Why You Should Focus On Gaining Understanding, Not Knowledge; Honesty, Not Truth

First, juxtapose the two concepts: knowledge; understanding. Chew on it for a bit. What's similar? How are they differentiated?

Here's a second bit of homework. Juxtapose truth and honesty.

...

Done yet? Don't continue unless you've given your best at distinguishing each set.

Alright, ready? Understanding subsumes knowledge (or makes of them anti-knowledge), and honesty subsumes truths (or renders them half). In other words, if you strive for honest understanding, knowledge and truth are just part of your dirty-face, ugly stepchildren (sometimes they're good, sometimes bad). Accounted for.

Why make a distinction? Simply, because knowledge and truth can be easily taken out of context and manipulated for gain; understanding and honesty cannot.

It's actually pretty simple. Let's take the former set, first. Let's do a trial setting.

"The" facts:

  1. John Doe killed 8 people.
  2. John Doe premeditated the killings.
  3. He devised a plan, executed it, and killed them.

The above is 100% truthful; meaning, no lie is being told—and this is precisely how the legal profession works to its own gain. If—given powers that be: political environment, public opinion, or how Fox News or CNN pundits judge ratings potential—this could be the only facts the jury sees, you have a certain conviction. If you think that's far fetched, look into the innocence project. Here's a purported truth: if you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about. But it's a dishonest statement.

In voire dire now, it's a clandestine fight between prosecution and defense to sneak in jurors who will be truthful in terms of what they're fed, but dishonest in terms of demanding full context and accounting (both sides want dishonest, malleable jurors in many cases). It's a fight to get "their best" past the judge...and perfunctory gift cards.

It's also a fight on the part of the prosecution to weed out anyone who won't follow the judge's instructions as to application of law (jury nullification). This is the game of criminal prosecution. It's a match over who can get the most loyal folks willing to look only at a given set of truths. Neither side wants honest jurors. They get them anyway, since we're still left with the human condition, and conscience is a crazy evolutionary adaptation that has caused lots of people to be ultimately unsatisfied with packages of truth handed down from professional predators. In other terms, the State is always in battle against evolved human conscience.

So, via a process of jurisprudence—some of which involves motions and objections to allow or exclude convenient or inconvenient truths (depending on the flow of tidewaters)—some defendants—often turning on skin pigment—don't get other truths admitted: such that dishonest people sitting on a jury can just do their jobs, civil duty, or whatever excuse they can muster for being dishonest and inhumane.

  1. The setting was WWI, 1945, Allied invasion of Germany.
  2. John Doe was a regular solder, found himself separated from the rest of his unit, who were pinned down in a ravine by German gunfire.
  3. John planned and executed, surreptitiously flanking those German gunmen, killing them from behind, saving his entire platoon.

It's just an object lesson and you could construct it in any way you like. In this case, everyone understands that John Doe is a hero in the context of the time (he was a WASP, too), not a premeditated murderer.

Hey, how about a bunch of SWAT raiding a house of colored people who like to grow herbs, smoke them, engage in trade for what they don't use themselves? Eh?

How about when a baby gets a shock genade in his crib?

None of that ever faces honest justice, either way. But there will be no lies told, either way.

...Knowledge is touted. Understanding is not.

Knowledge is to understanding what truth is to honesty. Or, knowledge is to truth what understanding is to honesty.

Think hard.

Update. Afterthought, but what if Richard is a friend of a Japanese philosopher who got only the Eastern way, but educated himself more widely? He knows Ayn Rand (with significant respect) more than you do. All the Greeks, too. He integrates; i.e., honest man.

We had a mutual friend that influenced both of us, now deceased.

“Reason has again become treason”

Wish I'd come up with that.

Does “The Land of the Free” Have Any Rational Meaning?

I once knew a man who was a deacon in the Catholic Church. During certain ceremonies, his job was to raise his hand in a gesture of blessing over a church member and say some Latin words. The problem was, this guy had become a fairly serious atheist. So, instead of the prescribed Latin blessing, he would say the Latin words for “can’t help you, can’t hurt you.” No one noticed, not even the priests.

