This news has been received from:

All trademarks, copyrights, videos, photos and logos are owned by respective news sources. News stories, videos and live streams are from trusted sources.

mail: [NewsMag]

DEAR ABBY: My husband of 42 years wanted to move to the Northwest. We initially fell in love with it and lived there for four years. I found work, made friends and enjoyed myself immensely.

Jeanne Phillips 

My husband kept traveling back to Southern California for work and decided he no longer wanted to live up north.

I protested, but he didn’t want to hear it, so we moved back down again.

Now, after the pandemic year and having lived in our home less than two years, he wants to move back to the Northwest because “it’s too hot, too crowded, etc., here.”

I gave him my opinion, and a huge fight ensued. I never wanted to move back south, but he was belligerently insistent. I’m not sure what to think anymore. Any advice?


Related Articles

  • Dear Abby: I’m not allowed to talk to my boyfriend’s ex since I made her ‘uncomfortable’
  • Dear Abby: I don’t want to be associated with this bad musician
  • Dear Abby: She used to be poor, and her attitude about money is annoying
  • Dear Abby: The bride says my boyfriend is invited but I’m not
  • Dear Abby: I’m annoyed by how he describes women
DEAR N. VS. S.: Your husband appears to rule the roost.

Moving is challenging, particularly if you’re stuck with the responsibility of packing up your household. Frankly, I am more concerned about the fact that he’s unwilling to listen to your concerns than about the inconvenience, but after all these years, I’m not sure that’s fixable.

On the plus side, you stated that you “loved” living in the Northwest, found work you enjoyed and made friends. If you return to the area in which you were living, you may be able to renew those relationships, so concentrate on the positive. If your husband flip-flops again, you can then decide whether to live separately in the location of your choice.

DEAR ABBY: I have a problem with one player in our weekly golf group. He hasn’t been vaccinated and won’t wear a mask.

Our group is mostly older players who all share golf carts. Everyone in the group has been vaccinated except this one person.

As the group coordinator, I prearrange the foursomes every week. Several of the players have informed me they do not want to share a cart with the unvaccinated person. In some cases, they have paid additional cart costs in order to avoid riding with him.

As you can imagine, it becomes a problem for me trying to put the groups together each week. How should I handle this?


DEAR SPORTSMAN: Poll the entire group about how they feel about riding with an unvaccinated person. If the majority of the players are uncomfortable sharing a cart with him, tell him he will have to reserve his own cart and ride solo if he wishes to continue participating in the group.

If this seems harsh, perhaps those members who don’t mind riding with him — if there are enough of them — would agree to ride with him permanently. You won’t know unless you ask.

TO MY READERS: The eight days of the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah begin at sundown. (Very early this year!) Happy Hanukkah, everyone! A joyous Festival of Lights to all of us.


Related Articles
  • Ask Amy: My husband resents my father’s sweet tradition
  • Harriette Cole: I overheard what my father said about me
  • Miss Manners: I thought my offer was polite. His response startled me.
  • Dear Abby: I’m not allowed to talk to my boyfriend’s ex since I made her ‘uncomfortable’
  • Will lonely San Jose cat adjust to a new kitten in the house?

Dear Abby is written by Abigail Van Buren, also known as Jeanne Phillips, and was founded by her mother, Pauline Phillips. Contact Dear Abby at or P.O. Box 69440, Los Angeles, CA 90069.

News Source:

Tags: mr roadshow cartoons pac 12 hotline celebrities mr roadshow cartoons pac 12 hotline celebrities advice coffee break dear abby lifestyle to my boyfriend’s ex i’m not allowed to my boyfriend’s my boyfriend’s ex boyfriend’s ex my boyfriend’s i’m not sure unvaccinated person related articles to the northwest been vaccinated wanted to move the players your husband in the group made friends to move back a cart

Who is Matthew Reeves?

Next News:

Firearms rights group sues San Jose over proposal to make gun owners carry insurance and pay annual fee

(CNN)A firearms rights group has sued the California city of San Jose over a proposal that would require many of the city's gun owners to carry liability insurance for accidents and negligence -- which would be a first in the nation -- as well as pay a new annual fee.

