of their deceased son, Norman, who fell through the ice in 2007.

Shelton and Clara Kokeok, with a photo of their deceased son, Norman, who fell through the ice in 2007.

Shelton and Clara Kokeok, with a photo of their deceased son, Norman, who fell through the ice in 2007.

Elders say the ice should have been safe that day in 2007.

Norman had been on a hunting trip and was heading back into town in the early morning of late spring, when lower latitudes would still be shrouded in darkness but when this village sees nearly eternal sunshine, the tilt of the Earth making it possible to hunt through the night.

Village elders and family members tell me he was crossing a narrow part of the lagoon that separates Shishmaref and its barrier island from mainland Alaska. It may sound strange to drive a snowmobile across ice-covered water in June. But elders tell me the ice should have been frozen solid that time of year — that there was no indication Norman would be in danger.

Now, everyone is less trusting.

Some haven’t gone hunting on the ice since.

Norman’s death was particularly hard on his father, Shelton, who keeps a photo of the young man, wearing a buzz cut and Reno-911 mustache, on his coffee table, facing the door for all to see. Norman was a second-chance child, one he taught to hunt seal and follow traditions Inupiat people had followed here for at least four centuries, if not many more. Yet, from birth, the boy had an air of tragedy about him, even if no one in the family dared say so aloud.

It was in the name: Norman.

Norman was named after Shelton’s brother, who died in a plane crash.

The tragedy brought Shelton together with Clara, who was married to his brother.

In the wake of the accident, the two mourners decided to marry. Love was at the heart of it, to be sure, but Shelton also felt a sense of duty — duty to occupy the loving, supportive station his brother had left vacant in Clara’s life.

When one man leaves, another stands in his place.

‘Like an old soul’

Esau Sinnok, 19, was adopted by his aunt, Bessi Sinnok.

Esau Sinnok, 19, was adopted by his aunt, Bessi Sinnok.

Esau Sinnok, 19, was adopted by his aunt, Bessi Sinnok.

The boy always seemed to possess knowledge from another life.

As a toddler, Esau Sinnok spouted off phrases in Inupiaq, the local language, even though no one had taught him to do so. Then, as a young boy, Esau was traveling with his birth mother across the empty landscape that surrounds Shishmaref. “That’s where I used to camp,” he told her. It was the very spot where his namesake, Esau Weyiouanna, used to stay.

It was as if the renegade elder were speaking through the boy.

A voice carried on the wind from one generation to the next.

People in the village treat it this way.

For many, it’s not just that young Esau reminds them of his namesake. It’s that Esau is the namesake elder, returned from the grave and walking among them. They sometimes call him “father” or “brother” or “cousin,” referencing their relationships with the elder who passed away.

Esau inherited the elder’s respected status, too. “He’s like an old soul,” says his adoptive mother, Bessi Sinnok. “He’s very outspoken, like his namesake. His namesake was very respected by lots of people and because of that he had already earned respect as he was growing up.”

Teenage Esau never knew this when he was young. Bessi Sinnok told me the village hid the history from him. She wanted her son to form his own identity.

Yet she watched as the elder’s personality seemed to emerge from the boy. Esau, who was nearly mute as a child, they say, bookish and reserved, grew to be an outspoken and free-thinking young man, much like the elder Esau — and much to the surprise of his family.

Two events helped encourage the shift.

One was a storm in 2006.

Esau remembers the waves crashing over his grandparent’s roof.

The small blue house at the edge of the land once seemed like it might stand forever.

After the storm, he tells me, “We thought the house would collapse.”

The other was the death of his uncle, Norman, the man who feel through the ice.

Esau was only 9.

“It really hurts,” Esau tells me. He’s now a 19-year-old college student with heavy eyes and mussy hair. “It really made me cry and wonder why he left so early. And there’s not a day that goes by that I do not think of him. He’s always on my mind. He’s always in my heart.”

‘Climate change is happening real fast’

Local meats, including seal, hang from drying racks in the village. Seal oil, made from blubber, is a staple.

Local meats, including seal, hang from drying racks in the village. Seal oil, made from blubber, is a staple.

Local meats, including seal, hang from drying racks in the village. Seal oil, made from blubber, is a staple.

A few years after Norman’s death, Esau moved into Shelton and Clara Kokeok’s blue house at the edge of the Earth. Esau tells me he wanted to help his grandparents with chores his uncle might have performed, which would have included things like getting ice for drinking water from the lake, washing clothes in the local “Washateria” and emptying the “honey bucket” toilet.

