The worst student cookbook

Before I came to university I was given a book called “The Ultimate Student Cookbook” by Fiona Beckett, which is a book that aims to provide realistic recipes for students to cook. Here is a picture of me with that book for a face:

If only this was my real face. It would be so useful.

If you look at that front cover there you would be forgiven for thinking that it does actually provide simple and easy recipes for students to cook. I mean out of onions, flour, eggs and pasta even an idiot like me knows how to cook three of those things (which is a pretty high ratio in comparison to most pictures of food that I generally see). However the front cover of this book is an absolute lie. Here are just three of the ridiculous dishes that they genuinely believe an incompetent student like myself is able to cook:

• Irish soda bread.
• A red onion, chicory and gorgonzola tart.
• Unami salmon, which includes ingredients such as demerara sugar, fennel seed, cayenne pepper and nam pla (which is some sort of thai fish sauce apparently).

Out of all those words I just used I think I understood less than half of them. How many students have nam pla in their cupboards? But this is not my main reason for hating the book. No, it would be ridiculous of me to hate a thing based on it not fulfilling its one and only simple function. The real reason why I hate this book is because of the smug and irritating former students they have to put in their expert advice (as both students and cooks, you'd think they would be qualified to do so; but they aren't). My least favourite of all these students is a man called James. First of all I obviously hate James because he cooks. Who likes cooking? Nobody likes cooking; get some hobbies or dedicate your life to something more worthwhile (like having a less smug face). The second reason why I hate James is because of this stupid thing he calls a "Top Student Tip." You don't need to try and read this photo, I just thought I would give you a picture of his stupid face:

So blurry and smug.

So he's talking about ways to avoid hangovers and then right at the end he says “One method I tried, and it was effective, if hard to maintain, is to drink the same volume in water every time you get a drink. Pint of cider? Pint of water too, please. It really pulls the birds as well. They love it."

Let me just repeat that last bit for you: "It really pulls the birds as well. They love it."

Do they James? Do they really love it?

First of all; birds? Who says "birds?" Yeah birds. Wahey birds. Top birds. Wahey birds. Tits wahey birds. Tits birds. Tits football birds. Wahey nuts football birds. Tits football wahey beer football birds. Football birds tits nuts beer geezer birds tits. Wahey tits birds geezer football beer nuts birds tits lads football. Birds lads football top geezer beer tits birds. Football birds tits beer lads geezer nuts lads bird tits birds.

Secondly, I may not be very good with women, but I have seen at least two films in my life and I am therefore under the impression that girls are meant to like bad boys. But according to James' logic, what attracts girls is not bad boys, but boys that regulate their blood alcohol levels through a sensible hydration system. The only way in which I can see a woman being aroused by a man buying a pint of water with every pint of beer or cider is if he was trying to chat up a woman working for the Drink Responsibly advisory committee. If you saw her sitting among her friends, all of whom have an alcoholic beverage and a glass of tap water in front of them, then maybe you could seduce them using pick up lines centred around James' very sensible hydration system. I imagine in that instance it would work incredibly well actually. They'd see you coming over and she'd start whispering to her friends “oh my god, is he... keeping hydrated by purchasing an equal measure of water with every alcoholic beverage? I've never been so turned on in my life. We could probably have sex in the morning too we'd be feeling so fresh and clear-headed. Of course we would have to go to the bathroom first and urinate for about 10 minutes each, having essentially just drank a bath-tub full of liquid.”

But unless you can find such women, buying water with every beer would just be a hindrance. I mean instead of calling it “The Ultimate Student Cookbook” they should probably call it “The Ultimate Student COCKBLOCK” (pun intended). And it wouldn't just hinder you when trying to pick up birds (birds! Tits! Football!), it would also just be a nuisance to carry around two pints full of liquid around with you. What if you had to catch something? What if somebody threw you a packet of crisps or some fruit? What if you were standing there, pint in each hand, and somebody said “here catch this” without looking and threw a tennis ball at you? It would either hit you in the face, which would of course be irritating, or you would have to dodge out of the way while probably spilling some of the two pints of liquid that you are carrying around.

You may have noticed that I am not persuaded by James' argument that a pint of water with every beer is like some sort of watery woman magnet; I am still of the opinion that women like bad boys.

Speaking of which, ladies, I'll have you know I can drink at least three pints of beer before needing a glass of water. Don't act like you're not impressed.

