Is it now "official" that first-borns are smarter?

To a certain extent that is true. But considering that IQ tests actually reveal little more than the ability to take IQ tests, and that three points is a really minimal amount, I think that it can be put down primarily to issues with the IQ test itself. And the way in which each individual's brain is wired to deal with the problems. My older brother is far more mathematical and scientific than me, but lacks any real creativity or imagination, almost a diametric switch to me. We have different interests and specialities. I wouldn't say he's more intelligent than me, but his brain works in a different way.

But being the second of three boys, this is the bit that interested me most:
This is something which I have very much noticed all through my life. But is it really being "shortchanged"? Maybe in purely financial or resource-specific ways, but in the long term as a human being, I disagree - it has made me be far more able to deal with a greater range of situations than my brothers. I don't have to lead like my older brother does but I can, and I don't have the greed and feel the need to differentiate myself from others like my younger brother. I can adapt to fit the situation. I can lead and follow, teach and be taught. This bit, however, it utter bollocks:
When it comes to birth order, it really makes very little difference in the long run. They give different advantages and disadvantages. The gap in the IQ test is minimal and within the accuracy of IQ tests. The social differences allow people to fit into different niches. Birth order itself doesn't give benefits without disadvantages, or vice versa.

Source: TIME

How on earth did they reach this conclusion?

So they want more government control over us, now extending into our eating and exercise habits - despite admitting that they have absolutely no clue how to do it?

Saying that the individual is not to blame for their own obesity is like saying that it's not waters fault it's wet. Only they can decide what they eat and how much they exercise. Yes there are some genetic signposts that make some more prone to obesity that others, but that is simply not a good enough excuse.

Likewise, you can't blame society. Just because lots of people are fat doesn't mean that it is why one particular person is. Being obese is, rightly, regarded as being a bad thing. How many obese celebrities are there?! In that world, it's the opposite which is the problem. Society does not deem your weight, size or body-fat content. Only the individual can through eating and exercising appropriately.

The only person to blame for obesity is the tub of lard themselves. They either eat too much, the wrong stuff, or don't exercise enough. No-one force-feeds them fast food. No-one ties them to the couch. The only person who is to blem for their condition is themselves - and to suggest otherwise is utterly wrong.

Also, even if it wasn't the individuals fault for their obesity, it still wouldn't be the job of Nanny State to come in and "take action". Espiecally when they have absolutely no idea what they could possibly do anyway - bar banning all bad food and enforcing exercise.

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph

This is never going to work. It can't work, because it is based on a false premise. Faith schools don't "foster(ing) understanding between different religions and promot[e] integration and community cohesion" but the precise opposite.

I dislike faith schools. All faith schools, whatever religion they are based in. There is no doubt that they promote - most likely unconsciously - a segregationist view of the world, 'them' and 'us'. However, I don't mind parents choosing to send their children to a faith school - so long as they pay for it. Taxpayer's money should not go towards any faith school.

There can be no doubt that religious schools do foster a lack of understanding of other religions and cultures. Most modern organised religions deem that they are "the one true path" and that every other religion in the world is wrong, and this in undoubtedly going to come over in some sense at least through the education they give. It is segregation - only people of a particular faith go to a faith school. It means that there is little or no mixing of children of different [nominal] faiths at the age in which it is most important that they do.

Religion/faith is a personal thing. It requires a personal devotion to and acceptance of a creed and certain supernatural being(s). It should not be forced onto kids, and certainly shouldn't be paid for by the taxpayer. If you follow a religion and want your children to do so as well, then you should be prepared to either pay for that education, or give it yourself or through your religious institution.

Britain is a secular country, with only 53% of the population even calling themselves "Christian", let alone actually going to Church at all. This should - must - be reflected in the state education system. Religion should not form part of any over-arching structure in a school, any more so than race should. No school that accepts state funding should be able to belong to any faith or have an educational doctrine based in one. This does not mean that teachers shouldn't be religious. The best teacher I had, for five years [Years 9-13], was a devout Christian, and is now actually an Assistant Pastor. But he left his religiousness at the door whilst he taught.

Religious schools are the bane of any multi-cultural society, and must not be funded by the state.

Source: The Times

Yet another example of an outpouring of grief taken into absurdity with the inclusion of celebrities:

Yes, it is tragic when someone - anyone - dies, but they do so every day. People, even 11-year-old boys, die every day and in every way.

The way that a few of these are picked up and exploited - by the media, politicians, and general public - can really be quite sickening. Why does Rhys deserve more than any other 11-year-old whose life is brutally cut short? Why does the search of Madeleine McCann get so much more media attention than many of the other missing children? The same question can be asked about all of the other media stories of this ilk - Damilola Taylor, Stephen Lawrence, et al. The answer is the same for all of them - nothing makes them more deserving. The only difference is that their deaths/disappearances got into the news.

This outpouring of, and wallowing in, grief just revolts me. Yes it is tragic. but where is the traditional British stiff upper lip? What happened to grieving in private and getting on with your life? Especially when you didn't even know the deceased.

Source: BBC

Yet another load of interfering rubbish from this government:

"Muslim or Christian guest house owners who refuse to accept homosexual couples must impose a "sleeping together ban" on all other guests, the Government says.
As the holiday season gets under way, Meg Munn, a junior minister, has emphasised that it is illegal to allow married couples to share a room at a guest house or hotel while not allowing homosexuals the same right.
If gays are turned away, the only way a Christian or Muslim guest house owner can lawfully stay in business is if he or she offers single bedrooms to all guests - straight or gay." (The Telegraph)

To start with, I don't think that hotels or guest houses are at all right to refuse their services to gay couples. But this is a really stupid idea. To say that you won't let a gay couple share a room is as bad to refuse to let a black couple do the same. It is bigotry. But for the government to say that "either you let gay couples share a room, or no-one" is just absurd.

Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney and a leading Church of England liberal, said:

"It is nonsense for the Government to allow any loopholes for religious homophobia... Bigotry is bigotry whether it's dressed up in the language of faith or not."

This is indeed true - bigotry is bigotry, whether or not based on religion. But I think the demand for what amounts to a sex ban is ridiculous, and taking government interfering to yet another level.

Note: I'm not supporting hotels who refuse to rent rooms to gay couples, but I don't think that it is the government's job to force them to do so or go out of business. Society can, and should, do that by avoiding such hotels and guest houses.

Source: The Telegraph