Kurt Harris MD

An Archevore is someone who eats based on essential principles, and also someone who hungers for essential principles. Take your pick.

Exploring these principles is one of my interests, but not the only one.

So you may find commentary here about other issues in medicine, health, other sciences, or just about anything.

Feed The Archevore

Archevore is written, produced, and directed by me. I am an independent science writer with no outside sponsorship from any private firm, NGO or, Zeus forbid, government agency. Donations are greatly appreciated. 

In addition to buying from the book list, you can also support Archevore by making all of your Amazon purchases for any item through the Amazon Portal below.

Amazon Portal



Buy gold online - quickly, safely and at low prices


Main | Stress does not imply hormesis »

Jimmy Moore inquires about "safe starches"

This morning I got an email from Jimmy Moore inquiring what I thought about Paul Jaminet’s ideas about safe starches as espoused on his blog and in his book The Pefect Health Diet. I am not sure if Jimmy has noted the updates I’ve made in the Archevore diet, or if he has seen where I have come down on the issue of the CIH ( the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis of obesity), as he would have to be scouring the nooks and crannies of blog comments all over the nutrition blogosphere ; )

I’ve not had time to write the magnum opus blog posts that the repuditation of the CIH really requires (and not much can be added to what Stephan has already written), so I thought this was a good opportunity to get the message outside of my own echo chamber by responding in detail to Jimmy’s inquiry. My response to him is pretty long, and I doubt if he will quote much of it, so I’ve reproduced the email response, with his inquiry broken into bits in italics and my responses afterward in roman.

Kurt, I've been getting a lot of questions this year from my "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb" blog readers about the concepts in Paul Jaminet's book "Perfect Health Diet."  He advocates for eating white potatoes and white rice as part of a low-carb eating plan.

I also have come to see most starchy plant organs as perfectly legitimate fuel sources. 

Low carb plans have helped people lose fat by reducing food reward from white flour and excess sugar and maybe linoleic acid. This is by accident as it happens that most of the "carbs" in our diet are coming in the form of manufactured and processed items that are simply not real food. Low carb does not work for most people via effects on blood sugar or insulin "locking away" fat. Insulin is necessary to store fat, but is not the main hormone regulating fat storage. That would be leptin.

My reading of the anthropology and ethnology literature, as well as my current understanding of biochemistry and metabolism, lead me to see the human metabolism as a multi-fuel stove, equally capable of burning either glucose or fatty acids at the cellular level depending on the organ, the task and the diet, and equally capable of depending on either animal fats or starches from plants as our dietary fuel source, depending on the biome (biological environment) we find ourselves born in or that we migrate to. 

We are a highly adaptable species. It is not plausible that carbohydrates as a class of macronutrient are toxic.

Diabetics need to avoid high carbohydrate intake the same way those with gall bladder disease need to avoid fat, but carbohydrates do not cause obesity or diabetes and fat consumption does not cause gall bladder disease (in fact low fat diets may contribute to gallstone formation via stasis) 

Here's a one-page explanation and illustration of Jaminet's program:http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?page_id=8

Several places in the book and on Jaminet's blog (http://perfecthealthdiet.com) he specifically warns against the danger of a very low-carb diet (defined as less than about 300-400 calories per day (~100 grams) from so-called "safe starches"--taro, plantains, yams, white potatoes, sweet potatoes, white rice and berries) because less than this leads to the risks, including:  1) "insufficient production of mucus in the digestive tract" leading to dysbiosis

I have not looked into that claim enough to comment in detail, but it seems plausible. 

 2) vitamin deficiencies (he particularly mentions Vitamin C and glutathione 

Yes I would agree with that. Whites and sweets are loaded with ascorbic acid.

on pages 253-254)In particular he emphasizes these calories need to come from "safe starches and berrries" and "don't count vegetables as as a carb source (because) they are a fiber (and therefore a fat) source" (page 45).

My list is white potatoes, sweet potatoes, white rice and bananas. If more exotic fare like plantains and taro is available to you, that is fine, too. Except for white rice, these are all whole food starch sources with good mineral and micronutrient content that have been eaten in good health for thousands of years in many environments by genetically diverse populations. Many of these plants have spread far from their biomes of origin and serve as staples for populations who have adopted them with success over just the past few thousand years.