I feel like I’m watching something similar when I see the beginning of a sporting event and hear thousands of people singing “the land of the free” as a benediction over themselves. They don’t assimilate the words that their mouths are forming; they may as well be singing Latin.

What I mean about not assimilating the words is this: People understand these words as a type of self-blessing or self-praise, but they never examine their actual meaning. “The land of the free” has become holy dogma—an uncritically accepted truth. To critique those words is to reveal yourself as a heretic.

So much for our progress from the Middle Ages. Reason has again become treason.

But if reason makes us heretics, let’s at least be explicit heretics.

Good Friday read for you, the rest here.

Bonus round: America: Land of the Whipped and Whimpering. That reminded me of about just a week ago, crossing the border in Tijuana by car. US Border Patrol Agent looks at our passports, asks a couple of routine questions (why Mexico, where, how long: "R&R, Rosarito, 2 nights"). He pauses, hands back the passports. Says nothing.

"Is that all?" I ask.

"Unless you want to hang out," but he says it in a kind of condescending tone.

Mark 1, Mod A intimidation for the fun of it. Just because he can, just because we're subjects in our own land and that needs constant reinforcement.

Your life, your terms. And nothing else matters.

TED Finally: Free The Animal. Species Agnosticism in Veterinarians

I'm not interested in very most of TED talks.

There's no point in explaining why. It's far easier to explain why I look at each quotidian announcement carefully, pick and choose. Here's one I watched just the other day and by coincidence, it came across right after I'd been on the road and heard the guy in an extensive NPR interview (way better than Faux News bites, about redundant political antagonism). To the South Pole and back — the hardest 105 days of my life. What I principally took away from that is that the traditional "expeditionary expedition"—with all it's people, animals, and supplies—can get you dead easier, because of many variables you could not have possibly accounted for.

...Kinda like proto-civilized humanity, that migrated to all corners of earth on a shoestring budget.

These two guys hauled their own two, 400b (initial weight) sledges across 1,800 miles round trip, and did it all alone, except for a resupply in the very last 50 miles—a non-lethal 3% error. A reserve tank of pemmican would have done the trick—or a few pounds of potatoes.

But so ironically, I find that my forever favorite blogger, the UK veterinarian Petro "Peter" Dobromylskyj, finally gets his just due. See, in spite of the recent antagonisms, I've always found Peter honest. But more importantly: species agnostic. I used to tell people a lot: consult with a veterinarian. They know more. Aside: he helped me extend Rotor's life.

What veterinarians know that doctors don't

I kinda have an urge to go off on religious fucktardism, responsible for the cute view that homo sapiens are a special race. Like this comment that came in on another post, that just requires no comment.

My investigation into the question of African Negro origins has led me to the conclusion that through a series of deleterious genetic mutations (most are), Negroes are a degenerate subspecies of the original White Aryans created by God in His own image.

You'd think it's a troll, but Earl has popped up in comments over the years and he doesn't abuse his dispensation. So, I leave up his comments for an example of how widely divergent are people's serious views. I take him seriously, but not so much to do anything but highlight. I don't blog about neo-nazis, and I'm very glad they have websites up. Get it?

It's a strange world out there. Recently, while driving through the Nevada high dessert from Vegas to Tonopah, my thoughts drifted to Art Bell's late night radio talk that kept you alert and awake whilst driving between 1-3 am. Always good for entertainment value.

Please do watch that video, and understand why I named the blog as I did.

FINAL Thoughts on Inuit and Non Ketosis

It's in the can. Thank doG (aka Duck).

It began with no goals, but a lot of posts later, I'd say that using the Inuit as a model for any sort of diet will be more than suspect. Too many non-sycophant, independent thinking people out there. They're the minority by far, but sycophants are merely...

baby birds feeding
Regurgitators

Having Peter at Hyperlipid take this up for debate was really more than we could have hoped for and arguably, the most ideal forum. You're the judge, as always, but I think we held our own, in comments. Me, Duck, Tim, Gemma, and a few others.