Shelton remembers telling his grandson how much the village had changed over the years, how the weather wasn’t cold like it used to be, how these storms seemed bigger now, how much of the land, including the neighbor’s house, had already disappeared — and how he might be next.

“When I built this house, there was still more ground out there,” Shelton says. “We’re right on the edge of the beach now … Climate change is happening real fast.”

But none of this made sense to Esau — not really — until his senior year of high school.

That’s when he took Ken Stenek’s science class.

Stenek, an affable, big-smiling guy with a wiry beard and a kettlebell figure, told the students about the greenhouse effect — how pollution, mostly from fossil fuels, hangs around in the atmosphere and acts like a blanket, heating the planet. They watched “An Inconvenient Truth,” the high-profile documentary featuring former Vice President Al Gore and a graph often called the “hockey stick.” That now-famous chart shows that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere haven’t been this high in hundreds of thousands of years.

Esau learned that a consensus of climate scientists — at least 97% — agree humans are causing rapid warming, and that continuing to pollute at current rates would be catastrophic, contributing to mass extinction, searing droughts, deadlier heat waves and more.

They also talked about the consequences for Shishmaref.

The “erosion” everyone in town was discussing?

That was related to the melting sea ice, the thawing of permafrost, the frequency of damaging storms. In short: By burning fossil fuels, people were helping destroy this village.

If you’d asked him the year before what he wanted to do with his professional life, Esau would have told you he wanted to be a petroleum engineer, like his brother. Good money, he’d say, unaware that extracting and burning fossil fuels like oil is contributing to the problem.

Now, however, Esau was learning the science.

He thought about his grandfather’s house.

His uncle’s death.

He believes that climate change had a hand in both.

‘Imminent’ threats

This education took him all the way to Paris.

Through Ken Stenek’s science class, Esau met researchers who were studying climate change and its consequences. And through those connections he became an Arctic Youth Ambassador, which is a program of two federal agencies and Alaska Geographic, a nonprofit. He learned that Shishmaref is not alone — that 31 villages in Alaska face “imminent” threats from erosion and other issues related to climate change, according to a Government Accountability Office report; and that 12 of them were exploring relocation options because of warming.

Esau started to wonder: Could Shishmaref actually survive the melting of the Arctic?

Was his village’s life nearing its end?

Or the start of a new beginning?

Those questions never occurred to Esau before, although they had been on the lips of older people in Shishmaref for years. They’re questions kept from young people, hoping to protect them, wanting them to grow up with a sense that the world is more certain than it is.

The Obama White House named Esau a Champion of Change for Climate Equity. He got to go to Washington. Then, he said, with help from the Sierra Club, an environmental group, he got to attend international climate change negotiations in Paris in December 2015. It was that meeting — which is often called “COP21,” since that’s simpler than “the 21st meeting of the conference of parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change” — where world leaders agreed, after decades of failure, to work together to end the fossil fuel era.

The target: Limit global temperature increases to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Basically, that means eliminating fossil fuels this century.

In Paris, hope filled the air — hope for a cleaner, safer future.

Esau, meanwhile, arrived in the French capital terrified.

It was just so different from Shishmaref.

“It felt a little claustrophobic to me, being in a big city for the first time,” he says. “It felt like I just can’t take a walk or go outside and walk without thinking of being threatened or beat up. When you walk around here, you don’t feel that. Everyone here is family. You get a sense of trust.” He was so afraid of Paris — its clustered buildings, sidewalks thick with people, streets clogged with smoking cars — that he did not dare leave the hotel without an escort.

The scale of the place got to him in other ways, too.

How much pollution are all these people creating?

How do you get all of them to change?

In a word: overwhelming.

Yet amid this chaos, Esau made another leap of understanding.

‘Before it completely erodes away’

Percy Nayokpuk owns one of two stores in town. "Climate change is happening," he says.

Percy Nayokpuk owns one of two stores in town. "Climate change is happening," he says.

Percy Nayokpuk owns one of two stores in town. “Climate change is happening,” he says.

