renegadefuzz

Today was a good day. It involved a lot of alcohol and a lot of walking, but all in all, it was a great day. Mum, Dad and I met up at Notes from the Underground and had some breakfast (Dad loved the "fancy" internet cafe where he could check his email... so funny), and then we went back to my apartment to hang out for a bit. I showed them the tons of clothes I got for Peanut (my niece), and then we got together with Dan and started wandering. We ended up walking down through North Point, and along to Fisherman's Wharf and back again. We then went to Ace's and watched the NCAA Badgers game. Sadly, we got our asses handed to us, but at least we had the ability to drown our sorrows. After that we wandered to Old Navy and checked out more baby clothes. Then we continued on through Chinatown (stopping for a mid-afternoon dinner), to Washington Square. Then an afternoon nap, followed by drinks at the Black Horse for the evening (after of course a few wines and beers at the apartment). Crazy day. Lots of drinking, but it was fun.

An interesting discussion was brought up by my Dad while we had dinner and drinks later. It was in terms of beer and food. He proposed that the closer you are to the equator, the better your food is. But the inverse to the property is the further you are from the equator, the better your beer is. Obviously good food generally means shitty beer, and good beer means shitty food. And most of this is the discussion of actually cultural styles and things actually made in locally. For example, Dos Equis and Tecate are thought of as decent Mexican beers, but they are actually brewed originally by German and Scottish brewmasters, respectively, and are European style pale lagers.

Anyone have any thoughts for or against this theory? Any suggestion of extremely cold climates with excellent well known cuisine? Or really warm climates known for their excellent brews? Thoughts?