#13 Eyebrow-Less Men With No Hair ©

About a month ago, my friend Token Science Nerd announced that he would be ridding his scalp of hair and his face of eyebrows to protest against the University's controversial Life Sciences merger.

Unwilling to accept the fact that TSN would take such a drastic measure, and unsure as to why in the name of Richard Dawkins anyone would mutilate their looks in such a manner, I laughed. I dismissed the idea and forgot about it.

That is, until one fateful April morning, two weeks ago, when I received a text from my other friend (I have lots of friends, yes) Miss Smiley Face:

"Oh my god. TSN has just shaved off all his hair and eyebrows. It's all over Facebook."

I was stunned. Although I had known that it was in TSN's capacity to do something so frightful, I hadn't actually thought that he would GO AHEAD AND DO IT. I mean, shaving your hair off, I understand. Britney did it, so it's cool.





But SHAVING OFF YOUR EYEBROWS?

WHY WHY WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT ???

There has been quite a hype around TSN at Uni. Well yeah, it's not everyday you see an integrally hairless blob walking around campus.

Intrigued, I therefore decided to investigate the reason and circumstances of his sacrificial deed. Why DID TSN rid his head of hair?

Caffeine Bubbles: So, Token Science Nerd, where has all your hair gone?!

Token Science Nerd: I shaved it all off, I'm afraid.

CB: But... but... Why?

TSN: In protest of the merger between the Department of Biological Sciences with the Horticultural Research Institute. The merger is a justifiable attempt at cost-saving which goes way too far, conducted in a destructive manner that exaccerbates the inevitable problems you get when you drive off a large number of staff.

CB: Why is it destructive?

TSN: The University has threatened to outright sack over 30 staff in the Biology Department and HRI. The undergrads aren't going to realise what's going on until it's too late, so I felt the need to attempt to get them involved, while also demonstrating the folly of cutting too much and expecting nobody to notice the difference.

CB: Wow, that's a cleverly symbolic gesture. So what actions has the uni taken so far? Has anyone actually been sacked yet?

TSN: In the week before the third term started, all the staff got told whether they were safe, or 'at risk'. Those 'at risk' have a choice between leaving voluntarily, or fighting for their jobs. If they fail, they will be sacked. Over 30 are 'at risk', around 1/3 of the current staff across the two departments.

CB: How would Life Sciences undergrads be affected by that measure?

TSN: Staff in the department still have to conduct research, run the place, support all the current and incoming research students, and teach the modules they have advertised. The more people we lose, the fewer people there will be to share that burden. Furthermore, everyone is having to do more teaching even if they have no experience. We can predict a general reduction in teaching quality at least over the next two years.

CB: So basically you're saying that Life Sciences undergrads will suffer from a lack of teaching personnel and a degradation of teaching quality. That's quite uncool. Tell me, what were you hoping to achieve by shaving off your hair and eyebrows ?

TSN: Shock people into reading up on it! I don't think anyone can doubt how sincere our concerns are. I hope they will become more supportive of the staff, and more criticial of the situation. I want people to get to know their rights as students here, and find out how they can sort out the problems we are predicting.

CB: What kinds of reactions have you been getting from students and staff?

TSN: Shock, amusement and support. A lot of people, even those who think it's a bit silly, seem impressed. I think we are achieving our aims of getting people more interested.

CB: What's the funniest thing someone's said to you about your new look??

TSN: I found it amusing that everyone in the Union has said I look like Tommo [Ed: epic former Student Union President... no hair or eyebrows] ... except for one person who said I looked like a more handsome Tommo.

CB: HAHAHAHA. Who said that?

TSN: Hehe, never you mind.

CB: FINE. So do you miss your hair and eyebrows?

TSN: I miss my eyebrows. Part of the point I wanted to make was that if you take away too much, you lose the character of what you started with. I think I made that point with the eyebrows. The character of the two departments is being obliterated, and it seems unlikely that we will have anything worthy of Warwick when the merger is finalised.

CB: Any regrets?

TSN: Worth it.

CB: By the way, please don't be offended if I happen to compare you to Uncle Fester in my article.

TSN: Haha, that's a new one, it really is. I've mostly been getting "skinhead", "slaphead", "cancer patient", "war criminal"... "Tommo"...

I've always thought that wanting to look like Uncle Fester from the Addams Family is really rather crazy (well, OK, I'd never really thought about it until TSN's stunt).

But after my informative chat with TSN, I realised that he did it not as a whim, but as a quasi-altruistic symbolic gesture to uphold students' rights to a good-quality education. Indeed, TSN is a young man who firmly believes in his convictions and is not scared to express his views in the most original (sometimes shocking) ways.

I guess all we can do now is wait for his eyebrows to grow back.

Which might take a while.

Copyright © Caffeine Bubbles, 4 May 2010, Warwickshire, UK

#12 Should the French curriculum include the study of religion? (original French version) ©

Here is the original French version of my essay on religious education in French secular schools, which you can read in English here.

L'école laïque républicaine doit-elle aujourd'hui assurer un enseignement des religions?