Rae Bainteiti comes from Kiribati, a tropical island nation that could not be more geographically dissimilar from Shishmaref. Sun and sand vs. ice and snow. The two places are thousands of miles apart, separated by the vast Pacific Ocean and a half-world of latitude, with Shishmaref near the Arctic Circle and Kiribati near the equator. Yet when an interviewer sat Rae down with Esau in Paris, the two young men discussed the perils of a common threat.

Both may have to relocate because of climate change.

“My future generation of kids will be the last ones that will actually be on the island of Shishmaref before it completely erodes away,” Esau tells Rae in the Paris interview, which is posted on YouTube.

He looks directly at the other young man.

“It’s just really sad knowing that you probably have to relocate and migrate, too,” Esau says.

“Your country has to be stopped from melting so we don’t see water rising,” Rae replies.

The two share a laugh at the irony of the situation: As Arctic ice melts and oceans warm, sea levels around the world are rising. A host of locations, from Pacific islands like Kiribati to low-lying countries like Bangladesh and cities from New York to Shanghai will be threatened with coastal flooding — and possibly relocation, too — as people continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Already, Miami Beach, Florida, is installing pumps and raising street levels to try to hold the water back. That work is only the beginning of a $400-million-plus project. In 2016, the community of Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, got a $48 million federal grant to relocate, in part because of rising seas. But this is the exception rather than the rule. Most local governments don’t have the money for infrastructure to hold rising tides back.

Experts say there are no programs — in the United States or internationally — designed specifically to plan and fund climate-driven relocations. Only a few moves have been funded with money designated for climate adaptation projects, said Elizabeth Ferris, research professor at Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of International Migration.

“Governments are reluctant to think about planned relocations because everyone wants to stay where they are,” she told me. But “if it isn’t planned well, it just doesn’t work. It leaves people much worse off.”

“There’s no federal or state law — no institution in the United States — with a mandate for how are we going to manage relocation internally,” said Alice Thomas, the climate displacement program manager at Refugees International, a non-profit group. “It’s going to be enormously expensive. It’s going to be very vulnerable people … people who aren’t going to be able to cut their losses on their home when they can’t get flood insurance. Where will they go?”

In Shishmaref, the answer remains unclear.

Relocation

Local officials in Shishmaref discuss the possibility of climate relocation. They do not have the money to move.

Local officials in Shishmaref discuss the possibility of climate relocation. They do not have the money to move.

Local officials in Shishmaref discuss the possibility of climate relocation. They do not have the money to move.

August 2016.

Globally, it tied for the hottest month of the hottest year on record. In Shishmaref, residents went to the polls to decide whether they would relocate because of warming.

The answer: Yes, by a margin of 89 to 78, according to local officials.

But the August 16 vote did not solve Shishmaref’s trouble. Far from it.

Annie Weyiouanna, local coordinator for the Native Village of Shishmaref, tells me the tribe has no money to fund the move. And this isn’t the first time the village has held a relocation vote. They did so in 2002, as well. Nothing changed. No one in the village today is packing. And Weyiouanna has tried to stop using the word “relocation” — or uses it minimally, sometimes correcting herself — because she worries it will signal to funding agencies in the state and federal governments that the village will be gone soon and doesn’t need help with grants or infrastructure. The reality is that no one knows how long the village will be stuck.

Perhaps forever, some worry, or until the island is gone.

“They are not safe right now, and their lives are in danger because of the storms that are coming in,” said Robin Bronen, executive director of the Alaska Institute for Justice and a senior research scientist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. She was referring to Shishmaref as well as Newtok and Kivalina, Alaska, which face similar circumstances. “(T)hey just need a large sum of money to get them to the places that they’ve chosen so they can be safe.”

Shishmaref has identified two potential sites for a new version of the community. Both are inland, meaning hunters and fishers would not be able to access the sea as easily. Some people in the community — particularly elders — believe the move threatens the tribe’s Inupiat identity.

Away from the coast, are they still the same people?

Why should they move when others are driving climate change?

Esau has wrestled with these questions, too. His grandparents, Shelton and Clara, the couple in the blue house at the edge of the Earth, who lost their son to the ice, do not want to leave. They want to stay in their home — in the community they know so well — no matter the risks.

Esau worries about them.

“If you ask the older generations like my grandfather, their views are totally different,” he tells me. “They want to stay on this island forever and ever. And I respect that decision. They’re my elders.

“But, to me, I think we have to relocate so that our future generations can still be alive.”

Norman, age 7

In the winter, the skies in Shishmaref appear to be frozen in twilight.

