Jun 302010
 

[Note from Diana: Alas, I spoke too soon! Shortly after I closed off the contentious debate about the NYC Mosque here on NoodleFood, Amy Peikoff posted a really excellent essay in defense of Leonard Peikoff's view. So an unpleasant debate has turned into a really fascinating and friendly discussion. Yay!

I'm so grateful for Amy's careful examination of many of the points that I and others raised: that's the kind of argument that I needed. At this point, I still lean toward my original view that the mosque should not be stopped using by unjust laws -- for the reasons that Paul articulates below. However, I've got a much better grasp of the merits of the opposing view -- and I'm glad of that.

As for the comments on this post, please restrict yourself to just one or two comments. I don't want the kind of fruitless back-and-forth that cropped up in other threads.

And now for Paul...]

Amy Peikoff has posted a nice analysis of the NYC mosque issue, and I wanted to thank her for it. She’s raised some excellent points and given me much important food for thought. I very much liked her principled approach to the various issues and I highly recommend everyone read her piece.

In particular, I’m glad she addressed my primary concern, namely the issue of rule-of-law and the specific question of using current bad non-objective laws (such as zoning regulations) to stop the mosque construction, even while opposing such laws in principle.

One of the many good points she raised was that if one takes a long-term vs. a short-term perspective, trying to adhere to proper legal procedure could put Americans at potential tremendous risk in the immediate future, and that the government isn’t strictly following those procedures anyways.

Others have made similar points online, for instance arguing that using these bad zoning laws wouldn’t create new victims but could help stop an immediate threat.

However I’m still extremely concerned about the danger of setting such a bad legal precedent, precisely because I view it as the greater long-term danger. I’d like to explain why, below.

First, I completely agree that the Islamists would love to destroy the US and/or impose totalitarian Sharia law upon us. And they are working hard to achieve this (as Amy notes) both “via immediate violence and via cultural/infiltration persuasion”.

However, I don’t think that the Islamists could actually impose Sharia law here in the US. (This is in contrast to some European countries where the Islamists are taking over the culture alarmingly quickly through both methods.)

Based on my best reading of the current American culture, I believe the Jihadists would fail in their quest to impose Sharia law here. Yes, they could do tremendous damage in the process, killing thousands of Americans. Because of our government’s failed policies, I believe we are at serious risk of future 9/11-style attacks or attacks along the lines of the failed Times Square bombing or attacks as have already occurred in London and Madrid.

And in my darker moments, I also fear “nightmare scenarios” such as the bad guys sneaking 10 Iranian-made nuclear bombs into the 10 largest US cities and detonating them all simultaneously. Such attacks would be devastating and kill millions of Americans.

But as devastating as such attacks could be, I don’t think this country would just roll over and submit to Sharia law. Instead, I believe we would face a much more serious danger — specifically, from the resultant backlash.

A renewed attack (or series of attacks) on American soil would be the one thing that could rouse the dying embers of the American sense of life — and channel it into a dangerous totalitarian direction. The populace would (rightly) demand that we “do something” and I fear that this sentiment would sweep into power extremely bad conservative ideologues who would (correctly) identify the enemy as Islamic Totalitarianism — but instead offer as their alternative a Christian right-wing tyrannical regime.

Already, such social and religious conservatives are working hard to exploit the anti-Obama sentiment at Tea Parties to advance their agenda. Any successful serious jihadist attacks on US soil could greatly accelerate this dangerous trend, and quickly propel American religionists into power. And they would have tremendous popular appeal. They would use all the right language of “protecting America”, demanding a “muscular response” in “self defense”, etc. And they would speak with a moral confidence that Americans desperately seek (and which our recent governments have lacked).

Just as one example, I heard Brigitte Gabriel speak at the same LPR 2009 conference that Yaron Brook spoke at. She is a staunch Christian who took an uncompromising stand against the Islamic threat to America. She told some heart-rending stories of life as a Christian under Islamist rule in Lebanon. She made a compelling case that the Islamists want destroy America. And she had the mostly-conservative crowd eating out of her hand.

And she’s just one of many eloquent Christian conservatives out there on the lecture circuit making their case against the Islamic threat — and arguing that the only solution is for this country to recommit to Christian values.

If they ever gained power, these American religious statists would also have tremendous staying power compared to the current secular statists for precisely the reasons Leonard Peikoff has discussed multiple times.