« Comment comprendre le 11 septembre 2001 sans remonter au wahhabisme, aux diverses filiations coraniques, et aux avatars du monothéisme ?, » c’est la question que pose le Professeur Régis Debray dans son rapport sur « L'enseignement du fait religieux dans l'Ecole laïque » réalisé en février 2002[1]. Effectivement, la religion, que nous le voulions ou pas, nous entoure, et est utilisée pour justifier la fin et les moyens de nombreux actes. Le fait religieux doit-il donc être enseigné dans les écoles laïques françaises ?

Il existe de nombreux arguments pour l’intégration de l’enseignement du fait religieux dans les établissements scolaires français. Premièrement, comme Debray le souligne dans son essai « Le "fait religieux" : définitions et problèmes »[2], la religion est omniprésente et nous aide à comprendre les civilisations du monde, le fondement de l’histoire de l’humanité, ainsi que nos motifs politiques. La religion ne peut donc être ignorée.

Deuxièmement, on a pu constater une amplification du débat sur la religion ces dernières années, disputé entre deux camps principaux : les religieux et les sceptiques. La polémique est illustrée par l’article « God vs. Science » (ndlr : « Dieu contre la Science ») de Dan Cray dans l’édition du magazine « Time » en novembre 2006[3]. Dan Cray, dans son article, nous rappelle l’importance croissante des points de vue créationniste et darwinien dans le débat, et que la légitimité des religions est de plus en plus questionnée face aux avancements de la science et de la technologie. Nous pouvons aussi observer un essor dans la pratique religieuse, notamment de l’Islam en France[4]. L’importance du débat souligne l’emprise de la religion sur notre société. L’enseignement théologique dans l’école laïque devient donc nécessaire. Afin de pouvoir se former une opinion ou une croyance, ne faudrait-il pas d’abord s’être informé sur tous les angles? Avant de se proclamer chrétien, ne faudrait-il pas avoir au moins lu la Bible ? Avant de se dire athée ou agnostique, ne faudrait-il pas avoir étudié la théologie ou du moins avoir réfléchi aux origines et à l’existence de l’univers ? A moins qu'une politique d’indifférence face à « la grande question » soit prônée, l’enseignement neutre et aconfessionnel du fait religieux est nécessaire.

Cependant, bien qu'il y ait de nombreux raisonnements en faveur de l’enseignement du fait religieux, il existe aussi plusieurs arguments contre. Premièrement, certains affirment qu’une éducation laïque vise une absence totale du fait religieux dans un établissement. Quand bien même il serait objectif et de nature purement anthropologique et historique, l’enseignement de la religion n’aurait pas sa place à l’école. En effet, elle devrait être enseignée au catéchisme, à la synagogue, dans une mosquée. L’absence du fait religieux à l’école renforcerait donc l’idée de pluralisme et de laïcité de la République française.

Deuxièmement, l’enseignement du fait religieux pourrait influencer les croyances (ou manque de croyance) des élèves. De plus, certains déclarent qu’une objectivité complète face aux différentes religions pourrait offenser les élèves pratiquants, quelques solides que soient leurs croyances, car elle prêterait moins d’importance à leur(s) Dieu(x). Pourtant, s’ils se disent réellement religieux, ces individus ne devraient-ils pas être sereins face aux explications anthropologiques, sociologiques et scientifiques de leurs croyances ? D’autres ajoutent que cela pourrait même engendrer une indifférence face à Dieu chez certains. C’est possible, mais n’est-ce pas un ‘risque’ à prendre dans un monde en constante évolution, où les idéologies et croyances abondent, tellement que nous pouvons chacun changer d’avis à tout instant ?

Nous pouvons donc constater deux camps dans le débat sur l’enseignement du fait religieux dans l’école laïque républicaine. Il y a ceux qui s’y opposent : ils déclarent que la religion n’a pas sa place à l’école car son enseignement peut offenser et que ce genre d’enseignement peut être trouvé en dehors de l’école (encore qu'il soit difficile de trouver un établissement qui enseigne la théologie d’un point de vue anthropologique, sociologique, historique et scientifique pour les écoliers, collégiens et lycéens…). Puis il y a ceux qui y sont favorables : la religion est une partie intégrante de notre société depuis des millénaires ; loin de l’ignorer, nous devons l’assumer. De plus, afin d’adopter une opinion fondée, il faut s’informer et « être éclairé »[5]. Assurément, nous devons accepter que l’éducation religieuse devient importante dans le monde où nous vivons, sans qu'elle devienne subjective. Les polémiques grandissent, ainsi que les conflits au nom de la religion. Pour pouvoir vivre et comprendre ce monde où nous vivons, nous devons comprendre la religion et la science, et rejeter l’ignorance. Pourquoi la religion devrait-elle donc être taboue ? Richard Dawkins, biologiste revendicateur de la logique et de l’athéisme, se pose la question dans son ouvrage « Pour en finir avec Dieu »[6] qui fait rage. La plupart des gens répondront du tac au tac qu’il faut éviter tout conflit. Mais admettons-le, ces personnes n’ont pas vraiment réfléchi à la question. Car la réponse est simple : l’être humain a peur de toute vérité qui n’est pas la sienne.

