Awesome: Rev. Billy Graham is named North Carolina’s “favorite son”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Via the Charlotte Observer:

RALEIGH With his family and the governor looking on, and tearful testimonials from some of those he’s touched, the Rev. Billy Graham was honored as North Carolina’s “favorite son” Wednesday by the General Assembly.

The House and Senate each passed resolutions honoring the 94-year-old Graham and his late wife, Ruth.

“We’re really honored that the state would do this for my mother and father,” evangelist Franklin Graham told the Observer.

Franklin Graham and his sister, Anne Graham Lotz joined family members and Gov. Pat McCrory in watching each chamber pay tribute to the senior Grahams.

The tributes began in each chamber with a two-and-a-half page resolution honoring the Charlotte native who went on to a lifetime of ministry and worldwide acclaim as well as his wife, a partner in his life and ministry.

According to a legislative researcher, Billy Graham appears to be the first North Carolinian recognized as a favorite son.

Unlike the controversial “state religion” resolution, hotly debated for the last couple of weeks and which went nowhere fast, this particular resolution honoring Graham should be one we can all get behind. I can’t think of a more deserving, tireless, honorable, selfless person in this state upon which to bestow this honor.

May God continue to bless the Graham family!

Revs. Graham and Gov. McCrory

Observer caption: In anticipation of a General Assembly resolution, Gov. Pat McCrory presented the Rev. Billy Graham with a proclamation declaring him “North Carolina’s Favorite Son.” McCrory visited the Graham family during a trip to western North Carolina on March 1, 2013.

Study: #BigGulp bans would likely INCREASE soda consumption, obesity

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Paging Mayor Bloomberg and other elitist nanny-state types:

Attempts to outlaw mega-sized sugary drinks, like New York’s controversial soda ban, could have the unintended consequence of increasing soft drink consumption and obesity, research suggests.

In a study published in the April issue of PLoS One, researchers examined whether price trumps portion size when it comes to consumer soda buying habits.

The behavioral simulation study found that people purchased more soda when offered deals on multiple smaller-sized drinks, suggesting that a ban on container size will not work if businesses have an economic incentive to offer ‘bundled’ drinks at reduced prices.

A New York State Supreme Court Judge struck down NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on extra-large sugary drinks last month, a day before the law was to go into effect. The city is appealing the judge’s ruling.

The law would have prohibited the sale of many sugary beverages in containers larger than 16 ounces at businesses regulated by the city health department, including national restaurant chains like McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts. But businesses not regulated by the health department, like grocery and convenience stores, would be exempt from the ban.

In striking down the law Judge Milton Tingling called the proposed regulations “arbitrary and capricious.”

Critics agree, and one major concern is that businesses selling sugary sodas will find ways around the ban because the drinks are so profitable.

[…]

New York University professor of nutrition and author Marion Nestle, PhD, who supports the soda ban, concedes the point. But she said the study does little to convince her that people will buy two or three sodas instead of one just because they get a better price.

“Sure, some businesses will do everything they can to increase sales,” she told MedPage Today.“Sodas are cheap and they make huge profits on them. But I’d like to see the portion-size cap tried at least. Let’s give it a chance before dreaming up reasons why it won’t work.”

It’s an absolute no-brainer that businesses can and would easily find ways around the Big Gulp ban by offering deals on 16 ounce sodas, including lower prices, free refills, etc – and they would be stupid not to, especially considering how hard it already is for people to make ends meet in this wreckovering economy, families in particular.

But, hey, as Professor Nestle inadvertently reminds us in the quote above: Don’t let the facts [the study results mentioned in the piece, which you should read in full] stand in the way of a professional liberal who knows better how to control your portion sizes than you do.  Just shut up and obey, dammit!

My body, my choice

Heh! Photo via Stan Brooks/1010 WINS, as seen on CBS NY’s website.

Survey says! Police oppose new #guncontrol regulations

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Pretty significant, I’d say, since the cops have to deal regularly with violent criminals and the aftermath of violent crime. If a majority of them say new gun regulations won’t do any good and might do harm, then why pass them? (1)

An authoritative new poll of more than 15,000 cops released on the eve of this week’s Senate anti-gun debate shows that a sweeping majority of officers don’t believe gun control will work or keep them safer, and nearly nine in 10 believe having more armed citizens would curb gun violence.

According to the lengthy survey of law enforcement professionals, one of the largest ever of street cops, 85 percent believe that President Obama’s gun control plan to ban assault weapons, limit the size of ammo magazines and expand background checks won’t improve their safety, with just over 10 percent believing it will have a “positive effect.”

The poll from PoliceOne.com, a site dedicated to police policy and news, also found surprising support for arming citizens. The poll found that 86 percent of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of a shooting. Another 81 percent backed arming teachers, as the National Rifle Association has called for.

I’m willing to bet this doesn’t include LAPD Chief Charlie Beck

Read the rest for more intriguing results, including broad support for police organizations that have stated they will refuse to enforce new gun control legislation.

PS: This morning a “compromise” bill featuring increased background checks, sponsored by Senators Manchin (D-WV) and Toomey (R-PA) is being introduced. I’m withholding final judgement until more details are known, but my gut feeling is that this is a bill that will fail to prevent more mass shootings, but will further burden our Second and Fourth Amendment rights. In other words, a bill written to be seen to be “doing something, anything.” Very disappointed in Senator Toomey, if this is the case.

Footnote:
(1) But we know why, don’t we? So does Dan Bongino.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)