Furthermore, these religious statists would have no qualms about using bad legal precedents set by prior secular leftist statists for their own ends — another danger that Leonard Peikoff warned about in one of his recent podcasts. So even assuming these American religious statists took some better (and much-needed) military actions against the jihadists at home and abroad, they would very likely also use the precedents of non-objective law to destroy freedoms at home in the name of “protecting American values”.

So although we wouldn’t create any immediate new victims, we could create many more later victims under a future government which would tell us:

“We’re denying the Ayn Rand Institute permission to expand its building facilities. According to our zoning board, the ARI has been violating anti-blasphemy laws by criticizing the religious agenda of our new President.”

“The philosophy of selfishness has no place in America’s schools. The books sent to our impressionable youths under the ARI Books for Teachers program are corrupting their morals and undermining core Christian American values of selflessness and sacrifice for the greater good. The works of Ayn Rand are hereby placed on the banned list for K-through-12 schoolchildren.”

“Dr. Paul Hsieh has been making pro-abortion statements on his blog. Now that the Congress has recognized a fertilized egg as a legal person with full rights, such statements are an incitement to murder. Because he is not a licensed journalist, his actions fall outside the scope of protected free speech, and we are thus issuing this warrant for his arrest.”

In short, my biggest concern is that if we use non-objective law to stop the mosque, we may help temporarily stop creeping Sharia law and we may stop some immediate attacks (which could save many lives). But because we still wouldn’t have dealt with the underlying problem in a proper fashion (i.e., by declaring and fighting a proper war), the danger from abroad will not be prevented — but merely delayed.

And because of the non-objective means we chose to stop the mosque, reality will extract its inevitable price in the form of accelerating the trend towards a home-grown religious tyranny.

Again, I’m not unmindful of the danger posed by the jihadists. The prospect of a new NYC mosque inspiring jihadists at home and abroad as a rallying point (and as a symbol of American weakness) fills me with dread. The prospect of further attacks on US soil make me sick to my stomach. And the prospect of thousands of needless American deaths fills me with horror.

But in my personal judgment, I don’t think the jihadists — as violent and barbaric as they are — can ultimately conquer and enslave Americans. On the other hand, we Americans can enslave ourselves.

Or to quote from Shakespeare’s “Richard II“:

This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world… That England, that was wont to conquer others, Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.

(Just substitute “America” for “England” and you’ll have our current unfortunate circumstances.)

In other words, we may be on the verge of falling into the trap that Benjamin Franklin warned about of “trading essential liberty for a little temporary security”.

As before, I recognize that others who I know and respect have come to the opposite judgment call on the NYC mosque issue. Again, this is a consequence of the fact that the only good option (of waging a proper war) has been taken off the table.

I also again acknowledge that if the specifics of this particular situation were different, then I might come to the opposite conclusion and make that painful trade while hoping to best avert the dire downstream consequences. Likewise, if there is sufficient evidence that the mosque and/or its supporters are planning terrorist attacks against the US, then we should use all appropriate means to protect ourselves, including closing the mosque.

As someone else who I respect noted on Facebook, during the Cold War we properly respected the free speech rights of Marxists (as odious as their views were), yet also properly employed government force against members of the Communist Party of the USA (who were receiving orders and funding from Moscow with the intent to overthrow the US government). We can and should apply the same principles to the current situation.

I don’t want to leave this post on a too-gloomy note, so I want to end by thanking Amy for her post.

She raised good points that I had not thought of before. She advanced the discussion in a positive direction and helped me understand the issue better. And she helped me re-examine and re-affirm my love for this great country in which I can still work, speak, and live as a relatively free man to pursue my own happiness and self-interest — something I will be especially thankful for this July 4 at OCON.

Open Thread #177

 Posted by on 30 June 2010 at 11:00 am  Open Thread
Jun 302010
 

Here’s yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:

For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they’d like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)

Extra OCON Get-Togethers

 Posted by on 30 June 2010 at 7:00 am  Announcements, OCON
Jun 302010
 

In addition to the slew of official lectures and events at OCON this year, I’m hosting three unofficial get-togethers for OList subscribers.