[1] Régis Debray, Rapport à Monsieur le Ministre de l’Education Nationale « L’Enseignement du fait religieux dans l’Ecole laïque », http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/BRP/024000544/0000.pdf, février 2002

[2] Régis Debray, Publications : Actes des séminaires et universités d’été - Le « fait religieux » : définitions et problèmes », http://eduscol.education.fr/cid46334/le-fait-religieux-%A0-definitions-et-problemes.html, novembre 2002

[3] Dan Cray, God vs. Science, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html, novembre 2006

[4] Frédéric Chambon, Le repli communautaire des quartiers, vingt ans après la mobilisation pour l'intégration, http://www.lemonde.fr/old-societe/article/2003/02/11/le-repli-communautaire-des-quartiers-vingt-ans-apres-la-mobilisation-pour-l-integration_308815_3226.html, février 2003

[5] Régis Debray, Publications : Actes des séminaires et universités d’été - Le « fait religieux » : définitions et problèmes », http://eduscol.education.fr/cid46334/le-fait-religieux-%A0-definitions-et-problemes.html, novembre 2002

[6] Richard Dawkins, Pour en finir avec Dieu, Ed. Robert Laffont, mars 2008

Copyright © Caffeine Bubbles, 11 March 2010, Warwickshire, UK

# 11 Should the French curriculum include the study of religion? ©

It's been a while since I last wrote anything. Here, I mean. Because I write prolifically. Incomprehensible gibberish most of the time. Except for the occasional golden nugget here and there.

ANYWAY.

Believe it or not, being a student, I have been busy. With work.

I KNOW, RIGHT? Student + work = huh ?

But that is not the issue at hand. Far from it.

I have written a paper in French on the question of religious education in the French school curriculum. You may be aware (or not) that secularism is actually a pretty big deal in France.

And now Ladies and Gentlemen, for your enjoyment, a translation of my paper into English (the original French version will be published in the next post):

Should the French curriculum include the study of religion?

"How can we understand the attacks of 9/11 without a knowledge of wahhabism, of the various Islamic denominations, and of monotheist avatars?,” asks Professor Régis Debray of the Université de Lyon III in his 2002 report to the French Ministry of Education on religious education in secular schools (Rapport sur « L’Enseignement du fait religieux dans l’Ecole laïque », February 2002). Indeed, religion, whether we like it or not, is all around us and is used to justify the ends and means of many actions. So should fait religieux therefore be taught in French secular schools?

There are many arguments in favour of the integration of religious education in the French school curriculum. Firstly, as Debray points out (Publications : Actes des séminaires et universités d’été - Le « fait religieux » : définitions et problèmes », November 2002), religion is omnipresent and supports our understanding of civilization, the foundations of human history, as well as our political motives. Religion therefore cannot be evaded, because to evade it would be to embrace ignorance and live in denial.

Secondly, recent years have seen the amplification of the debate on religion between two main groups: those who are religious and those who are sceptical. The polemic is illustrated by Dan Cray’s article

God vs. Science

(Time Magazine, November 2006). In his article, Cray reminds us of the intensification of the case for Creationism and the case for Darwinism in the debate, and that religious legitimacy is now increasingly questionable in the face of technological and scientific advancements. Just as the case for the vindication of Science grows, there has recently been an escalation in religious practice, notably of Islam in France (Frédéric Chambon, Le repli communautaire des quartiers, vingt ans après la mobilisation pour l'intégration, February 2003).

University is also the stage of a rise in theological disputations, namely between Christian Unions and Atheist-Agnostic societies in the UK. The significance of the debate underlines the hold of religion on our society. Thus the teaching of theology in secular schools is becoming necessary. Admittedly, in order to shape an opinion or a belief, shouldn’t one question and inspect every possible aspect? Before claiming to be a Christian, shouldn’t one have read the Bible, allegedly the Word of God, in its entirety at least once? Before claiming to be atheist or agnostic, shouldn’t one cogitate about theology or at least reflect on the origins and the existence of the universe? Unless we want to advocate indifference vis-à-vis the Big Question, an objective study of religion is essential at school.

On the other hand, there are those who stand against religious education in French secular schools. Firstly, some claim that a secular education aims at a complete lack of religion in schools, and that religious education, albeit purely anthropological, historical and sociological, does not have a place there. As a matter of fact, these people add that religious education should only be found at Sunday school, at the synagogue or at the mosque. Furthermore, they affirm that religious education would shake the foundations of pluralism and secularism of the French Republic. But surely, teaching the history of mankind and its various faiths and civilisations would only uphold the notion of pluralism? Moreover, isn’t secularism a movement toward the acceptance and tolerance of all faiths, ethnic groups and all beliefs?