In the winter, the skies in Shishmaref appear to be frozen in twilight.

In the winter, the skies in Shishmaref appear to be frozen in twilight.

On my last day in Shishmaref, Esau and I paid his old science teacher a visit.

We found Ken Stenek in a cream-colored house with Christmas lights on the roofline. He lives on a part of the island where houses are newer. Some were moved from the side where Esau’s grandparents live, and where coastal erosion is more threatening.

Standing in his home, I couldn’t help but think about the cemetery.

About the two men — Esau and Norman — who are buried there.

Two young people, bearing those names, were standing in the room with me.

There was Esau Sinnok, standing in the entryway, of course.

But also Norman, sitting on the sofa in the living room.

Norman Stenek, age 7.

The boy was named after Esau’s uncle, the one who fell through the ice.

When I visited, young Norman seemed more interested in a tablet computer than a conversation with a random reporter, and I can’t blame him for that. Still, the encounter sticks with me.

It made me wonder: What will his life be like?

His name — Norman — carries a tragic legacy. The death in the plane crash. The fall through the ice. Will this 7-year-old live to see the rest of the village drown beneath the waves, too?

Will the same happen to millions of coastal residents during his lifetime?

And what about Esau?

Sometimes I think the weight of this tragedy falls on his young shoulders. His namesake was a local agitator and his uncle’s death drove him into activism. The strength of his voice — his power to command attention — has surprised a village where few care to stand out from the crowd. He speaks out against fossil fuels, saying that the world must rush to a future with 100% renewable, clean energy. It may be too late for Shishmaref, he says, but what about other communities in similar straits? How many people will pollution force from their homes?

“I don’t blame it on one person, or a group of people. It’s all our fault,” Esau tells me. “It’s not the 1940s anymore. We can’t use fossil fuels anymore to heat our homes and use for our energy.

“We can transition from dirty fossil fuels to renewable energies.”

But how much weight can a 19-year-old bear?

The rest of us must realize our role in this tragedy.

Responsibility for Shishmaref’s plight falls on those in the industrialized world who continue to pollute the atmosphere with carbon, knowing it will warm the climate, melt the ice and make it less likely Shishmaref will survive. It falls on the Trump administration, which has moved to defund and upend climate change initiatives instead of planning for a transition to cleaner power sources, like wind and solar. It falls on politicians who know the scope of the impending climate relocation crisis but have done little to make adequate plans or secure appropriate funding.

Shishmaref is part of America, even if it’s rarely treated that way.

It is a place where people never really die, where the cemetery on that hilltop in the center of the island is full of people like Norman and Esau who are kept alive by names and stories. The question now is whether villages, like people, can be reincarnated.

Can Shishmaref be reborn?

Sadly, it’s a question the village cannot answer on its own.

With House investigation in limbo, Senate intelligence leaders to begin Trump-Russia hearings Thursday

Story highlights

  • The Senate intelligence committee will host a public hearing on Russia’s meddling into US elections
  • Their hearing comes a week after the House committee had public infighting

“This one is one of the biggest investigations the Hill has seen in my time here,” Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, said at a news conference with committee vice-chairman Mark Warner. Burr’s been in the Senate since 2005, and served in the House since 1995.

Burr and Warner say they have 20 witnesses they plan to interview and have scheduled interviews with five of them so far. The committee leaders said that they are happy that President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort have agreed to testify, but they have not yet decided when they will bring them in.

“To date, we have made 20 requests for individuals to be interviewed by the committee,” Burr said. “As we stand here today, five are already scheduled on the books, and probably within the next 10 days the remaining 15 will have a scheduled date for those individuals to be interviewed by our staff. We anticipate inviting additional individuals to come and be interviewed, and ultimately some of those interviewed individuals may turn into private or public hearings by the committee, but yet to be determined.”

Among those the committee appears to have talked to: Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who resigned after he misled administration officials regarding his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

“It would be safe to say we have had conversations with a lot of people, and it would be safe to say Gen Flynn is a part of that list,” Burr said.

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation has garnered increased intention as the House investigation has stalled along partisan lines related to its chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes, and his communication with the White House related to the incidental collection of President Donald Trump and his aides.

Democrats have called on Nunes to step down from his post, while most Republicans in the chamber say they support Nunes.

The panel will hold its first public hearing Thursday.

GOP may be working on health care plan B

President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence spoke with several House members over the weekend to discuss a path forward, a senior administration official and Republican official with knowledge of the discussions told CNN. And House Speaker Paul Ryan — despite saying Friday that “Obamacare is the law of the land” — appears ready to keep going as well.

Trump himself isn’t giving up.

“I know we’re going to make a deal on health care, that’s such an easy one,” Trump told a bipartisan group of senators and spouses at a White House reception Tuesday night.

The fact remains, however, that House Republicans aren’t in a different position than they were on Friday. The math is the same. Republican leaders are still struggling to satisfy two diametrically opposed forces: moderates who want to see to government lend more support to middle and low-income people to buy health insurance and conservatives who want to see Obamacare repealed more fully so that even popular regulations like the one requiring insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions disappear.

“At the end of the day, I don’t know that the weekend did much to change anything. I think it was a missed opportunity. I think it was an unforced error,” said Arkansas Republican Rep. Steve Womack.

“We’re mending our wounds right now,” Rep. Chris Collins, a Republican from New York told reporters Tuesday.

But Republicans can’t go back to their voters and say they’ve given up. Moving on from repealing Obamacare would mean Republicans may have to admit defeat and face a sobering new reality, in which, they were not able to deliver on the policy goal that united them and catapulted them to victory in the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016.

“Opposition to government run health care has been a foundation of the Republican party for three or four generations now, so it is difficult to see House Republicans walk away from efforts to protect the American people from this awful law,” said Michael Steel, former spokesman for ex-House Speaker John Boehner. “At the same time, after last week, it’s difficult to see how the entire conference can find a unified position.”

“I think the divisions that have existed for some time look and feel particularly acute now that we have a Republican President,” Steel added.

White House downplaying role

Those divisions came out perhaps most dramatically when Trump got involved in the negotiations. Now, the White House is keeping its role much lower key than it did during the final push last week and insisting it is letting rank-and-file members of Congress drive discussions on health care, which are ongoing between a small group of House Freedom Caucus members and members of the moderate Tuesday Group.

The senior administration official told CNN that the White House believes its threats to move past health care have helped jolt House GOP members into action.

“All last week he was calling them. Now they’re calling him,” the official said.

White House press secretary Sean Spice publicly downplayed Tuesday any suggestion that there was a concerted effort to resurrect health care, only going as far as saying that there were continued conversations and exchanging of ideas.

“Have we had some discussions and listened to ideas? Yes,” Spicer told reporters in the briefing room. “Are we actively planning an Immediate strategy? Not at this time.”

On Tuesday, House GOP leaders also projected more optimism that something could still be done to dismantle the Affordable Care Act even as the political dynamics remained unchanged.

“I think we’re closer today to repealing Obamacare than we’ve ever been before, and are surely even closer than we were Friday,” House Majority Whip Steve Scalise said Tuesday morning.

Ryan vowed members would continue working although he didn’t offer any specific timeline.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was more frank that it was time to get to other issues.

“It’s pretty obvious we were not able, in the House, to pass a replacement. Our Democratic friends ought to be pretty happy about that because we have the existing law in place, and I think we are just going to have to see how that works out,” McConnell said. “We believe it will not work out well, but we’ll see. They have an opportunity now to have the status quo, regretfully.”

McConnell complemented Trump’s and Ryan’s efforts and then concluded his remarks on the debacle with four words: “Sorry that didn’t work.”

GOP base doesn’t want to give up

The concept of giving up is hard for many Republican rank-and-file members to swallow. Those who would have voted yes wish they could have gotten their colleagues there too. Members of the House Freedom Caucus, meanwhile, who were opposed to the bill, are grappling now with public admonishment from their new President.

“We’re gonna get a ‘yes,’ we’re gonna get to ‘yes.’ It will be a better bill and I think everybody is going to be very happy in the end,” said Rep. David Brat, a Republican from Virginia and a member of the Freedom Caucus.

“I think we have plenty of time. We can fix this,” said Idaho Republican Rep. Raul Labrador, another House Freedom Caucus member.

Texas Republican Rep. Randy Weber, a member of the House Freedom Caucus who opposed the GOP health care bill said Tuesday he thought that the GOP conference could find a way to get a revised Obamacare bill through the House if they all got in a room and put their heads together.

“We need to stay here on the weekend and have an all-day conference,” Weber said, noting that the one-hour weekly meetings weren’t enough time to work through the sticking points.