  • OActivists: Happy Hour on Saturday, July 3rd, after State of ARI (35 attending so far)
  • OEvolve: Dinner on Sunday, July 4th (21 attending so far)
  • OBloggers: Lunch on Wednesday, July 7th (20 attending so far)

If you’re on those lists, you should have gotten an evite. (If not, check your spam folder.) If you wish to attend the OEvolve Dinner or the OBloggers Lunch, you must respond “yes” via the evite by the start of OCON. After that, bribery will be required. :-) I’m not so fussy about the OActivists Happy Hour, but please do respond “yes” if you plan to attend.

I’m so excited to meet even more of the people that I’ve gotten to know through my OLists. I love seeing my old friends at OCON, and I love meeting people who will be old friends by next year’s OCON! Yay for good people!

In addition, if you’re interested in creating a new Objectivist community group — or growing an existing group, I recommend that you attend the Oclubs.org workshop at OCON in the evening of Wednesday, July 7. Here’s their announcement:

Join the Oclubs.org workshop at OCON. Learn how to start & grow an Objectivist Community Club in your hometown!
  • The Colorado Objectivist community has more than 60 members and 7 monthly events
  • Chicago has 40 members in its community and 7 events per month
  • Atlanta’s new Objectivist community is thriving with 30 members and 1 event per month

Learn how these cities got started! Join Oclubs.org for a 45 minute workshop at OCON.

Wednesday, July 7 at 6:15p – 7:00, 5th Floor, Charleston F room

Oclubs.org was started to support the leaders of Objectivist clubs. We create resources, answer questions, and share advice. Read our Mission Statement here.

Oclubs.org is a fantastic resource for campus and community groups, and I hope to see lots of you at this meeting!

Jun 292010
 

Due to the debate about the NYC Mosque, the comments have been unusually busy these past few days. I’ve been unusually busy too, such that I’ve not had time to do more than skim many comments. That’s not going to change for the foreseeable future, so I wanted to clarify my position vis-à-vis the comments, not just the comments here, but also on my Facebook page. I don’t want anyone to think that I’m satisfied with everything that’s being said — because I’m not.

Ordinarily, I screen the comments for personal attacks, albeit in a loose way. I’m not so concerned if people posting in the comments lob the occasional insult at each other, provided that the discussion stays reasonably civil overall. However, I don’t want people launching personal grenades aimed at Objectivist intellectuals not involved in the discussion. That’s unfair to them. In general, I want people to argue the issues, not to attack their opponents.

(For the record, I made some mistakes in that regard early in this debate, for which I’ve apologized in the relevant venues. I’m not immune from error, but I’m trying hard to stay above the fray.)

Right now, I don’t have time to screen the comments, although I’ve seen much that I’ve found objectionable. Rather than shut down the comments entirely, I’m operating them on a “judge, and prepare to be judged” policy for the next few weeks. Basically, unless the sight of another comment from you makes me want to puke my guts and tear my hair out, I’m going to allow it. You’re welcome to judge other people for their comments — and be judged for your comments in turn. I would ask, however, that you keep those judgments out of the comments. If you don’t … well … you can expect to be judged for that.

Personally, I’m disheartened to see some personal attacks on Leonard Peikoff in these comments. I respect Leonard Peikoff hugely, despite this disagreement. He’s an honorable man in my book, whatever his anger toward people who hold my views. He cares about the future of this country deeply — and he’s fought for decades to save it. He deserves better than to be casually dismissed, as if he’s not thought about his views, even if you think his position utterly wrong.

If I can keep that context — even though I’m deeply, personally hurt by some of his remarks in his podcast and distressed by the unjust attacks on me by some people unleashed as a result — then you can too. Please, make an effort.

Also, please remember that you’re to wrap up any discussion of this topic by the end of today.

Take A Deep Breath

 Posted by on 29 June 2010 at 1:00 pm  NYC Mosque, Objectivism
Jun 292010
 

I’m grateful that Paul took the time to write the post below on the NYC mosque debate. I agree with his analysis completely, and I’ve found that it gave me a better perspective on the debate as a whole. While my views remain the same, I’ve got a better grasp of the merits of the opposing view. I hope that I’m not alone in that.

I’d like to see everyone involved in this debate take a step back and a deep breath. It’s very much needed.

I would hate to see OCON marred by unpleasant sniping, belligerence, or worse. OCON should be nothing but wonderfully fabulous delightful enjoyment. That’s what I aim to make it for myself. Personally, I don’t want to hear any sniping about this debate, nor hear any reports about sniping. Instead, I hope that people who dislike and disrespect each other can politely avoid the other without undue fuss — and avoid bitter chatter about each other too. That’s what I aim to do. If I falter in that, I hope that my friends will gently correct me.