Secondly, the case against religious education maintains that such an academic subject would influence and alter pupils’ faiths (or lack thereof). Additionally, some declare that a completely objective approach to various beliefs could offend some religious pupils as it would devalue their god(s). Yet, if these individuals claim to be true believers, shouldn’t they be untroubled in the face of anthropological, sociological and scientific explanations of their faiths? Others throw in that they could end up atheist or agnostic at the end of the day, which, of course, would be horrendously apocalyptic. That is always a possibility, but isn’t it a ‘risk’ to be taken in a world in constant evolution, where different ideologies and beliefs abound, so much so that we could each change our mind at any moment?

And so the debate on religious education in French state schools rages on, and is disputed by two main teams. There are those who are against: they insist that religion does not have a place at school but solely in other institutions (although it is difficult to find academies which take an objective approach in teaching all faiths to primary and secondary school pupils… and I'm not entirely convinced that a twelve year-old pupil would venture into a mosque of their own accord to hear about the sociological significance of Hallah).

Then there are those who are in favour of religious education: religion has been an integral part of our society for millennia; far from ignoring its study and the debates over it, we must welcome them. Besides, in order to adopt a solid opinion, one must be informed and éclairé, as Debray says (Publications : Actes des séminaires et universités d’été - Le « fait religieux » : définitions et problèmes », November 2002). The polemics are developing, and so are the conflicts caused in the name of deities. With a view to understand and live in this world, we must first understand religion and Science, and reject ignorance. So why should religion be considered a taboo? That is the question that Richard Dawkins, the world-famous evolutionary biologist and proponent of logic and reason, asks in his controversial book The God Delusion (Bantam Press, 2006). Most people will be quick to answer that it is because we must avoid altercations. But let’s face it, these people haven’t really thought about it. Because the answer is simple: humans are scared of a truth that is different from their own.

Copyright © Caffeine Bubbles, 10 March 2010, Warwickshire, UK

#10 This Is Bad. ©

This is bad. REALLY bad.

Almost as bad as when Darth Vador falls to his knees screaming "NOOOOO!" at the end of "Revenge of the Sith" when he finds out Padmé is dead.



(Babies are gross.)

Actually no, that was a terrible example. I should've picked the scene in which Anakin Skywalker has all his hair burnt off after turning all evil, making him look seriously unattractive in a Captain-Picard-from-Star-Trek kind of way.



Except worse. Picard is a bad example. Not that I find him attractive.

No. Seriously. I don't.

I do not have a crush on Captain Picard from Star Trek if that's what you're thinking.

Why are you all looking at me funny?

Stop that.

WHY ARE YOU ALL LOOKING AT ME FUNNY????? HUH???? HUH?????? ARRRGGGHHHH!

(must remember to take medicated pills after this.)

(Joke.)

So, going back to our hairless Anakin Skywalker.

Wo. I just typed "bald and famous" in Google Images and this also came up:


Uncle Fester from the Addams Family


And this:


Britney Spears Looking Like An Angry Pooch

I think I prefer that one. Makes a more viable comparison with Anakin. Also because it was the most unflattering picture of her I could find on the page. Sorry, Brit.

But I'VE DIGRESSED.

Why was I showing you pictures of famous bald people in the first place????

Ah yes. Because I was comparing Anakin Skywalker to ugly/famous bald people, because I was going to use the bald Anakin Skywalker analogy to refer to the REALLY BAD THING I am going to tell you about.

So.

Yes.

This is bad.

So bad it makes me want to cry.

Almost as bad as when Bambi's mum dies.

That was a depressing scene. Talk about child trauma. For all we know we might have homicidal psychos walking the earth due to Disney's "Bambi".

Like Patrick Bateman. (Remember?)

Detective: "Why did you murder Paul Allen?"

Patrick Bateman: "Because Bambi's mum died."

Did Bambi even exist in the 1980s? I don't know.

And why is Bambi even called Bambi? That's a stupid name. Why didn't Disney opt for something a bit less silly?

Like Ernie.

Or Herbert.

Herbert sounds cool.


I used to think Bambi was a girl. They really don't make it clear in the film that he's not. Think about it.

But once again I have digressed.

So.

That REALLY bad thing.

It's terrible. It's absolutely awful.

I even think we should have two minutes' silence considering the gravity of the situation.

So. I will say it.

No, I CAN'T!

It's almost as bad as the Jelly Baby Crisis.

OK. Fine, if you insist.

The really bad thing is that ...

...

... I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE ABOUT.

I weep to think of this situation. It is horrendously horrendous. (redundant polyptotons are awesome)

I shall sleep on it. And I will let you know. Soon. Maybe.

If you have any suggestions, do let me know.

(although actually, I've already thought of several topics for the next posts. Just felt like wasting precious minutes of your life. MWAHAHA. I am EE-VILLE. So yes. Suggestions.)

Copyright © Caffeine Bubbles, 25 Feb 2010, Warwickshire, UK

#9 Top Five Reasons For Which Twilight Rocks ©

I know what you're thinking:

"NO! Damn you, Caffeine Bubbles! My head has been filled with enough images of that overly-mediatised moody greasy-haired dude, sounds of screeching acne-ridden teenage fans who refer to themselves as Twihards, and stupid vampire love stories to render me mentally obese! NO MORE TWILIGHT, PLEASE!"