These starchy plant organs or vegetables are like night and day compared to most cereal grains, particularly wheat. One can eat more than half of calories from these safe starches without the risk of disease from phytates and mineral deficiencies one would have from relying on grains.

White rice is kind of a special case. It lacks the nutrients of root vegetables and starchy fruits like plantain and banana, but is good in reasonable quantities as it is a very benign grain that is easy to digest and gluten free. 

I think consumption of quality animal products is the sine qua non of a healthy diet. 

Once you have that, then eating starchy plants is more important for nutrition than eating colorful leafy greens - the veggies that are high fiber and low starch. (Some green leafy vegetables are good sources of folate and along with some fruits are sources of flavonoids that may benefit you via hormesis.)

I view most non-starchy fruit with indifference. In reasonable quantities it is fine but it won't save your life either. I like citrus now and then myself, especially grapefruit. But better to rely on starchy vegetables for carbohydrate intake than fruit.

Primitive populations practicing horticulture or hunting and gathering do not eat a lot of big green salads with lots of variety, but they do eat healthy starchy plant organs with monotony on top of their foraged animal foods.

Eating a very low carb (VLC) diet for a period of time can be a good fat loss maneuver, acting via the effects of ketosis on appetite suppression. I also like to see people limit themselves to two or three meals a day with absolutely no snacking, and it may give benefits via hormesis for longer periods of fasting (24 hours or more) once in a while.

But a long term VLC ketogenic diet is not a good idea. It does not mimic the ancestral diet in general, even if some populations have tolerated it when they had to. There is no need for most people to do it to lose fat, as food reward effects are more powerful. I would advocate long term ketosis in those with neurodegenerative brains diseases like Alzheimer dementia and Parkinson disease, and a 10 day water fast followed by long term ketogenic diet is worth trying if you have cancer. 

But I would not recommend VLC ketosis as a long term way of life the way I would not recommend running a half marathon every day, or lifting weights to failure on a daily basis, or taking chemotherapy drugs when you don't have cancer. Ketosis probably stresses the body and works via hormesis. But the clean up and repair response cannot happen if there is no rest from it. 

A recent post he wrote for cancer patients revealed his recommendion of obtaining 400 to 600 glucose calories a day, mainly from these safe starches. He says it is important to avoid a glucose deficiency, since glycosylated proteins are the means of intercellular coordination, and defects in glycosylation are characteristic of the cancer phenotype.

My arguments are based more on ethnography and anthropology than some of Paul's theorizing, but I arrive at pretty much the same place that he does. I personally eat around 30% carbohydrate now and have not gained an ounce from when I ate 10-15% (and I have eaten as high as 40% for over a year also with zero fat gain) If anything I think even wider ranges of carbohydrate intake are healthy. 

One can probably eat well over 50% of calories from starchy plant organs as long as the animal foods you eat are of high quality and micronutrient content. 

Grass fed ruminants, pastured butter and eggs and wild caught cold water fish are the kernel of a healthy diet, but the fuel source can be larger than the kernel on a caloric basis if the kernel is high quality and consistent.

He notes, "You don’t want to aggravate this with a self-induced glucose deficiency." I'd like to write a blog post about this topic of "safe starches" to help my readers understand fact from fiction and will quote from your response.  THANK YOU! If you cannot assist me, then please let me know so I ask someone else to contribute.

I've given you plenty to quote from, Jimmy. Go for it!




PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (74)

I personally would not monitor anything more than waist size and blood pressure and how I feel and make sure I don't have diabetes. Maybe make sure you are not hypothyroid ONCE...

Thanks: FYI at 5'6" wight is 145, BP and thyroid both ok. I tend to agree with on the small LDL. The one thing i can say is that i noticed in one of your posts, you said with an LDL of 180 you had a particle count for LDL of 1100. For me that same 180 LDL level translates in to a particle count of 2200 which may mean more particles hanging around in my blood stream with a greater chance of oxidation that in yours.
Just means i need to make sure i am minimizing oxidative stress as much as possible: low Omega 6, and PUFA's in particular as in your dietary recommendations.