But at any point, one has to decide when enough is enough. So, barring some shocking revelation we've not already considered and/or addressed, it's now for you to decide exclusively. I'll leave you with something I wrote in the comments at Peter's.

I like to approach all this stuff the same way I've approached all my business dealings where there's real money on the line. It's not about being right, ever. It's about a continuous improvement process of being less wrong. I think that requires more critical thinking.

Moving into a new mode, we'll be continuing our series on hormesis.

Beyond that, I'm going to be focussing in on gut biome posts big time, as a lead up to The Book, coming out sometime end of January to end of February. Deal inked and finalized just this morning. And that's all I'll say about that before the lead up to the launch.

That is all.

CPT-1A – P479L Mutation in Inuit: Acknowledge It’s No Basis For A Ketogenic Diet; Recommend a “Ketogenic” Diet Anyway

Here's the backdrop. A post by Peter at Hyperlipid. And then, A Second Post. Many comments on both threads, including Dr. Mike Eades participating in the second one. TL;DR: from what I gather of Peter's posts: Inuit not in ketosis. It's just a high fat diet.

Let's look into this. First, Duck and I put together a series calling into question the very common practice of referring to the traditional Inuit population as clear, population-level justification for the long-term propriety of a ketogenic diet. Here's all 17 posts and about 1,500 total comments: Leaving The Inuit Behind: Hormesis For The Rest Of Us.

The series has been generally dismissed by everyone I'm aware of that advocates for a ketogenic diet—both imagined ones (too high of protein intake) and real ones (very high fat, low—"chocolate cake"-like—protein, near nil carbohydrate). If that series had been dismissed on the basis of what we actually wrote—and the 75+ years of studies cited—then it would be upon us to look into the objections (we'd be delighted, as we have been with those raising legitimate questions all along the way in comments). But when the vast number of dismissals I've seen are mere scoffing at the idea of "a carb-munching Inuit;" or, their "high-carb diet" (neither of which remotely represents what we wrote), then it's clear we're dealing with disingenuous and dishonest posturing (from some who may, or may not, have actually read any of what we published—but same dishonesty and disingenuousness, either way). A commenter on Peter's second post signals that the message got through to at least some.

All the FTA guys know the Inuit/glucose [via glycogen] consumption is a side issue anyway. The glucose discussion is to show how misinformed it appears we have been over the Inuits' diet in general . But the FTA guys know that the elephant in the room is what appears to be their high level of protein consumption. This has to be addressed.

...Here, we're talking about a specific gene mutation, CPT-1A, to be exact (P479L variant). Peter's first post was the first I learned of it. Thanks to Google, one can get a "degree" in a matter of hours. In a nutshell, this gene provides instructions to make a liver enzyme (carnitine palmitoyltransferase 1A) that attaches to certain fatty-acid chains, allowing them to enter the inner "combustion chamber" of mitochondria, where they're oxidized to produce energy.

From what I learned, Peter called it exactly right, on the surface.

From the evolutionary point of view we have here a mutation which is significantly lethal at well below reproductive age, so it should have been weeded out because affected individuals are less likely to live long enough to pass on the gene. But it has been highly positively selected for in several populations, the common factors being cold climate and minimal access to dietary carbohydrate. It's a paradox. [...]

LCFAs, unable to be metabolised, accumulate in the tissues as a storage disease. The advice is to avoid them as far as possible.

So the archetypical CPT-1a defect tolerant environment would seem to be a person sitting on a South Seas Island beach by a pile of coconuts chewing on a raw yam, with copious flatus night and day.

But it's not.

The CPT-1a defect evolved in multiple non related populations where both starch and MCT were very notable by their near-complete absence. It's an Arctic selected gene. No starches. No coconuts.

On the other hand, the mutation may be no big deal. Initially, Peter's [1st] post was greeted by the LC peanut gallery with fireworks and confetti, thinking that the extremely high prevalence of the CPT-1A gene somehow proved that the Eskimo could not eat any carbs and ate the equivalent of a high fat ketogenic diet. Unfortunately for the gullible LCs, modern Inuit eat large quantities of sugar without immediate fatalities.