But, dear Loyal Minion, I don't care.

Stephanie Meyer's "Twilight" saga is awesome. Indeed, Meyer has proven once and for all that she is a genius who should be revered for her marvelous skills as a writer.

Here are the top five reasons why:

#5 The Most Awesome Boyfriend To Walk The Face Of The Earth

Let's face it ladies (and gentlemen?), Edward Cullen is pretty much perfect.

(Except for the I've-been-sneaking-into-your-bedroom-every-night-for-the-past-three-months-to-stare-at-you-while-you-sleep thing. That's just creepy.)

• he's gorgeous
• he's gorgeous
• he's gorgeous
• he'll do anything for you (I wonder whether he'd stick his face in a pile of dog poo if I asked him to, just for the heck of it. Yeah, probably.)
• I can't really think of anything else.
• did I mention he's gorgeous?

Why, you may ask, does this make Twilight awesome?

Because it allows the aforementioned screeching teenage girls to escape this harsh world where human boys:

• don't wear white foundation (my theory is that Eddie Cullen maintains his chalky complexion with utmost care)
• actually have a life of their own
• and for this reason aren't at your beck and call.

#4 The Most Mediocre Use Of Narration

Meyer's story-stelling skills are not exceptional. In fact, in the Twilight books, they are rather mediocre.

Firstly, her use of grammar is oftentimes incorrect:

• "The room was familiar; it had been belonged to me since I was born." Twilight p9, ATOM
• "The birds were quiet, too, the drops increasing in frequency, so it must be raining above." Twilight p119, ATOM (should be, "it must have been raining above")

Secondly, the narrative is mind-numbingly dull. Take a look at the first paragraph of Twilight:

• "My mother drove me to the airport with the windows rolled down. It was seventy five degrees in Phoenix, the sky a perfect, cloudless blue. I was wearing my favorite shirt - sleeve-less, white eyelet lace; I was wearing it as a farewell gesture. My carry-on item was a parka." (incipit, Twilight, ATOM)

Sometimes I take the bus. I get on the bus. And I wait for ten minutes while the bus driver drives. Then I get off the bus. Then I walk. And then I get to class. And I listen. And then I go to lunch. There are lots of people at lunch. My carry-on item is a tray.

Yes. I know.

MY CARRY-ON ITEM IS A TRAY!!!!

But I digress.

Also, I'm pretty sure I never want to hear about Bella's cooking prowesses ever again (ie. descriptions of her putting something in the micro-wave, turning it on, and waiting. Every ten pages.)

Thirdly, a lot of the passages just don't make sense. Take this, for example:

• "We'd rolled the windows down -- the Suburban was a bit claustrophobic with nine people in it -- and I tried to absorb as much sunlight as possible." Twilight, p114, ATOM

Aww, how sweet. They roll the windows down to help the car feel better. Poor car, must be awful being claustrophobic.

Why, you may ask, does this make Twilight awesome?

Can't spell?

Can't use proper grammar?

Is your literary creativity limited?

Want lots of money?

What Twilight is saying:

If a bestselling author who can't write can get published, SO CAN YOU!

#3 The Most Masochistic Teenage Relationship Ever

Basically:

• Eddie wants to munch on Bella's throat. All the time.
• He's also a neurotic control-freak, not to mention a mentally unstable stalker
• Bella faints and hyperventilates every time he talks/moves/goes to the grocery/the loo
• She becomes completely emotionally/everything dependent on him and loses touch with humanity
• lots of murder attempts on Bella

Why, you may ask, does this make Twilight awesome?

Because everyone wants an emotionally abusive relationship. It's so romantic.

(Don't worry, I don't get it either)

#2 The Most Exciting Fictional Protagonist in the History of Literature

Bella Swan is the most exciting literary one-dimensional character.

Oh, wait, sorry. For some reason, I was confusing her with the main character of my new book "The Wall" which is exactly three sentences long:

"There was this wall. And yeah. The End."

So. Bella has zero personality, no aims in life, and judging by her array of fun daily activities (ie. wake up, brush teeth, school, avoid contact with fellow humans, come home, cook, homework, sleep), has no social life and is probably just plain boring.

She also has no distinct physical features; she's described as having "dark brown hair" and "pale skin". That's it. Zero nothing nada niet.

Bella's lack of qualities make her "completely non-descript, like a glass of milk or a plain piece of bread," affirms my friend Miss Smiley Face.

Why, you may ask, does this make Twilight awesome?

Because it is a brilliant marketing scheme.

Any Twihard can identify with Bella and project themselves in her empty bubble of nothingness. The lack of physical description also facilitates that projection.

Bella's clumsiness (probably her most apparent attribute) also means that teenage Twihards should feel less bad about their own insecurities and defects.

Thus the reader becomes the protagonist, and despite the fact she/he may be a total loser in real life, Twilight gives them hope that one day they could be cool.

How cruel, really.

And the NUMBER ONE reason for which Twilight rocks...