Training a dog isn't mission impossible

I didn't watch this year's Britain's Got Talent, but nonetheless it still managed to annoy me. This is because the competition wasn't won by one of the 60 million or so human beings currently living in the United Kingdom, but by a small dog named Pudsey (WHICH IS A BEAR'S NAME. STUPID BITCH). When this dog isn't busy eating it's own shit it is miraculously able to climb on things with a ludicrously dressed woman to the sound of the Mission Impossible theme song. That's right, it was able to climb on top of things, in the manner in which it's trainer desired. It's talent is basically obedience.

First of all I have a problem with obedience being a classified as a talent; mainly because it isn't a talent. Obedience takes no skill whatsoever. I could be obedient if there was such a person to be obedient to and a reason to be obedient for. If I was in the final of Britain's Got Talent and somebody told me to be really obedient for five minutes I think I could manage it. Of course I would have to hump someone's leg and shit somewhere really inappropriate first. But I could do it; it would be easy. In fact you could go as far as saying that blind obedience is more of an impairment than a talent. If you willingly subjugate yourself to the whims of random dog-trainers then you never know what could happen. They might make you take part in a ridiculous dance routine to the theme song of an average Tom Cruise film.

Do you know what would be a better talent? Disobedience. The ability to stand up for what you believe in; the ability to resist the oppressive grasps of teenage control freaks armed with dog treats and a dangerous lack of self-awareness; the ability to say no to badly dressed women and Simon Cowell's flat head.

I know a lot of people may say “but David, it's a dog. Have you ever tried to get a dog to climb on things?” And the answer is no. No I haven't. But I imagine if I tried for long enough, using techniques learned from dog-trainers more competent than myself then I might be able to succeed in getting him to climb on top of a step or a small footstool at the very least. Perhaps after a few weeks I could get him to climb on top of a desk or a large chair.

The thing is: dogs can be trained to do things that you don't expect ordinary dogs to be able to do. But the reason one doesn't expect such behaviour from ordinary dogs is because dogs are rubbish and lack the basic abilities that humans (or even most monkeys) can perform with ease.

But with enough training dogs can do mad things. We've seen that now. There have been many dog acts on television whereby dogs jump on things or walk on their hind legs (just like humans but worse!), and we just need to accept that they can be trained to do surprising things. So now that you have made that mental leap; now that you have managed to process that information; now that the realisation of the capabilities of dogs and their trainers has migrated from your short-term to your long-term memory, consider this: what is there left to be excited by in a dog act?

No matter how many things a dog climbs on or how many legs it manages to walk on, the simple fact of the matter is that they are still not as good as humans. They haven't developed language, they have made very few tangible scientific advancements and they are less acquainted with the arts than a Coventry bus driver (those public service providing philistines). They haven't even developed the most rudimentary of bodily waste disposal procedures, and instead they rely on humans (a more capable species) to pick up said waste for them. To suggest that a dog is not only equal to humans, but more talented than every single human being in the whole of the United Kingdom is ridiculous.

If a dog was successfully trained to sing like Pavarotti or play guitar like Hendrix, then I might start to be impressed. But such talents are reserved for a more advanced species. The lowering of expectations for dogs is a reflection of the uselessness of the animals. If I went on Britain's Got Talent, being a human male I expect the judges would want me to actually have a talent in order to progress through the competition. If I got down on all fours and crawled about to the Mission Impossible theme song people would think I was an idiot.  

So the next time you see a dog act on a talent show and you find it impressive, ask yourself: is it really impressive, or is it a small furry animal climbing on things and occasionally walking on the same amount of legs as a far more amazing species?

Videos of my face

Hello gang. I thought I would upload some of my recent videos in one post so that you can watch them all. If you enjoy them you should subscribe, although I probably am going to force them down your throat on this blog/twitter anyway. It's really important that you watch them from oldest to newest, as there is a finely woven narrative that runs throughout them (the NARRATIVE OF LIFE).

Here I explain my ethical and emotional issues with Bryan Adams' 80s pop classic, Summer of 79:

Here's an open letter to the rogue bread thief:

Here's me putting my GCSE in Fine Art to good use in an instructional arts and crafts video about drawing pirates:

Just how much can you learn about the economy from the price of Freddos?

Here's me talking about apples and other fruit:

And here's my very first vlog:

In case you hadn't realised, you were meant to start at the bottom of this post and watch upwards. If you haven't done that I'm afraid you've ruined the experience, and you will never get that chance back again. To be honest if you've managed to get through all of the videos without getting bored or distracted by a plastic bag or something, then I'm flattered.