To help calm the waters before OCON, I’ve decided not to write any further blog posts on this topic — nor comment much on it — for the next few weeks. I’m just too busy to indulge in the distraction, and I don’t want to start OCON feeling like I’m entering a war zone. (I was planning to write up a post featuring these excellent comments from Tony Donadio and Ray Niles, as well as Ari Armstrong’s blog post What About the Forty Other Islamic Centers?. Alas, these links will have to suffice.)

In addition, I’d ask that people wrap up any debate about the mosque in the comments by this evening. Let’s step away from that debate before OCON, as much as possible.

Personally, I plan to spend the next few days preparing for OCON, plus indulging in the fantastic pleasure of buying a stellar horse. (Yup, details will be forthcoming… although all depends on Thursday afternoon’s vet check. I’m absurdly excited.)

In the comments, why don’t you tell me about something special that you’ll be doing over the next few days? I think we’d all like to hear about something positive!

Jun 292010
 

I hadn’t intended to make any public comment about the NYC mosque issue, primarily because I’ve been busy working on a couple more health care articles, as well as helping edit another friend’s article.

But given the recent outbreak of often-heated arguments between Objectivists in the blogosphere and in social media (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) over this issue, I decided to take a break from my other work and speak my mind now — before OCON 2010, when many of us will be seeing each other in person.

1) For the record, I agree with Diana’s position as articulated in her blog posts of June 16 and June 28 and the position taken by Steve Simpson in his guest post of June 24. I also agree with these comments posted by Tony Donadio and Ray Niles (aka “Galileo Blogs”).

(As a corollary, this means that I although I have tremendous respect for Dr. Peikoff as a philosopher and although I agree with much of what he said in his recent podcast on this topic, I must respectfully disagree with his conclusions about the proper actions the government should take towards the proposed NYC mosque in the current context.)

2) This isn’t the first time that Objectivists who agree on basic principles disagree sharply on how to properly apply those principles to specific concrete situations. Nor will it be the last time.

This particular dispute happens to be especially heated precisely because it concerns an issue of vital importance to all of us — namely the future (and quite possibly the very survival) of our great country.

3) I want to highlight the fact that the reason that many Objectivists who otherwise agree on many important issues are finding themselves at loggerheads on this particular issue is because it is a lose-lose question.

Objectivists generally agree that Americans are being threatened by Islamic Totalitarian ideologues who seek to destroy the US. And we agree that the proper response would be for our government to identify that threat and wage a proper war with the goal of defeating and destroying the enemy.

That’s the proper function of government — to protect our individual rights from aggressors abroad and from criminals at home. One of Ayn Rand’s many brilliant philosophical insights was that human survival in a social context requires a limited government which protects individual rights, specifically by placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control.

Unfortunately, we don’t have that kind of government right now. Instead, we live under a government that refuses to properly identify the enemy, refuses to wage a proper war of self-defense, and refuses to protect our individual rights.

Given that unfortunate fact, we are left with no good life-promoting options — only bad death-promoting choices.

On one side are those who argue that allowing the NYC mosque to be built would further weaken the few remaining restraints stopping the bad guys from killing us — and the result would be our destruction.

On the other hand are those who argue that stopping the building of the mosque by allowing the government to exercise force in a grossly non-objective fashion would further weaken the few remaining restraints keeping us from descending into tyranny — and the result would be our destruction.

Both sides raise important concerns, particularly about the dangers of adopting the course endorsed by their opponents. That’s precisely what happens when the only good option (of waging a proper war against our enemies) has been taken off the table. Once that happens, all we are left with are bad options.

In essence, when Good Option A has been taken off the table, and we are left only with Bad Options B and C, supporters of Option B can justifiably claim that “Option C will lead to our destruction” and supporters of Option C justifiably claim that “Option B will lead to our destruction”.

Because long-range human survival requires a government that protects our rights through objectively controlled retaliatory force, the corollary is that absence of such a government will lead to our deaths and destruction. The only question is what form that death will that take — from enemies abroad or from a tyranny at home. And that’s why too much of this debate is over a lose-lose question.

4) I believe there can be legitimate disagreements as to which of those two bad options would be more immediately disastrous.