#1 My Professor Quoted Twilight In My Literature Lecture

Apparently, Edward Cullen is a byronic hero.

Yep. Fact.

The English Romanticism Professor says so, therefore it must be true.

If you don't know what a byronic hero is, Google it.

Why, you may ask, does this make Twilight awesome?

Twilight is a piece of literature awesome enough to be cited by erudite professors alongside great classical works at university lectures.

Copyright © Caffeine Bubbles, 22 Feb 2010, Warwickshire, UK

#8 Bitchy Article About Those Who Bitch ©

Sometimes, I feel the urge to make use of gruesome physical violence, similar to that demonstrated by Patrick Bateman in the infamous raincoat scene in "American Psycho".

Except without the raincoat and Huey Lewis music. (I'd probably go for a Burberry trench coat and some Massive Attack. Maybe. Wow, sometimes I scare myself.)

So where DO these murderous urges come from, you may ask?

Let me give you an example:

"Ohmigosh Kathy told me that Ed and Anna are back together which I think is so lame seeing as they only broke up like a week ago because of Ed's facial herpes and on top of that everyone knows he has like a major crush on Sally but she doesn't realise it so he's like so depressed and I think he's only going for Anna because of rebound but then again who knows, they might turn out to be the cutest couple at uni, though I doubt it looking at her awful skin tone, I mean you'd hardly classify her as cute would you, unless your standards had dropped to worshipping people like The Hulk, then I'd understand but then again she wouldn't be too unfortunate-looking if she wore a bit of foundation but ohmigosh I hear she can't even afford make-up at the moment because she went on this mega shopping spree last week and spent like all her student loan on a pair of Jimmy Choo boots from H&M's which are so gross-looking and it's so silly because they do nothing for her figure and like..."

If, while reading that, you experienced feelings of:

• annoyance
• boredom
• and told yourself that this person was pathetic and you wanted to place your fist on their nose at high velocity

you have just earned a brownie point.

(Be warned, this article bitches about those who bitch and gossip. There may be a chance that you will feel personally offended.)

Yeah. People who BITCH and GOSSIP. They are ANNOYING and BORING. Fact.

For three simple reasons:

• 1) I don't care
• 2) Yack yack yack yack
• 3) You are now 51st in my top 50 of cool people

The problem is, it appears that bitching and gossiping are an epidemic, especially among people who present the following symptoms:

• a semblance of having no life
• a desire to fill silences with incessant babble
• a high level of insecurity

Main side effects include a tendency to come across as:

• judgmental
• mean
• pathetic
• arrogant
• ANNOYING
• BORING

If you find yourself in the vicinity of an individual who bitches and gossips, try to avoid them as much as possible as they may be contagious and you could begin to experience violent urges to strangle them which will be a danger not only to them but also to... actually no, only to them.

(Warning: Only works if the person is so engrossed in what they're saying that they don't notice you creeping up behind them.)

Copyright © Caffeine Bubbles, 19 Feb 2010, Warwickshire, UK

#7 The Library, True Love & Testosterone ©

Yes, I know. I have not written a post since Sunday.

And yes, I also know that you have all missed me very much, and that your life has been meaningless without me. (Even if you haven't missed me, pretend you have. Boost my ego a bit.)

ANYWAY. How desperately you all love me is not the object of my article today.

Yesterday morning, as I glanced at a male friend's Facebook status (OK, fine. Yes, I was Facebook-stalking him. But everybody does that. The difference between everybody else and me is that I have the integrity and purity of heart to admit it), something tugged at my eyeball (I like creating gruesome-sounding metaphors):

"Mister Dude now knows where to find all the hot girls: in the library."

And underneath that status was a string of testosterone-filled comments such as "Boo ya" and "Damn right" and "Hot girls? I didn't know they existed at this uni", etc.

A question thus formed itself in my head: Is male activity in the library strictly limited to just checking out girls?

I was eager to find out, and therefore questioned several students.

"My guy flatmates sit in the library rating girls out of ten," affirmed my friend Miss Smiley Face, a second year Literature student. "They sit around for hours doing that. Sometimes they do it alone, sometimes in groups [ed: no innuendo intended by source]. They rarely, in fact they never, pluck up the courage to talk to them, though."

Mr Al, a third year engineering student, nonchalantly confirmed that claim: "Yeah, I just go to the library for my daily dose of female eye candy. The library truly is the place to oggle at fit girls." Hmm. Creepy.

But do female students in the library have the same benefits? I carried out my investigation.

"Nah, no hot guys there. Or they're very rare," sighed Miss Jo, a second year Accountancy student. "I just get a group of acne-ridden boys drooling in the vicinity. It can get very alarming and it sometimes even disrupts my study-time."

So is there really no hope for girls to find the love of their life in the campus library?

I interviewed my friend Token Science Nerd who was kind enough to enlighten me further.

"You won't make a match with a Science student there, we don't use it much," he stated.

That opinion came from the University's Science Faculty Forum, a meeting of undergraduate and postgraduate representatives from all the Science departments.

"The general consensus was that the library wasn't that useful to us, but the online stuff was," added Token Science Nerd. "Hence no chance to nab a sensitive young scientist [Ed: Aww ,no!]. We are the best [ed: good to know]."

Moreover, according to Token Science Nerd, "Nerds are the best boyfriends. True fact."

Intrigued, I asked him whether the male Science student population was the best-looking, to which he answered, "Well the Medical school use [the library] even less. And they are all fitties." Didn't quite answer my question but good to know nonetheless.

Yet despair and empathy for all the girls who hang out at the library began to fill my heart: Were we all really doomed to a life of spinsterness, smelly cats and knitting jumpers for charity? Were there absolutely no hot guys in the library?

"I'm sure there are, it's just that they wouldn't be scientists," said Token Science Nerd.

Oh. Ok.

So was he saying that anything other than scientists is no good?

"Nah, that's not true," avouched Token Science Nerd, "There are more nerds in Science but there are nerds elsewhere. Nerds are the best."

Oh yes? And why would nerds be the best?

"Because nerds are typically more romantic."

Fair enough.

So all is not lost, it seems.

Thus I was able to conclude my investigation with several verdicts:

• 1) Guys do not go to the library to study
• 2) Female students should probably arm themselves with pepper spray (especially near the Chaucer section)
• 3) Scientists are hot and awesome
• 4) Nerds make the best boyfriends
• 5) There are few hot guys in the library (claim to be confirmed, of course)

One question remains, however... Where do hot and awesome male Science students hang out then?

To be continued... (You might have to wait a while as chances are I can't be bothered to find out as I'll find something more interesting to write about but I might change my mind.)

Copyright © Caffeine Bubbles, 16 Feb 2010, Warwickshire, UK

#6 Glenn Beck: Paul Giamatti In A Blonde Wig ©

It is a glorious sunny Sunday today (Nb. My use of alliteration/polyptoton here is astounding) and I think to myself, "Gee, what a glorious sunny Sunday it is, today. Why don't I call some of my friends so that we can run about and be merry?" (Except without the "Gee" bit because that would be weird).

So I call my friends.

They are all pretty much busy.

Because you know what? It has slipped out of my brain and fallen to the ground in a giant pile of green snot that today... is Valentine's Day.



Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhh.

And yes, they are all with their respective boyfriends/girlfriends doing what couples do on Valentine's Day. Ugh.

No, I do not believe in the common conception of Valentine's Day (Do you even know who St Valentine was? Do you even know that there were several St Valentines? Do you even know that the said St Valentines were Roman martyrs? Do you even know that Feb 14th is not only a feast that celebrates those martyrs, but is also the anniversary of their burials? Huh? Huh????? Try eating those chocolates and sniffing those roses now.)

So fine, today I am friendless. I decide to make some music and do a bit of work, and talk to other friendless people who can't be bothered to move/see other humans today.

But even in my student house, the sickliness of Valentine's Day will not let me be.

Because there are couples in my house. And they are being chirpy and loud.

Fine! I play Test Icicles on full volume. (Click on the link. Look at the YouTube logo... It will not leave us, will it?).

But I am soon told to "turn it down".

Why should I, when they're being annoying and loud and sounding like really bad immitations of Tinky Winky?



"Because we would like some peace and quiet today."

Oh yeah? Why today? Has our house become a Valentine's Day Couple Dictatorship?

"No. But please?"

Fine. I turn the Test Icicles off and put on some Mazzy Star.

Now I have resorted to watching stupid Glenn Beck videos and eating GARLIC BREAD.

I can't believe that it has come to this. I am spending my Sunday with Paul Giamatti In A Blonde Wig (courtesy of Charlie Brooker) munching on stinky breath food.

Glenn Beck




Paul Giamatti In A Blonde Wig (Google Images has no decent photos of Paul Giamatti without glasses or a beard or a blonde wig. You might have to Google further or use your imagination a bit.)


DAMN YOU HALLMARK!

Several people have sent me angry messages about my first post, Valentine's Day and Those Stupid Teddy Bears. I KNOW Valentine's Day is based on a 5 million year-old Roman ritual of hitting women's breasts with bits of dead goats.

Regardless, Hallmark are responsible for making billions of people feel miserable on that one day of the year. Or maybe that one day of the year plus three hundred and sixty four other days. Poor sods.

Copyright © Caffeine Bubbles, 14 Feb 2010, Warwickshire, UK

#5 Jelly Babies: It's All Lies ©

Imagine you are a 3 year-old, and your parents have just told you that Santa Claus is in fact a drunk burglar with paedophilic inclinations.

Whatever feelings this mental simulation has brought on (ie. horror, shock, despair and suicidal thoughts. Although, hopefully, suicidal 3 year-olds are rare. And if the emotions I have mentioned did not occur to you, then you are a weirdo), that is what I am feeling right now.

Because I have just discovered something that should never have been discovered by any human being.

I have found out... that Jelly Babies are not in fact Jelly Babies.

No.

Jelly Babies are...

I don't think I can even speak/type it; the awful truth is just too shuddersome.

But I must.

So. Jelly Babies are... are... are...