September 30, 2011 | Unregistered Commentersteve

Excellent - As usual.

September 30, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterChuck Currie

Wow, so many great things in this post that will help a lot of people. A couple of quick comments, questions, and links to research you've probably already seen but if not, may find interesting.

1. The argument should not be low carb vs. low fat, it really should be real, natural foods (animal meats, starchy tubers) vs refined, processed foods (HFCS, sugar, vegetable oil). Carb-based diets get a bad rap because the control diet is usually the typical Y2K American Diet (50% carbs from sugar, anti-nutrients, gluten, etc.). Of course, the low carb or keto diet will come out looking like a superstar compared to that nightmare. But when compared to a low refined food, starch-based diet (ie TRADITIONAL Japanese Diet) the results are much different. Up until 1991, diabetes and obesity rates were less than 3%. Got Rice? I feel as if many beneficial foods (namely low fructose, non-anti-nutrient starches -- rice and potatoes), especially for regular exercisers/anaerobic athletes, have been demonized and discarded in low-carb/Paleo dogma. Do you feel people get too caught up in dogmatic systems using misapplied science as opposed to following logical approaches based on real world, anecdotal evidence?

2. Treating sick patients or those with specific medical conditions is different than advising healthy people or athletes. A patient with heart disease should not be running wind sprints, but they are highly beneficial for the sprinter. We all do not have to treat ourselves like we are insulin resistant/diabetic.

3. Many people demonize all carbs without distinguishing between the types. We know fructose in excessive amounts is one of the most disastrous nutritional compounds on the planet, but virtually every cell in your body can metabolize glucose/glucose chains (starch). Rice is a mix of amylose and amylopectin starch -- not a fructose molecule in site :). A link to research comparing a sucrose vs. starch-based diet and effects on insulin resistance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11004002

Perhaps this is why the Japanese treat fruit as a dessert (I think your line was bags of candy) and rice as a dietary staple. Diets like the Zone have it backwards.

4. Agreed, the keto diet can be a great transitional phase to eliminate physiological, emotional, and psychological connections to sugar and refined foods, but it is not a great long term approach. There are drawbacks. (A) Reductions in free testosterone:cortisol ratio. (B) Impair normal thyroid functioning, specifically conversion of T4 to its more active T3 from. © Impaired nitrogen balance and muscle loss, here is a link to some research: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9589778

5. Question. I've always believed that sugar should be minimized in every person's diet, but that starchy carb intake should be tied to activity levels. Since the body runs primarily on fatty acid oxidation at rest, it makes sense that sedentary populations would respond best to a lower-carb diet with natural animal fats as primary fuel. However, exercise creates a unique metabolic and hormonal environment in the body, and changes the way your body processes nutrients (specifically carbs) for 24-48 hours. For example, glycogen synthase exists in its more active I-form vs inactive D-form post-exercise, and there is an increase in the glucose transporter GLUT-4 at the muscle cell membrane, etc. If exercising regularly, a starch-based diet may be better for helping the athlete fuel, recover from, and respond to training sessions. Your thoughts on that distinction?

Thanks again for the great blog post. I feel like with the demonization of all carbs, and not making distinctions between the different types, that we are repeating mistakes of the 70's low fat era.

September 30, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterNate Miyaki

Hi Dr. Harris, I love your recommendation of plant starches. I love plantains and before I started my LC diet, I used to eat them fried with olive oil. I plan on eating them again but maybe substitute olive with butter/lard?

I am currently trying to lose weight. Using your old diet I've lost since May of this year 37lb., relatively effortlessly, even though I've had a few slips alonf the way.

I have a question about your new diet: To lose weight you recommend "minimizing fructose and eating 50-70g a day of carbohydrate as starch."

At the same time you recommend overall calories at 5-35% for carbohydrate, 10-30% for protein and 50 to 80% for fat. If I ate 50-70g a day of carbohydrate starch, that would be 400-480 calories per day. If carbs are 5% of my calories, I would be eating 4,000-5,600 calories per day. At 35% calories would be 615-739 per day.