Similarly, I believe there can be legitimate debates over a variety of related issues such as whether we have enough information to know that the NYC mosque constitutes an objectively-proven threat to our lives, and how imminent that threat is. Those arguments are already occurring in other venues, so I won’t rehash the details here.

My personal judgment, based on my best understanding of the facts and relevant principles, is that the long-range threat to American freedoms and American lives would be significantly greater if the government further violated basic principles of objective law and chose to destroy the mosque.

I’m not ignorant or unmindful of the concerns of the other side. But in the current context, I judge that the danger of rapidly accelerating tyranny would outweigh the real (but not quite as imminent) danger of death and destruction from the bad guys.

I also recognize that if some of the specifics were different (for instance, if the Iranian government were using the mosque to hide a nuclear weapon which would detonate in NYC in a few days), then I would take the opposite position and instead urge the immediate destruction of the mosque, while hoping to best deal with the problems of expansion of tyranny later.

These are the sorts of issues that make for good dramas like the television show 24 (and which I hope stay purely in the world of Hollywood fiction.)

Likewise, I would endorse shutting down the mosque via appropriate due process if it were shown to be used to recruit terrorists or plot terrorist acts. Or if we established with reasonable certainty that the funding of the mosque was coming from states that sponsor terrorism (not Qatar).

5) I’m not an expert on foreign policy or Islam. Most of my recent intellectual activism has been in other arenas, such as health care and free speech. So I’m open to reasoned criticisms that I’m wrong on some important relevant facts.

Likewise, I’m not a philosopher or an expert on Objectivism. Hence, I’m open to reasoned criticisms that I’m misunderstanding or misapplying the relevant principles of Objectivism to this particular concrete issue.

To quote from Galt’s speech, “When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.”

Hence, I’m willing to be held fully accountable for my views by other rational men — and judged accordingly.

In turn, my own self-interest demands that I judge those on both sides of the debate considering the full context of their words and actions, not just now but over the entirety of time I’ve known them.

I know, like, and respect people on both sides of this dispute. And I regard many of the people on the other side of this debate as fundamentally good people, even though I may think that their position on this issue is deeply wrong (and correspondingly harmful to my interests). But they’ve earned the right to be treated with respect. And I hope that they will afford me whatever corresponding degree of respect that I may have earned in their eyes.

6) Finally, I don’t plan on engaging in much more (if any) public discussion on this particular issue — I have too much other pressing work that takes higher priority for me.

But given that I will see many of you soon at OCON 2010 and that I will also run into many of you in various online venues, I wanted to state my views as clearly and unambiguously as possible now in order to minimize any possible future misunderstandings.

Jun 272010
 

Note from Diana Hsieh, 22 Feb 2012

If you’ve come to this page via “Checking Premises” or something similar, please note that I’ve written a length commentary on the criticisms circulating about me, including explaining my views of various controversial matters, in this post: On Some Recent Controversies. I’d recommend reading that, then judging me based on my full range of work, not just a few out-of-context snippets. If you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me privately at diana@dianahsieh.com.

***

In his most recent podcast, Leonard Peikoff offers his view of the controversy surrounding the proposed mosque near Ground Zero in New York City. I encourage you to listen to his podcast for yourself.

I agree with much that he says, including his view of the threat posed by totalitarian Islam. However, I cannot regard this mosque as an objective threat to the rights of others without concrete evidence of ties to terrorism. For all the reasons outlined in my original post and Steve Simpson’s post, I regard Dr. Peikoff’s recommendation of stopping the building of the mosque by “any way possible” as wrong. That’s a grave threat to my life and liberty, and I cannot support it.

In Dr. Peikoff’s commentary, as well as in the recent round of Facebook comments, I’ve noticed a serious equivocation in the claim of my opponents that “we are at war.”

Undoubtedly, the west is in a cultural war with Islam — a war that most governments, organizations, and people refuse to acknowledge, let alone fight. Undoubtedly, our government should be at war with the states that export totalitarian Islam, pulverizing them into dust if necessary. Nonetheless, the fact remains that our government is not at war with our Islamic enemies, not in any real sense. Our political and military leaders are not willing to declare, let alone fight, a proper war in our self-defense.