Few LCs seemed to realize that what Peter actually showed is that the Inuit could not easily produce ketones—something the literature has been showing for over 75 years. In fact, CPT-1A presents as a kind of ketogenesis disorder where the individual cannot rely on ketones for energy—it becomes dangerous for them to fast for significant periods. This may explain why Eskimos were known to snack constantly on their native diet.

The key point being that the Inuit could not have been in ketosis because they have difficulty making ketones!

Some VLCers have now latched onto the idea that free fatty acids are more important for energy than ketones, and seem oblivious to the fact that Westerners naturally produce ketones on a high fat diet while the Inuit cannot.

...I have a quibble with Peter, though. To me, this is a Bell Curve-esque situation, at an extreme. In that context, it's difficult for me to say that it's "highly positively selected for," rather than, in the context of Planet Earth (a rotating-on-axis—on a tilt—orbiting spheroid with a single source of energy), a deleterious mutation that doesn't get SELECTED OUT, owing to a very unique environment, As The World Turns. Simply, for me: a unique and very obscure environment with a weird-ass diet that allows an otherwise nefarious gene to propagate where it would have otherwise been selected out, because: As The [Rest of] World Turns.

Let me give you an aside.

Ever heard of PKU: Phenylketonuria? Well, when I was a kid, the only thing I knew about it was that Protein Kills U. See, I had a cousin not far from my age with that PAH gene mutation. His mom was so very diligent about his diet, 50 years ago. It was, essentially, a vegan diet that saved his life and brain (oh, NO!). Here's what I recall growing up: Matt could never eat what we were all eating at any common family affair. I recall salads with tomato and cucumber, green beans, and fruits, mostly. When he was a teenager, he was over the hump and was able to eat normally. He's still alive, 50-something by now. Has kids and grandkids.

Fucking YEA science!

So let me ask you: is that condition in any way relevant to the question of whether a vegan diet is likely optimally healthful long term for most people? Is that gene "highly positively selected for" in vegan populations (hypothetically: if there were such a thing)? If you think, if it were the case, of course not, then in what way does that Inuit "paradox" let ketosis qua lifestyle off the hook—much less suggest it's the cat's meow?

Are epileptics evidence that ketosis at 85% fat and minimal protein something you ought must look into?

Sound ridiculous? It's intended to sound ridiculous. When I saw Peter's post, it was the first thing that came to my mind and no, I didn't jump up and say: SEE, the 'highly positively selected for' gene mutation responsible for PKU suggests that VEGAN DIETS MIGHT BE RIGHT FOR EVERYONE AND ANYONE WHO'S SAID DIFFERENTLY HAS NOW BEEN SCHOOLED!

The point of Duck's and my series was this, and this time, it's in order of emphasis:

  1. There is no shred of evidence leading to a rational conclusion that an Inuit-like diet is any justification for what our diet ought be (our = everyone). In fact, both of Peter's posts lend weight to our primary thesis. Now, another piece: owing to a very unique environment, dietary necessity allowed the propagation of a genetic mutation that might otherwise have killed itself off.
  2. They were not in ketosis in any way ever measured, yet had reasonable glucose regulation in a fed state (although critiqued by Rabinowitch & Smith, 1936). Peter's post gives insights but still, I've not yet seen an accounting for their high protein consumption (av. 270-300g per day: HUGE). In fact, I've rather seen every effort to avoid that exhaustively documented fact, in preference for an adventuresome Stefanssson.
  3. They prized every shred of carbohydrate they could get their hands on, and apart from whatever the earth wrought in appropriate months, they got some glycogen from fresh or frozen kills, unlike the way we eat animals.
  4. Nonetheless, they were a low carb society. But, by necessity, not preference. Home is where the heart is. Perhaps they thought they lived plenty long enough in that doG forsaken land, I suppose.

I could expound upon each of those points and they are not exhaustive. Feel free in comments.

Moving onto Peter's second post; now, with a very substantial comment thread including moi-memme, Dr. Mike Eades, Tim Steele and Duck Dodgers. Significant snark at first, but eventually some pretty good and healthy dialog between Eades and Dodgers, eventually. As always, you are your own judge.