Since the first calorie number appears too high and the second one too low, can you please suggest a percentage of calories from the carbohydrate starches for losing weight.




I don't "recommend" any particular carb amount for anyone, other than staying out of ketosis.

If you are eating low carb to lose fat, 50g/day is 200 kcal which is 10% of 2000 kcal. 70g is 10% of 2800 kcal. I don't recommend 5%.

September 30, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterjohnny

Dr. Harris & Miyaki,

FYI: Traditional Chinese diet also treat fruits as desserts (after the meal) (because most fruits are considered "cooling" in esp. summer fruits that contains lot's of water & sugar)


September 30, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterpam

Dr. Harris,

I just listened to your interview with Robb Wolf. With regards to writing a book, I hope you don't do it! All book writing seems to do is help etch your ideas in stone-making them hard to change. As you know, in the nutrition and metabolism and...field, that is not a good idea. A financial interest doesn't help either (although I wouldn't begrudge anyone's right to make money). Anyway, I'm casting my "no" vote on the book idea (not that it makes any difference). I think a blog is a much better way to go.

October 1, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterThomas

Does the range of "300-400 kcal from starches to avoid ketosis" apply to women as well? I am asking because their caloric needs are usually lower so I wonder if our requirements for glucose are lower as well and if this recommendation might be modified for females...

KGH: That is Paul's recommendation. I recommend just eating at least 20% of kcal as carbohydrate to give yourself a buffer.

October 1, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterI. G.

Do you notice, with higher carb loads, any difference in your ability to fast? I've heard much anecdotally that seems to indicate that higher carb loads make fasting or reduced feeding windows more difficult.


Yes, going until noon with zero food is a little bit harder than on VLC. Fasting workouts are actually easier, though, probably due to glycogen being more topped off. Most importantly, I still have the blood pressure of 20 year old but no more orthostatic hypotension.

October 1, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterPatrick

Any ideas for a diabetic who injects insulin every day and who also eats low carb? Should he prioritize minimizing the amount insulin injected while still controlling blood sugar (by eating low carb), or should he prioritize getting to a more normal carb intake through safe starches, and injecting additional insulin to control blood sugar if necessary?

KGH: I cannot give specific medical advice, but if it were me I would prioritize A1C levels and AUC for glycemia over minimizing any drug, whether metformin or insulin. See Jenny Ruhl and Dr. Bernstein for rational approaches to this. Minimal carb intake without large boluses of glucose will likely make normoglycemia easier to achieve, just because it minimizes the variance in insulin demand with any particular meal.

October 1, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRaza Mobin

Dr Harris

What about all the great things about coconut oil? Is there any benefit to copious amounts, say 2 Tbs a day? Paul Jaminet talks about the anti viral and anti fungal effects. He also mentions the ketogenic advantage. Are the calories worth it. Do YOU take it other than for cooking?

Thanks for your reply!.

By the way I would by your book in a heartbeat


Thanks Bonnie! I use coconut oil to fry but I don't "supplement" with it and I don't think it is magic.

Among fat sources, it has zero long chains n-3s as it comes from a plant. So I would not favor it over butter as a fuel source, even if it is better for frying due to the smoke point.

I would use it therapeutically if I required a ketogenic diet for brain disease.

October 1, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterBonnie Temple

I think I read elsewhere that you'll be looking at enacting weight loss in a future post using the food reward hypothesis. I am looking forward to it; I find it extremely difficult to lose weight past a certain point (I have genetic lipoedema that cannot be shrunk through conventional diet and exercise).

October 2, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterbec

Many thanks for taking the time to reply Dr Harris.

1) You're right I mistyped- I did mean why is white flour more rewarding than rice.

It seems odd that the grinding of 'white' wheat into a flour would make it so much more rewarding than white rice. White wheat flour is widely denounced as one of the central NADs, white rice is touted as a safe starch. I'm glad that you're following this through to its logical conclusion though- that rice or potato flour would be comparably bad to wheat flour, which I presume most advocates of safe starches would resist.