As a result of that failure, the actions of the government toward those enemies are limited. For example, our government cannot prosecute imams for treason when they give aid and comfort to enemy terrorist groups like Hamas. Yes, that’s wrong — but that’s what happens when a government refuses to identify its enemies. Similarly, our government cannot regard the proposed mosque as an enemy outpost, as it might, if we were truly at war.

The solution is not to pretend as if war has been declared — and thereby empower the government to violate people’s rights willy-nilly. The solution is not to eliminate the few remaining limits on government power that protect our capacity to speak freely. The solution is press hard for a proper war — a war against our true enemies, a war fought purely on the basis of American self-interest.

Until we get that explicit declaration of war against our Islamic enemies, the hands of our government should be tied. That’s a frightening prospect, as the Muslim terrorists will take advantage of that weakness. Yet if we loose the hands of Uncle Sam, others with seemingly threatening views will soon be crushed too… and that means you and me. Once that happens, we’ll not have a civilization worth saving from the Muslims.

As much as I respect Dr. Peikoff’s philosophic judgment, I cannot ignore that risk to my life and limb.

Update as of 26 January 2012: I wrongly attributed the phrase “any means possible” to Dr. Peikoff in the original version of this article. According to Trey Givens’ transcript, Dr. Peikoff said, “Any way possible permission should be refuse[d] and if they go ahead and build it, the government should bomb it out of existence, evacuating it first, with no compensation to any of the property owners involved in this monstrosity.”

Activism Recap

 Posted by on 27 June 2010 at 5:00 pm  Activism Recap
Jun 272010
 

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine):

This week on Politics without God, the blog of The Coalition for Secular Government:

This week on Modern Paleo Blog, the blog of Modern Paleo:

Open Thread #176

 Posted by on 27 June 2010 at 11:00 am  Open Thread
Jun 272010
 

Here’s yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:

For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they’d like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)

Questions on Food

 Posted by on 26 June 2010 at 7:00 am  Food, FormSpring
Jun 262010
 

Some FormSpring Questions and Answers with advice on food:

What kinds of portable, Paleo-friendly snacks do you like to eat?

Cheese, nuts, and kefir used to be my staples on the road, but I’m seriously cutting down on those lately. Another option that I often use is to cut up cubes of uncured ham. Hard boiled eggs are also pretty handy, particularly if peeled in advance.

However, more often than not, I simply don’t eat when I’m out and about. Or I will make a genuine meal — like the chicken, tomato, and cucumber salad that I threw together for myself on Tuesday.

Mostly though, I stay at home and I eat at home. I have to run errands in Denver on Wednesday afternoon. (That’s when I do all my grocery shopping for the week, plus I pick up my raw milk.) I have the Atlas Shrugged Reading Group on Thursday evenings… but just for a few more weeks. And I usually have some FRO meeting over the weekend. If I could reduce those excursions to just one per week, I’d be thrilled. That doesn’t seem likely to happen, however.

I love eating meats and green leafy vegatables, but should I reconsider eating nuts? You know peanuts; cashews; walnuts; pecans; almonds; brazil nuts; hazelnuts; etc.

(Peanuts aren’t nuts; they’re legumes.) I eat nuts periodically, but some have really high omega-6 content. See this page for a breakdown. Macadamias are the best; walnuts are the worst.

Can you recommend a fat for cooking which can be purchased at any regular grocery store? Besides butter?

Bacon grease! Make bacon, pour the grease into a small glass jar. Store it in the fridge. Use it liberally for cooking meats and veggies. It will stay good for at least a month or two, if not longer.

I use that, plus butter and coconut oil for almost all my “fat for cooking” needs.

We just started a paleo-type diet and the only problem so far is that my fiancee is ALWAYS hungry. He works a very physical job and likes to “graze”, not eat big meals. Any suggestions on filling paleo snacks besides nuts and jerky?

How about heavy cream or cheese? Most people can tolerate dairy in that form. It’s got a ton of calories, and it definitely satisfies hunger. And it’s yummy! In general, I would imagine that your man needs something fatty.

By the way, Costco is a great place to buy cheese and cream. You get vast quantities for cheap.

I’ve read that “low and slow” is the “right way” to cook paleo food…but it also seems to make sense to cook food over an open fire (i.e. BBQ). Is there any evidence that this is true/not true?

I have not the slightest clue.

In general, however, most cooking methods probably have some health costs and some health benefits. My strategy is to forgo the methods with major health costs (like frying in modern vegetable oils), then vary between the other methods.

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha