Exercise, for most people, just isn't effective when it comes to losing weight. 1 pound of loss requires a 3500 calorie deficit and that takes a *lot* of exercise. Exercise's benefits are elsewhere, as in strength and cardiovascular health. If one wishes to lose weight, lose the incoming calories.

I'm past the hysterical laughter stage, just now in the intermittent giggling stage. We need more judges like that.....

"The early worm gets the bird." I've waited 40 years for that cartoon. :)

I ran some stats awhile ago. Post WW 2, ignoring Biden and Trump, and taking into account that spending for the first year of a president's term comes from the previous administration, there's basically no difference in the spending/GDP ratio for Republican and Democratic admins.

In conclusion, the conventional criticisms--yours included--basically miss the mark because they're based on a failure to understand Objectivism itself. There *are* real problems with Objectivism, but the important ones are not the ones you identify. 18/18

As you noted, Rand's history is rather idealized, with consequences for her philosophy. Her view that evil is self-destructive, though true, induces passivity, "Why should I fight evil if I know it's going to self-destruct, especially if doing so puts my life at risk?" I could go on and on. 17/18

But in a philosophy ostensibly grounded in reason and advocating reason in all things, such polemic is deadly; it undercuts the whole of the philosophy. 16/18

I am not offering this as a criticism of Objectivism, because--outside of rhetoric and the occasional dogmatist--no thinking Objectivist takes that assertion literally. Not even Rand did. So WHY IN HELL did she keep saying it? For its polemic, not its logical, force. 15/18

Furthermore, that proscription entails either omniscience or powerlessness. If I'm not omniscient, how can I *know* that someone has initiated force? If I do not *know* this, can I ever be justified in using force? (There is an answer in Objectivism, but it negates that assertion.) 14/18

I'll illustrate with one of my pet peeves, Rand's repeated assertion that force may only be used in retaliation and only against one who has initiated its use. It's bullshit. Rand herself approved of the subpoena, which is force against one who has not initiated force. 13/18