I don't want to rehash what's been hashed in comments, but for two things; one, in terms of Peter, and the other, in terms of Eades.

Peter first:

  1. He speculates that dietary PUFA from seafood may be the key here for the propagation of this mutation. Makes some sense in an evolutionary context.
  2. He says accurately: "People clearly have very differing ideas of what the Inuit did or did not eat as an ancestral diet." I would say: People clearly have very differing tolerances for accepting 75 years of research that uniformly put the Inuit at a most notably high protein, not high fat ancestral diet. Fat was high (40-50%, according to research) by western standards, but protein is way more notable—unless you think the Tokoleans are more notable (highest recorded dietary fat and saturated fat consumption qua population).
  3. "While it is perfectly possible to invoke a high protein diet to explain a lack of ketosis in the fed state this goes nowhere towards explaining the limited ketosis of fasting. P479L fits perfectly well as an explanation." Of course, but it's a point or explanation without a contravening argument. Shorter: P479L is a rare, weird mutation. Means nothing really, beyond a few more dots connected. People without it are not in ketosis in a fully fed or over-fed state, and they are in ketosis even on a sugar diet, if not fully fed. Ketosis is primarily a starvation/significant energy deficit adaptation.
  4. "I have some level of discomfort with using the Inuit as poster people for a ketogenic diet. That's fine. They may well have eaten what would be a ketogenic diet for many of us, but they certainly did not develop high levels of ketones when they carried the P479L gene." It looks like Peter and Mike Eades are at odds on this point.
  5. "...while systemic ketones are a useful adjunct, a ketogenic diet is essentially a fatty acid based diet with minimal glucose excursions and maximal beta oxidation. Exactly how important the ketones themselves are is not quite so clear cut." Shorter version: it's just a high fat diet. All the purple pee and magical numbers on a meter are probably hype.
  6. "Confirming that the Inuit are not poster boys for ketosis is a 'so what?' moment for me." I'd hesitate to say concession noted, but only because it's Peter and I know quite well that he has never touted the virtue of perpetual ketosis and likes to stay just out of it. The problem is, so very many others point to these extreme environments as an excuse to be fat gluttons. I'm anti-glutton (with good reason), and I resent the suggestive marketing in that regard...unless you're living on an ice sheet and it's dark and below ZERO for several months of every year. If you are, please glutton away at every opportunity. Your life may depend on it. If you have a supermarket nearby, you're foolishly fooling yourself. You know why you're fat, or can't lose weight. You eat too much, too often. Whether that's a satiation root problem is another issue. It's certainly not a macronutrient issue, per se.
  7. "Using their P479L mutation to argue against ketogenic diets is more of a problem. It's a massive dis-service to any one of the many, many people out there who are eating their way in to metabolic syndrome to suggest that a ketogenic diet is a Bad Thing because no one has lived in ketosis before." Uh, this was brought up (by You, Peter) long after my blog series with Duck demonstrating over and over, backed by 100% of the actual research, that the Inuit were not in perpetual ketosis because of insane protein consumption. In other words, even without the mutation, people in fed states consuming 270-300g daily of protein would have to walk 15 miles, without eating, to pee pink. You brought it up, man, and I have a hard time thinking it wasn't to distract from the real issue: a high protein diet, well documented.
  8. "Ultimately, point scoring on the internet about what the Inuit did or didn't eat shouldn't destroy people's chances of health. Destroying a circular argument about Inuit diets may may the destructor feel good. Destroying the feet, eyes and kidneys of a person with type 2 diabetes, who need a ketogenic diet, as a spin off from that victory must be difficult to live with. I don't know how anyone can do this." Appeal to emotion. But more notably, the idea that lying to people is cool, if for a "good cause." I submit that in the final analysis, lies kill and maim more people than anything else. Moreover, whatever the root cause or what got them there, we have the technology. We have brains, meters, insulin, and needles. Some may find an LC/VLC approach the method they like best to manage their diabetes. Others, millions of them, find that those technological tools can come pretty close to doing what a pancreas does.