Weber, who didn’t vote for Ryan for speaker in January, even complimented Ryan and said that he texted the speaker over the weekend when some conservative media figures pushed for him to step down and told him “don’t even think about it. You’re doing a good job. My prayers and my support are with you.”

Still hard to govern

Womack said Republicans need to keep moving and show they can govern with their majorities in the House and Senate and Trump in the White House.

“The people who were ‘yes’ on the health care bill were reminding Paul this is something we promised and we got to push in that direction,” Womack said. “It’s more a reflection of the need to show that we can do something with our governing majority, but again it comes back to numbers. If you don’t have the votes, you don’t have the votes.”

But Trump and Ryan say they want to go to tax reform next, but that’s not going to be any easier.

“How do you move forward?” said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican from Florida. “If you can’t do this, can you then do tax reform? If you think this is complicated and controversial, wait ’til we get into tax reform.”

Congress kills Internet privacy protections

The House of Representatives voted Tuesday to repeal Internet privacy protections that were approved by the Federal Communications Commission in the final days of the Obama administration.

The Senate voted along party lines to undo the rules last week. The resolution now goes to Trump’s desk. The White House said Tuesday it “strongly supports” the repeal.

The rules, which had not yet gone into effect, would have required Internet service providers to get your permission before collecting and sharing your data. The providers have data on your web browsing history, app usage and geo-location.

Providers would also have been required to notify customers about the types of information collected and shared.

Related: Why Silicon Valley isn’t fighting to save the Internet (yet)

The privacy rules were intended to give consumers extra control over their personal data online at a time when everything from smartphones to refrigerators can be connected to the Internet.

Opponents of the privacy rules argued it would place an undue burden on broadband providers while leaving large Internet companies like Facebook (FB, Tech30) and Google (GOOGL, Tech30) free to collect user data without asking permission.

Representative Michael Burgess, a Republican, described the rules as “duplicative regulation” on the House floor and said the repeal would “level the playing field for an increasingly anti-competitive market.”

But rather than apply similar protections to more businesses, the Republican-controlled Congress voted to scrap the rules entirely.

Democrats and privacy advocates have argued this approach effectively hands over the customer’s personal information to the highest bidder.

“It totally wipes out privacy protections for consumers on the Internet,” Democratic Representative Anna Eshoo said on the floor. “I don’t want anyone to take my information and sell it to someone and make a ton of money off of it just because they can get their mitts on it.”

Michael Capuano, a Democratic Representative, took it one step further. “Just last week, I bought underwear on the internet,” he said. “Why should you know what size I take, or the color, or any of that information?

internet privacy

Many broadband providers already share some of their customers’ browsing behavior with advertisers. Providers typically offer the choice to opt out, but consumers may not even be aware of this data collection — let alone how to get out of it.

With Facebook and Google, weary users may choose to limit their activity on the sites or switch to rival services. But switching providers is often difficult, as is hiding your Internet activity from your Internet provider.

“Most people can’t simply walk away from their Internet service provider,” says Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel at the ACLU. “They need the Internet and they may not have another option.”

A virtual private network, or VPN, is one option to protect your online activity. One service, NordVPN, says it has seen a “sharp increase” in consumer interest in the days since the Senate vote.

Related: Worried about companies spying on your browsing? Here’s what you can do

The repeal is a big win for large providers like AT&T (T, Tech30) and Verizon (VZ, Tech30). They have bet billions on content, including AT&T’s pending acquisition of Time Warner, the parent company of CNN.

This content can potentially be paired with subscriber data to build up lucrative targeted advertising businesses that compete with Google and Facebook.

“I don’t think of it as game over,” says Guliani, who predicts Republicans will face pushback from their constituents for the privacy vote. “I think of it as a setback.”

CNNMoney (New York) First published March 28, 2017: 6:06 PM ET

How much sex should you be having?

In what might be welcome news for everyone exhausted from work and frazzled from kids, research suggests you don’t have to get down every day to reap the rewards of sex, at least in terms of happiness and relationship closeness.

“I do think couples can end up feeling pressure to try to engage in sex as frequently as possible,” said Amy Muise, a postdoctoral researcher studying sexual relationships at Dalhousie University in Canada. Once a week “is maybe a more realistic goal to set than thinking you have to have sex everyday and that feels overwhelming and you avoid it,” said Muise, who is lead author of the study, which was published in November in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

The study found that sex could boost happiness because it makes people feel more satisfied in their relationship, based on survey data from two separate cohorts, including 2,400 married couples in the U.S. National Survey of Families and Households.

“For people in relationships, their romantic relationship quality is one of the biggest predictors of their overall happiness,” Muise said. “Having sex more than once a week might not be enhancing that (relationship connection), although it is not bad.”

However, there are a couple of rubs with this research, Muise said. One is that it is not clear which came first, sex or happiness. It may be that people who have sex once a week or more were happier in their relationship and life to begin with, and not that the sex helped make them happy. Or both may be true: Sex enhances happiness and happiness enhances sex.

The other catch is that, although a weekly romp might be just what some people need, it might be too much or too little for others. “Certainly there are couples for whom having sex less frequently will be fine for their happiness, and there are couples who will get increases in happiness if they have sex more than once a week,” Muise said.

What’s the right number for you?

“One of the best effects of an article like this (by Muise and her colleagues) is that it opens up conversations with couples” about their sex life, said Vanessa Marin, a sex therapist based in Berlin. For some couples, the question of how often they should have sex might not have come up, which could be a sign they feel sufficiently close and satisfied — or that they are just too busy or disconnected to think about it.

“Most couples want to be having more sex and I think this is really a result of how busy and full most of our lives are,” Marin said.

Marin avoids prescribing an amount of sex that couples should have, because every couple is different, and instead recommends couples test it out for themselves. “I’m a big fan of having clients experiment, like, one month try to have sex twice a week and see how that goes, or once a week, try to play around with it,” Marin said.

As for those lucky couples that are content with how often they get busy under the sheets, one study suggests they may not want to change a thing. Researchers asked couples that were having sex about six times a month to double down on getting down. Couples that doubled their sexual frequency were in worse moods and enjoyed sex less at the end of three months than couples who had stuck to their usual level of bedroom activity.

“Being told you should do something always makes it less fun,” said George Loewenstein, a professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University and lead author of the study. That is another reason Marin does not make recommendations to couples about sexual frequency — for fear they could worry they are not living up to expectations and lose their mojo.

However, there’s a far bigger relationship problem than couples worrying they aren’t having quite enough sex — “couples that have pretty much stopped having sex,” Loewenstein said. For these couples, “I think once a week is a good final goal. … It is almost like a natural constant to do it once a week,” he said.

Even if these abstinent couples want to be having more sex, they may lack the desire for their partner. These couples can try conventional strategies, such as scheduling more quality time together or trying a change in scenery. “What couple has not had the experience that you go to a hotel in a new location in a new environment and the person you’re with seems different, and different is good when it comes to sex,” Loewenstein said.

But if these tricks aren’t enough, couples may have to appeal to their rational rather than lustful side and tell themselves to just do it. “These couples might be surprised how enjoyable it would be if they restarted,” Loewenstein said.

Should you schedule your sex?

It might sound like the least romantic thing in the world to pencil in sexy time with your partner. But if you and your partner are game to try, there is no reason not to make a sex schedule.

“For some couples, scheduling sex works really well, it gives them something to look forward to, they like the anticipation, they like feeling prioritized,” Marin said. “Then other couples (say) scheduling sex feels horrible to them, like sex is transactional and just another item on their to-do list.”

Again, Marin recommends couples experiment with scheduling sex to see if it helps them, as long as neither is opposed to it.

A good idea for all couples, whether they like the idea of scheduling sex, is to plan for quality time together — just the two of them. Ideally, this would be about 20 minutes a day with the TV off and cell phones away, but for extra busy couples, it can help to reserve just five minutes a day for a tete-a-tete, Marin said. This time is also the “container for sex,” the time and privacy when sex can be initiated, but you don’t have to feel pressure about it, she added.

Although scheduling sex can help couples that want to be having sex but just can’t find the time, it can make things worse for some. “If there are relationship issues or psychological issues such as stress or anxiety, then scheduling sex might just add to the pressure,” said Acacia Parks, associate professor of psychology at Hiram College.

See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.

As for when to schedule the sex, the best time is probably the time when you are least likely to be pulled away by life’s obligations. One of the perks of rise-and-shine sex is that testosterone levels are highest in the morning, and this hormone drives sexual desire. On the other hand, tuck-you-in sex could help lull you to sleep, as hormones released during orgasm could help you relax and feel tired.