It also seems really odd because so many safe starches are traditionally served in a mere mush or 'pap' cooked to absolute oblivion and often powdered beforehand. Stephan talks a great deal about the extensive processing and high GI of traditionally consumed carbohydrates, for example. So it still seems vital to know what the difference is between white bread (the staple of neolithic industrial society) and white rice or white potato (safe starch and the staples of healthy societies). Seeing where the difference in FR comes is difficult for me.

2) Actually I was asking about diabetes not about gallbladder, but sorry, I see now that my sentence was ambiguous.

My reason for asking, even though I suspect the answer is something straightforward and obvious is because I wonder whether the no-huge-amounts-of-carbs-for-diabetics injunction applies to some non-diabetics and how the distinction between the populations should be drawn. Similarly I know a lot of non-diabetic women (young and old) with PCOS, and according to Emily Deans (http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2011/08/do-carbs-make-you-crazy-pcos-and-type.html; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21421016) 50-70% of those have reactive hypoglyemia. Would these sorts of non-diabetics also benefit from reduced carbohydrate? Similarly, both my grandmothers became diabetic and I suspect would benefit from eating fewer carbs- would they have benefited from doing so before becoming diagnosed diabetics.


I'm still perplexed by the starch vs non-starchy vegetable showdown.
Micronutritionally, almost all vegetables seem far better than starchy foods (especially leafy greens) either by calories or mass. Of course, if you specifically need a source of calories and nutrients be damned, then you'd want starches, but otherwise I'd have thought most people would benefit more from consuming the more nutritious, less caloric and one presumes less rewarding food.


"I'm glad that you're following this through to its logical conclusion though- that rice or potato flour would be comparably bad to wheat flour, which I presume most advocates of safe starches would resist."

I most certainly did not say that. It might be true that FR would be more pronounced with rice flour, but there is no gluten in white rice. Rice flour is still preferable to wheat flour.

Re: diabetes

My best guess is that if you have beta cells that still work, your DM is reversible if you lose enough fat, so whatever diet that made you lose the most fat is the one that will ultimately normalize your BG the most. (whether VLC or ornish) In other words, it does little good in the long term to eat very low carb if you are still metabolically fat and unable to lose it.

RE; point #3

Of course leafy greens have more micro on a per calories basis, they have no calories! By that logic we would prefer centrum to leafy greens.

I stand by my generalization both on the logic of eating to get both fuel and micros and the behavior of historical and extant HGs and horticulturalists, who do not shun starchy vegetables in favor of leafy greens and especially not in favor of huge variety....

Have you not read Stephan's descriptions of Andeans who live on a 95% potatoes diet with little evidence of disease? How can you think potatoes are too micro poor to favor over eating leaves?

October 2, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterDavid Moss

Hi Dr. Harris:

Have you seen this new study?


October 2, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterOC

Kurt (and Shanta),

I'm interested in more on corn as a "safe starch." Mexicans and many other heavy eaters of corn eat corn that has been nixtamalized (soaked in lime or ash water) and hulled.


This soaked and stripped corn is often eaten as hominy, grits, or ground to make nixtamal for tortillas, tamales, etc.

As to whole corn, I generally skip it, but I will admit that I also eat about one cob of corn a week in the summer. At 100-150 calories, it's not much, and it's pretty easy for me to not overeat.

Thanks for the great post!



The only corn I eat is in the form of real nixtalized tortillas, just a few a week I would guess. I would not call corn a safe starch - to me a safe starch is sound enough that you can eat quite a lot of it as a staple, eve if that is not "optimal". I think like beans properly prepared it is harmless in small amounts.

October 3, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRoland

I can understand why you recommend sweet potatoes, but what about all the lectin in potatoes? Not to mention the glycoalkaloids which cannot be destroyed by cooking.

KGH: Not many lectins of clinical concern in the core. Peeling also removes most of the gycoalkaloids the remainder of which are addressed by cooking. Potatoes rely on being subterranean for defense.

October 3, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJP

Awesome post, I'm really glad you wrote about this.

