An ugly nation breeds ugly people. This is the conclusion of a new website that is just for beautiful people. I have not applied for understandable reasons, mainly years of abuse. Why bother getting rejected?

It seems that the British and Germans are remarkably ugly whereas the Brazilians, the Swedes and the Norwegians really rock. But, I do wonder how they achieve this success rate. The answer is subjective:

The 'elite dating site for beautiful people only', went live across the globe on 26 October this year. Over the past two weeks, the site has rejected nearly 1.8 million people from 190 countries.

From the total number of hopefuls, only 360,000 new members have been admitted - meaning five-out of-six applicants (83 per cent) have been turned away.

Sweden, Brazil and Norway are proving to be the most beautiful countries overall, with applicants from Germany and the UK among the least successful.

If it is based upon photos alone, well, photos can lie. There may be a bias in the application process or, pickled herring is better than fried mars bars and pigs knuckle with dumpling.

This does answer one question: why I have ventured abroad for such matters. I am trying to flee uglyville.

Another blow to the freedom of people to associate with each other as equality rules undermine the very boundaries of religious identity and practice. The Supreme Court rules on the admissions policy of an ancient Jewish educational foundation and concluded that a pupil was rejected on the grounds of ethnicity, not religion.

In an explosive decision, the court concluded that basing school admissions on a classic test of Judaism — whether one’s mother is Jewish — was by definition discriminatory. Whether the rationale was “benign or malignant, theological or supremacist,” the court wrote, “makes it no less and no more unlawful.”

The case rested on whether the school’s test of Jewishness was based on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity, which would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it concerned the status of M’s mother rather than whether M considered himself Jewish and practiced Judaism.

“The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act,” the court said. It added that while it was fair that Jewish schools should give preference to Jewish children, the admissions criteria must depend not on family ties, but “on faith, however defined.”

I am still not clear how conversion to judaism, a religious act, can be viewed as a testament to ethnicity. But, this gives an insight into how pernicious a discriminatory law is when it trespasses on belief and its organisation. What should be private is rendered a matter of law, not of Jewish practice. Even worse is the sense of arbitrary contradiction: undermining religious belief due its peculiar mixture of people and practice whereas other systems of belief are given free rein to apply civil laws, even though they are discriminatory in gender terms.

Is this not anti-semitic in a rational sense? A law that discriminates against Judaism as its specific traits do not fit well within the universals of equality as set out under New Labour. This is not anti-semitic in a traditional sense but rather in this ironical setting. The universal principles governing equality legislation cannot encompass historical traditions or blurred categories and end up, paradoxically, discriminating against such anomalies. Reversion to liberty is the sole lesson of Britain's first anti-semitic government.

A search on google indicates that “augmented reality” is shooting up the polls for mainstream usage. A good indicator is marketing hype such as the December's Esquire Magazine, now glossily augmented in reality. The best definition currently around is:

Augmented reality is basically combining meatspace with cyberspace, flesh with flash and skin with SIM.   By combining the technology in your phone with the connectivity of your network, augmented reality takes real life and imposes data over the top.  You never need to be disappointed with real life ever again.

It is now considered to be the major trend transforming the mobile phone industry and providing a new profit stream. This is the latest in a long series of potential breakthroughs for the communications industry. As an add-on, augmented reality was driven by civilian spin-offs of the defence industry and has now acquired momentum.

Is this not just the long-awaited innovative wave of wearables, anticipated decades ago, though a mobile phone platform is not as intrusive as the radical potential of this disruption portends.

The Guardian article on the manoevrings behind the positions opened up by the Lisbon treaty is a subject close to its heart. The lobbying and the talks between both major parties show the political class in normal mode.

European Social Democrats claim they are entitled to install one of their own in the post, under a carve-up that would see a Christian Democrat appointed president of the European Council, the first sitting president in charge of EU summits, the job that Tony Blair is pushing for.

Emphasis upon the word, “carve-up” as politicians extend their sense of entitlement between expenses and power.