According to Muise, the participants in her research typically reported having sex at night before going to sleep, which is not that surprising. But it has to work for both parties. “This is another point of negotiation between partners,” Muise said. “One of them is just too exhausted. That might be something to play around with, is there a time on the weekend that we could try instead.”

United Airlines was right to bar leggings

The reality is a bit more complicated.
The controversy began when Shannon Watts, who founded Moms Demand Action to fight gun violence, tweeted that she saw a United staff member bar girls in leggings from boarding a flight. She wanted to know if it was because “spandex is not allowed.”

Actress Patricia Arquette quickly followed up, tweeting to her followers: “Leggings are business attire for 10 year olds. Their business is being children.”

And United scrambled to explain itself, eventually saying that the travelers were on “company benefit travel,” for which there’s a dress code that doesn’t apply to all other travelers.

United’s tweet was correct. Arquette’s tweet was also clever, and correct — about ten-year-olds in general, but not in this situation.

Of course, the “Internet” did not really “erupt.” People were angry on Twitter. And there’s a huge difference.

Only 21 percent of all adults online in the United States even use Twitter. And that 21 percent? They don’t always represent the public at large. Sometimes they just represent what really vocal people think.

Think of the angriest, most opinionated guy in your office. Does he speak for you and your colleagues? Probably not.

The point is, sometimes the people who erupt on Twitter aren’t representative — they’re reactive. That’s what happened here.

As a general rule, are leggings improper attire? For shopping at Target, no way. For ten year olds? Generally, no. For anyone — adult or child — attending the White House Correspondents’ Dinner? It might be inappropriate. It depends. Context matters.

For airlines? Leggings are on the high end of what people wear nowadays. People used to dress up for air travel, even for vacations. Now adults routinely dress like they’re going to a slumber party when they fly. So people initially learning of the leggings story had to know there was more to the story, before anyone “erupted” on Twitter.

Here’s the rest of the story: the passengers were “Pass Riders.” United employees or their dependents can fly standby on a space-available basis. They pay a fraction of what the rest of us pay. But there are tradeoffs. Pass Riders are prioritized last on standby.

Plus, “non-revs,” short for “non-revenue,” are subjected to a dress code, which only they can access on the United website with a password; it’s not publicly available.

United’s code bans, among many other things, form-fitting and lycra/spandex clothing, or anything inappropriately revealing. Non-revs are perceived as a kind of unidentified representative of the airline, sometimes known only to the flight crew. Pass Riders — even a ten-year-old child — are treated more like United employees than members of the public.

Was a United employee a little overzealous in this case? Probably. But denying boarding to Pass Riders was within the employee’s discretion. Airline employees have a lot of discretion, if you haven’t noticed.

When it comes to non-revenue passengers, airlines have even more discretion. The airline, at its sole discretion, may cancel pass travel privileges for conduct deemed “detrimental” to United.

I once flew “non-rev,” in college, thanks to the kindness of others, who took pity on a twenty-year old with a negative account balance. I naively wore jeans and was almost denied boarding. I should have known better. They cut me a break. That was back in 1999. The point is, this system has been around for a while.

Nowadays, it’s not an oppressive dress code either — it’s well below the “business casual” that people with actual jobs wear to work. Pass Riders can apparently even wear jeans and sneakers now, too. The airline just asks that they dress in a way that, at a minimum, raises the bar of air apparel on the flight. The idea appears to be this: the other passengers may not know who you are, but we know, and we want you to help us with the aesthetics, not be part of the problem.

In this case, people on Twitter simply didn’t understand the Pass Rider system, and instead saw what they wanted to see: a nationwide ban on yoga pants, or misogynist, ageist policies of discrimination against women and children. And just like that, an outrage was born.

Frankly, the real controversy should be more about improving dress code standards on airplanes, not relaxing them. Have you flown lately? People are allowed on planes barefoot and shirtless these days.

Where’s the Twitter outrage when that happens?

If you want to push a candle through a paper plate and hold a vigil, protesting the bare-chested old guy in the exit row is a noble cause. There’s no reason to erupt over a dress code that is part of an agreed-upon contract between airline and Pass Rider. All the airline is trying to do is raise the standards of those under its control. The general public should try to do the same.

COPYRIGHT 2014 FUEL THEMES. All RIGHTS RESERVED.