The starch vs fruit/vegetable thing has been one of the main things I've been wondering about over the past week. The paleo crowd has always recommended fruits and vegetables, but after reading some of Paul's stuff (still need to pick up the book at some point) I've started eating more sweet potatoes, bananas and some white rice. I guess rice is still a bit of a gray area, but I'll definitely ramp up the starch intake a bit and see how I feel. It would be great if you could do a more comprehensive post on rice, certain fruits and raw milk, which seem to be the biggest points of disagreement among people who have moved fast the "whole grains, low fat" paradigm.

Anyway, glad to see you're posting again. Don't stop!

October 3, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJosh Frey

Awesome site Dr. Harris! Ive tried vlc and no carb diets to regain my health but have found that I due need some form of starch in my diet to feel my best. The only starchy like food Ive found that I can tolerate is Dates, do u know how similar they are in starch content in relation 2 bananas? All non starchy vegetables mess my stomach up when I eat them, so its good 2 hear that there not as important as the mainstream makes them out 2 be. What are your thoughts on combining starchy fruits like bananas with meat? Do u think they should be eaten alone or does it really not matter. Thank u sir

KGH: Dates are quite a bit sweeter than bananas. I had two bananas and some chili made with grass fed beed for dinner this evening.

October 4, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterTim

All this back and forth about "ok" carbs vs no carbs is meaningless unless it takes into account one's insulin resistance or insulin sensitivity. Insulin resistant people are better off ignoring the pro-carb side and keeping carbs to a minimum.


What kind of insulin resistance in which organ and how much? Did you know that your whole body insulin resistance may be higher will fewer carbohydrates in your diet?

Tell me how you personally have assessed your insulin resistance so that you know you cannot tolerate carbohydrate. I am curious.

October 5, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterSteve B

Bananas: would you prefer the greener ones because of their higher starch content?
And no carbs at dinner at all if I'm trying to lose weight?

October 5, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJP


Regarding your insulin resistance question above, I didn't self-diagnose or get stuff off blogs.

The diagnosis comes from my thyroid/hormone dr in Torrance, Ca with the Holtorf Group. My fasting insulin in 2007 was over 14 (upper limit 7) and triglycerides were over 850.

I was directed to do very low carb, some supplements, I switched away from Synthroid to a T3 med, and some hormones like testosterone, DHEA, and a lot of D3.

Now insulin is 4, trigs about 65, and I lost 120 lb. Something worked.

I have tried a few times to add what I consider safer carbs, which happens to match your own list-rice, white potatoes, and bananas. Weight creeps up and I stop these every time. There may be an explanation besides insulin resistance, but I don't know what it is. I'm going with what I learned from my doc.

I read Mastering Leptin and it was interesting, but no help.


"Now insulin is 4, trigs about 65, and I lost 120 lb. Something worked. "

That is fantastic success. The lower fasting insulin is an effect of the fat loss and your improved IS, and could have occurred had you lost fat mass with any diet. I am not saying you would have lost as much with any other technique, I am saying that being insulin resistant is the effect of overnutrition and it is not specific to carbohydrate intake.

A fasting insulin of 4 is very healthy and indicates that you are NOT pathologically insulin resistant. You are able to keep your liver from flooding your body with glucose with a very small amount of basal insulin. This is the definition of having good insulin sensitivity.

So there is probably an explanation for your fat gain with starches, but it cannot be that you are insulin resistant, as you are not.

Have you tried eating them in bland fashion and while otherwise limiting FR?

October 5, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterSteve B

Hi Kurt,
Question - if carbs don't cause diabetes, what does? Hypercalorism? A diet high in refined junk food?

October 6, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterChris

Hi Dr Harris

Your post was very interesting. But I wonder.

Can you explain what causes diabetes?

Is it vegetable oil consumption, high sugar consumption, or something else.

What causes diabetes?


NADS via overnutrition, epigenetics, toxins

October 6, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMike P

If there is such a thing as 'overnutrition' how do you explain ad libitum studies where people have consumed up to 4,000 calories per day and not gained weight? That's your black swan (well, one of many).


Please list for me all these peer reviewed studies that you claim show this.

Overnutrition is at the cellular level.

What do YOU think causes diabetes?

October 7, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterChris

One last question: how much should one at least be drinking every day? I think it's an interesting matter. Found no talk about it on the blog yet.

KGH: Whiskey or water?

October 8, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJP
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.