Oh come on I can do this!!!!

JELLY BABIES ARE BALDING PREGNANT LADIES WITH GIGANTIC BREASTS AND FOOD POISONING.

...

I know.

It is despicable.

Proof in this photo (courtesy of me):



See ???????? SEE WHAT I SEE NOW ?????

I am sorry that your life has just been ruined by my glorious self/Haribo but that is the reality we must now face.



Who would've thought that the cuddly Winnie The Pooh-like creature on the front of the Haribo Kiddies' Supermix packet would LIE to us that way?



Evil, EVIL Haribo...

I SHALL GET YOU FOR THIS! One day.

Or maybe not. I'll just weep and eat some more Jelly Babies.

(I do realise that the last couple of posts have been slightly random in nature. That is to be expected as I am student and it is the end of the week, hence I am sleepy/hyperactive/whatever.)

Copyright © Caffeine Bubbles, 12 Feb 2010, Warwickshire, UK

#4 Pink. Sequined. Thongs. ©

I have received a couple of messages (Yeah, I know I'm already pretty popular) regarding my blog description:

"The joys and mainly irritations of a cynical uni student as she contemplates people, their stupid customs and pink sequined thongs with a mocking eye"

According to the authors of the messages, it SEEMS that I haven't written anything about pink sequined thongs yet.

That is because I haven't.

Therefore, since I am feeling unusually charitable tonight, I think that I will dedicate an entire post to...






RED sequined thongs !!!

MWAHAHA! Got you there didn't I? I am so mean. Now you will never hear about PINK sequined thongs. (Cue The Smiths' 'Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now')

Actually that thong isn't THAT sequin-y. And it's not even THAT red. Stupid thong. Ah well. That's the best Google Images has to offer at the moment it appears.

So. RED sequined thongs.

Errrm.

They are red.

And sequined.

And they ride up your bum.

Why anyone would wear RED SEQUINED THONGS is beyond me.

Except maybe if you have a job that requires wearing one. Then I'd understand.

I am tired. Good night.

Copyright © Caffeine Bubbles, 11 Feb 2010, Warwickshire, UK

#3 Student Binge-Drinking In The UK ©

The Americans have baseball; the French have football; the Australians have surfing.

In the UK, our pastime is to get completely trolleyed.



No, by "trolleyed", I do not mean racing down supermarket aisles at 200mph and knocking over that old lady by the Poultry section and then getting yelled at by the guy who wears the stupid hat and apron and who cuts up dead animals for £10 a kilo. (Although that is really fun. Racing down aisles, I mean. I did that in Tesco the other day. Good laugh. Not for the old lady though.)

Rare are the nights when, walking home from the campus library, I do not see hoards of girls in super-mini skirts puking on student notice boards, or groups of rowdy guys walking around like dogs on local anaesthetics, or students passing out as they're about to enter a cab home.

In recent years, binge-drinking has become a serious problem in the UK. I could copy-paste a bunch of official statistics and numbers that would support my thesis. But I don't need to. I'm a university student. I have seen... things. *shudder*



At university, the pressure is on to drink alcohol and get hammered several nights/days a week.

This pressure takes various forms (some more shocking than others):

• 1) Most society and club socials revolve around going to bars and getting smashed
• 2) BEFORE going on a night out, students get together in halls with one aim... to get drunk
• 3) The more shocking one: every week, the STUDENT UNION organises a night during which society and club members sit in circles to play drinking games. It starts at 6.30pm (let me tell you, by 7.30pm, it ain't pretty. Especially when your brand new leather boots are covered in someone else's regurgitated pasta bolognese) and is followed by a night of dance and mainly mayhem. AND THIS IS SUPPORTED BY THE UNIVERSITY'S STUDENT UNION!!! (Hence, shocking-ness)

I find this emphasis on binge-drinking completely ludicrous. For several reasons:

• 1) We're students. We're skint. Why spend more money on more booze and thus become more skint??
• 2) If you have to swallow depressants to lose all sense of reality and have a good time, then you are sad.
• 3) Hangovers
• 4) Boys, girls... let's face it. Blaming alcohol for the stupid things you do only means you can't really accept responsibility for your own stupidity.
• 5) Those stupid things. They can have life-changing consequences. Like babies. And babies are gross. Four things come out of babies: snot, puke, poo and pee. Eeeew. Just look at that:

BUT I digress.

• 6) Also, alcohol fries your brain cells and causes beer-bellies. Gross.

Personally, I'm not a heavy drinker (an overstatement.)

I like to remember what I did on a night out; I like to have fun with my friends; and I like NOT having to be carried home or having my hair held back in a puking incident.

Unlike what most people think, staying sober is cool.

Therefore I find it outrageous that, because everyone does it, and because it is even supported by the establishment, we, the future generations, are brainwashed into thinking that poisoning our livers is perfectly acceptable.

Well I've got news for you. Just because everyone else gets drunk does NOT make it OK.

Alcohol can be dangerous. After all, it's a drug.

Copyright © Caffeine Bubbles, 10 Feb 2010, Warwickshire, UK