The dithering of Miliband does not interest me and I find the front-runner for the position of the Presidency is one Herman van Rompuy. As Jacques Poos told us long ago, Europe has, of course, arrived.....

The Daily Mail catches up with the death of privacy, the transparent society and a dystopia based on the database state.

It is a Britain, indeed a world, where the private individual has ceased to exist, and one in which an unholy alliance of the state and Mammon rules our lives with powers that would have made Stalin sick with envy.

This dystopian nightmare is a distinct possibility thanks to what is probably the most significant invention of the 20th century - the internet.

That must be extraordinary rhetoric, even by tabloid standards: channelling No2ID as a horror story. Yet, however exaggerated, it brings the problems to the table and gives people food for thought.

Of course, the very existence of this channel will reinforce the Left in their authoritarian ways.

The announcement of a hotel in space is a triumph of hype. Why else would one announce such a strong concept when delivery systems are primitive and state financed. Especially with an unrealistic deadline of 2012.

The industry for commercial spaceflight may be nearing critical mass. There is strong media attention and private investment. We have still not had a paid commercial flight.

Fingers crossed but I suspect 'breakout' is still a few years away. This could be heartbreak hotel for private investors.

One area where we have not seen Labour trying to spite a potential Tory government is in defence procurement. This would involve wrenching long-term ties on European collaboration. The energy of the MOD is focused on avoiding the constraints in defence spending by bringing favoured projects forward.

This includes their Istar (intelligence surveillance target acquisition and reconnaissance) UAV, an endurance vehicle with an armed platform. The MOD is bringing the project forward to early 2010, a sure sign of what the civil servants feel they cannot give up. 

When a government debates the measures needed to solve a 'problem' exacerbated by its own possibilities, my ears prick up. The 'problem' that Labour bangs the drum on is social inequality, though this was never promoted when they were in “kiss the rich” mode. They have switched to “eat the rich” by debating radical reforms of the tax system that they distorted for their political benefit.

The debate around social justice and tacking inequality is taken at face value in the Grauniad article. Yet the answers given pile an oppressive burden on Labour's poll ratings: more council tax, capital gains tax on houses, a wealth tax. This is electoral suicide, raising taxes at a time of economic depression and penalising the swing voters on which your small chance of recovery rests.

The article hints that the measures undertaken are designed to outflank the Tories by depending upon the 'politics of envy'. This will require some high thresholds on the measures given. Otherwise, the middle class will be affected. This has been a staple of Labour's strategy over the last year.

Another has been catching up with the populist measures of Osborne. Now that he has stated no salaries above the Prime Minister's will be allowed without Treasury approval (his contribution to the localist agenda), Harman is considering more transparency and control. The policies may differ but both Conservatives and Labour are tying down high public sector salaries.

As this government peters out, the withdrawal of Cameron from his radical agenda is highlighting some convergence in both parties as they seek to draw support from disaffected former voters. Why do they deserve a vote?

The Guardian has already rounded up the reaction of European governments to a British government that thinks the unthinkable and tries to achieve subsidiarity (in their terms). Repatriation will become a long-running sore for any Tory government as they face political elites who connived at and conspired with our governing party to disenfranchise the British people.

The more opposition the better. Let us hope they isolate Britain in Europe and avoid engaging with the settled wishes of a democratically elected government. That will force the issue sooner rather than later.

Although Cameron was shaken by the resignations of Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan, these took place to preserve a space for principled dissent. As Hannan wrote, he wished to commence campaigning for the libertarian programme that has only been taken up in part by the Tory elite.

The Tory leader has given himself a parliamentary term to negotiate the repatriation of powers from the European Union. However, as the French reaction of “autistic” shows, the chances of repatriation of powers are low. Cameron's efforts will be concentrated upon the economic disaster and Europe has been deemed a lower priority and that has been accepted by the Eurosceptic party. (The notion that the Tory party is divided is laughable).

Do you give Cameron the benefit of the doubt? Only if you feel any stake in our political system. His current stance has resulted in the further disenfranchisement of those who dissent from the mainstream approach to Europe.