That last point makes me laf, and cry. How very often is it that a falsehood becomes so very valuable, so commonplace, so widely believed and practiced that telling the PLAIN FUCKING TRUTH is tantamount to "destruction?" And not just plain destruction. We're talking dismembering humans, here.

Mike Eades:

  1. He still will not take on the question of high protein, instead preferring to argue the finer points of glycogen degradation, all while plain old readers got the point we were trying to make (see above). I even asked in Peter's comments: why "Protein Power" and not "Fat Power?" Have your views changed over the years, or are you just going with the flow?
  2. He explains away the failure of researchers being unable to detect measurable ketones 100% of the time over about 75 years to "keto adaptation." I asked if he still held to that, in light of the mutation. He said: "The short answer is probably."

He explained it in a blog post too:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/beware-confirmation-bias/

"What he fails to understand is that the Inuit are keto-adapted. Their lifelong diet of high-fat meat has gotten their ketone-producing-and-consuming systems working in precisely controlled fashion. Like, dare I say it, a well-oiled machine.

The Inuit burn ketones as they make them, so it stands to reason that they might not have measurable ketones under normal circumstances."

If anyone has a more precise definition of "keto-adapted," or any literature, please drop in comments, by all means. Because, I'm having a serous logical problem here. In essence: if demand equals supply in a dynamic flow system, then supply cannot be detected.

Or, as one commenter elegantly put it, paraphrasing: if there's traffic, but no traffic jam, you can't see the cars.

Or, how about this? Human respiration. It's so elegant, both a positive feedback loop, and the negative one that dominates nature and keeps everything from going hog wild, fission chain-reaction at all times. When asleep, your breathing is very light. It's just what you only need to provide oxidation in that rested state (sleep is the ultimate anti-oxidant?). When you wake, you breathe more deeply...and if into that morning run or treading the mill like a hamster—only for a smoothie, not nuts—you're going to huff and puff.

The thing is, it's a very tightly controlled positive-negative feedback mechanism. When sleeping, they're probably so close as to be not worth mentioning. When running, it's going to be a way wider distinction between which is predominately in play. But, as you initially gasp for air, uptake gets on line, and eventually, negative feedback comes into play and you eventually find a groove. Charted, it's going to look like a wave with initially high amplitude over (positive) and under (negative) the x-axis, with the amplitude diminishing over time to a narrow band of positive-negative feedback handoffs.

Here's the kicker: at every point along the whole process, you can precisely measure blood oxygen.

Dr. Eades: you have some serious explaining to do about keto-adaptation meaning they're producing lots of ketones, using them at roughly the same rate, and hence, they are not detectable. It's an extraordinary claim. One way to do that would be to acknowledge that calories really do count, importantly. You also mentioned that in your practice, you noticed that over time, less and less ketones were detected by your patients. I have no doubt. You explain this by "keto adapted," but calories count makes more sense.

I explained it here: Synthesis: Low-Carb and Food Reward/Palatability, and Why Calories Count. TL;DR: LC, VLC, and/or "ketogenic" diets are renowned for initial satiation factors (in spite of the fact that boiled potatoes are the most satiating—why the "potato hack" is so effective). So, for example, on a moderate to high protein and fat diet with minimal carbohydrate, it's easier for a person to run a 700+ kcal deficit than on a low-fat diet of any color (veg*n, Weight Watcher's, etc.).

It's that deficit that's primarily producing ketones because of significant fat oxidation, just like our "potato hack subjects" in comments were measuring significant ketones (significant caloric deficit due satiation, fat mobilization, ketones).

But what happens when that 700 kcal deficit becomes homeostatic; i.e., as is so typical for so many, when energy requirements via weight loss reduce to about the same level as the person is eating—10-30 pounds from target weight and they "stalled?" They didn't "stall." They're burning calories at the rate they're expending them. Let's call it "caloric adaptation," only in this adaptation, you can measure the various associated parameters, as should be expected.

They aren't invisible.

...Only magical, flying, rainbow-farting ketones are invisible.