The city council preliminarily approved the proposed ordinance on Tuesday. The Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights filed the suit the same day, asking the US District Court in San Jose to prevent the city from enforcing the proposed ordinance on numerous constitutional grounds, including alleging infringements on the Second Amendment. "San Jose's imposition of a tax, fee, or other arbitrary cost on gun ownership is intended to suppress gun ownership without furthering any government interest. In fact, the penalties for nonpayment of the insurance and fees include the seizure of the citizen's gun. The ordinance is, therefore, patently unconstitutional," the suit reads.The city has identified a law firm to represent it on the issue at no charge, the mayor's office has said."No good deed goes unlitigated," Mayor Sam Liccardo said this week in response to the lawsuit. "Fees and taxes on guns and ammunition have existed since 1919 and have repeatedly been upheld."This Silicon Valley city is poised to take a step closer to first-in-the-nation gun ownership requirementsRead MoreThe mandate requires residents who own a gun to have "a homeowner's, renter's or gun liability insurance policy ... specifically covering losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use of the firearm," including death, injury or property damage.Liccardo has said some gun owners' existing insurance policies would already meet this requirement. The insurance and fee proposal exempts those in law enforcement, those with concealed carry permits and those for whom the fee would be a financial burden. About 50,000 to 55,000 households in San Jose own guns, the city estimates. The city has about 325,000 households and more than 1 million residents. One of the motivations behind the ordinance is to incentivize safer behavior, the mayor's office has said, noting insurers could offer lower premiums to gun owners who take safety classes, use gun safes and install trigger locks. Requiring insurance coverage would also ensure medical care for victims of unintentional shootings, Liccardo's office has said.Liccardo first proposed the insurance mandate in 2019, after three people were killed and 12 others injured in a shooting at a festival in nearby Gilroy. He proposed it again -- and also proposed the annual fee -- last year, after a gunman killed nine people at a San Jose public transit yard before killing himself in May. But Liccardo's proposed ordinance would not cover criminal, intentional shootings. No insurer offers coverage to individuals for such shootings, according to the Insurance Information Institute.As for the new fee: The ordinance would require gun owning residents to pay an annual "gun harm reduction" fee that will fund "a nonprofit organization being created by a team of public health and gun violence experts," the mayor's office says. That fee would be about $25, plus "a small additional cost for the administration of the program," according to the office.The nonprofit will distribute the money "to community-based, evidence-based programs to reduce gun violence, such as domestic violence and suicide prevention, mental health counseling, addiction treatment, and gun-safe storage and training," the mayor's office says.If the council approves the ordinance in a final reading on February 8, it would take effect in August, absent any court action.Lawsuit: Ordinance affects only owners of lawfully-owned gunsIn addition to taking issue with alleged constitutional infringements, the gun rights group's lawsuit also contends the ordinance "only affects owners of lawfully-owned guns," and its "true impact is solely on guns kept in the home by law-abiding citizens.""It does nothing to deter the scourge of unlawful ownership and use of guns by criminals to recoup from them compensation for the injuries and damage they cause," the lawsuit states. "If left intact, the city of San Jose's ordinance would strike at the very core of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms and defend one's home," the lawsuit reads.The suit also claims the ordinance violates California's constitution because "it imposes taxes not approved by voters, or ... imposes a fee that is unrelated to the costs borne by the city of San Jose."When asked at a January 24 news conference about unlawfully obtained guns, Liccardo agreed criminals were a concern, but said there are "existing laws in place" to deal with illegal guns. The mayor argued legally owned firearms are also "a source of enormous amount of death and harm in our community and we need to be addressing that as well."Mayor emphasizes cost of shootingsWhen Liccardo proposed the fee last year, his office said it would "compensate taxpayers for the public cost of responding to gun-related injuries and death, such as for emergency medical and police response."By Tuesday, when the city council voted on the ordinance, the mayor's office was no longer saying the fee would compensate taxpayers. Instead, the ordinance directs the fee's proceeds to the nonprofit for distribution to gun-violence reduction programs.Nevertheless, Liccardo's office has stressed the costs of firearm injuries. It has cited a 2021 Pacific Institute on Research and Evaluation study saying shootings of all types -- intentional and unintentional -- cost San Jose residents $442 million per year, when including public costs like emergency response and private costs to individuals and families. "Certainly, the Second Amendment protects every citizen's right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right," Liccardo said Monday at a news conference.The council's vote followed hours of debate and public comment on the issue.Critics argued the ordinance punishes law-abiding gun owners and doesn't do enough to address root causes of gun violence. One speaker told the council, "You cannot tax a constitutional right" and urged lawmakers to instead focus on enforcing existing laws, hiring more police officers and funding mental health services. A supporter told the council the ordinance will "help protect our community from preventable gun deaths," while another called on members to approve the measure, saying, "In the near future, it will be very evident that this was an obvious thing to do, and we'll wonder why we didn't do it sooner."

Other News

  • Jeff Fisher happy to be back on sidelines at Collegiate Bowl
  • Video Raises New Questions About Commerce City Police Chief Clint Nichols Racial Profiling Claims; Union Asks For Him To Be Put On Leave
  • Fans will be happy at new Covid rules to try and get games called off, West Ham were victims of our own success
  • Brit, 70, dies in ‘happy ending’ massage parlour in Thai party resort Pattaya after panicked masseuse performs CPR
  • How Khloé Kardashian feels about Pete Davidson dating her sister Kim
  • Bill O’Brien could leave Alabama for a return to Patriots if Josh McDaniels takes Raiders job
  • I work at H&M and these are how many items people shoplift from changing rooms – they leave the tags behind
  • Every Coach Fans Think May Leave The Voice Ahead of Season 22
  • The legend of the Oregon blue-tailed squirrel lives on
  • DCCC Endorses Aggressive Gerrymander to Leave New York with 3 GOP Seats
  • Franck Kessie set to reject free transfer to Tottenham after ‘negative’ meeting with Spurs chiefs
  • Ask Amy: This friend acts like he doesnt know why Im mad at him
  • Harriette Cole: How can I motivate these women to lose weight without offending them?
  • Dear Abby: Im the one who decides if Im called Mrs.
  • Tucker Carlson Brutally Mocks Ludicrous Figure Pete Buttigieg, Who Breastfeeds
  • Scituate Residents Prepare For Winds, High Tides Ahead Of Noreaster
  • Wolves confident of staving off Ruben Neves transfer interest from Man Utd and Arsenal as they set £40m asking price
  • Michigan professor placed on leave for profane COVID-19 rant sues to get job back
  • Cristiano Ronaldo gives Georgina Rodriguez epic birthday gift as he lights up world’s tallest building with pics of her