Thanks to Duck, Tim, Gemma, and Philip for checking up on my work and providing valuable input in the final draft.

This Message Should Ring From Sea to Shining Sea

Andy Taylor lives.

"When San Francisco Stopped Prosecuting Drug Users, Violent Crime Went Down"

One Mind At a Time

I get lots of emails. Many lots. Big Lots.

It's truly what keeps me at this because blogging does get wearisome. From diabetics who've found a more reasonable path in flexible eating for some personal or particular enjoyment—counter to the Shiite Ketarded—to folks who've come to hate armed highway robbers as I do and their bosses all up the chain.

How are you today Sir?

I havent wrote to you in quite awhile.

I only look at the blog about once a week any more, compared to every 6 hours in the past. Just wanted to let you know how much of an influence you have been to me beyond all the diet and paleo bullshit. You have opened my eyes to all the crap about god and country we've been force fed our whole lives. I am totally accepting that God is the same as Santa Claus: a myth perpetuated by the hopefuls. I have accepted that there is hardly any freedom in the US; and even though I am fond of the memories of serving in the military, I realize the reasons for me serving were the result of wanting to kill the commies...who just want to live and prosper just like every one else.

And now I feel ashamed. On a lighter note, I've been eating lots of beans, rice, and chicken and feel great. And don't judge, but been doing crossfit 3 times a week and really enjoy it; also, havent cut my hair in 3 months. Longest my hair has been since 1988.

Keep doing what you're doing I will be a fan.

I intend to.

Tomorrow, I also intend to drive from Vegas to Bay Area via a non-standard route (south on the 15, cut to Bakersfield, north on 5). I'm heading up 95 to Tonopah, crossing over to 395 via the 6, then see if I can get over Tioga via the 120. Push comes to shove and the 120 to 9k feet elevation, the 88 always works.

My Last Two Meals in Mexico: Steak and Quail; Machaca

Both the beef and the quail are local baja raised and hunted. I'm sure the beef was grass fed. Decidedly leaner than the Stateside supermarket stuff.

Bea and I split this, as well as a flan for dessert.

IMG 2753
 

I don't think I've had quail since I was a kid and a Spanish Basque uncle and I killed a bunch using a sheet of plywood propped up, with grain spread underneath. I think it was several dozen birds in one swoop. What didn't go into the freezer was treated to one of his recipes where they were slow braised until meat fell off the bones. Delicious bird.

Machaca is basically pulled roast beef with scrambled eggs, with some onion and tomato. Notice how the starch portion sizes are reasonable, unlike what's so typical at a Mexican place in the states where the refried beans and rice are 2/3 of the plate.

I was hungry this time. Devoured the entire thing, including the corn tortilla and glass of orange juice.

IMG 2755
 

Kept me going until turkey and taters time.

...The 49ers game was an unmitigated disaster. Some college teams would have put up a better showing. Their season is likely over, and justifiably so.

Mexico Fun

This has been ideal. Weather perfect here in Rosarito Beach, room perfect, food great. The people, a pleasant joy.

Some pics for your vicarious enjoyment.

IMG 2745
Living Room
IMG 2743
With a View
IMG 2746
More View
IMG 2749
Bea & I Split a Lobster Last Night
IMG 2747
TACOS MANUEL
IMG 2748
 
IMG 2751
Lunch

Bea and I were here with her family back in about 1996, I think. Her bro-in-law said we've got to go to Manuel's. I never forgot those carne asada tacos, right off the grill, with the girl in back pressing fresh corn tortillas and popping them on the grill as fast as they were being ordered.

Back then, I still remember they were $1 each. 18 years later: $1.20. But for that 3-taco lunch and Mexican Coca-Cola (cane sugar, not HFCS) Bea and I split, they cut us a deal: $3.20. I could get used to that.

Go 49ers! We'll be back stateside in time for the game and Xgiving dinner in Vista, CA tomorrow.

BTW, I’m In Mexico

FullSizeRender 1
 

Fun, as usual. Love the underlying anarchy of this country—like so many others all over the wold.

It's so very unlike a land of the free fantasy.