Archimedes (287 BC – 212 BC) is quoted as having once said, “Give me a big enough lever, and a place to put the fulcrum, and I will move the world.” (English translation)
It was of course, a theoretical statement, but based on the scientific principle of leverage Archimedes was so eloquent at explaining.
But this then begs the question, what’s the math on his theoretical question? So let’s take a look!
We don’t know what Archimedes weighed, but let’s assume he was an even 200 lbs., an average weight for an adult male, and a nice round number to do our math with.
First, let’s understand leverage.If you have a fulcrum (pivot point) in the middle of a lever supporting two bodies of mass, and those masses are the same distance from the lever, assuming the lever is a uniform weight its entire length, the two bodies will balance.
If however, one mass is twice as heavy as the other, then the lighter item needs to be twice as far from the fulcrum to balance with the heavier one…and so on.
If he was indeed 200 lbs., and wanted to lift Earth (which is believed to be approx 5.9 sextillion tons) one foot, he would place the fulcrum 1 foot away from the end of his lever under the Earth, and the other side of the lever would have to be approximately 5,587,121,210,000,000 miles away.
Archimedes Lever
This then also means he would have to move vertically 5,587,121,210,000,000 miles as well, in order to lift the other side just one foot.
This is of course theoretical, for fun, let’s think about some of the other things that would have to be true.
It assumes the lever is some miracle material that is unbreakable, it is being asked to lift 5.9 sextillion tons, after all.
Yet somehow, this unbreakable lever must have no mass of its own. Otherwise, it changes your equation, and you’d have to account for that.
It requires that Earth would be laying on top of another body that has the same mass as Earth, because something needs to be not only providing a gravity force to pull earth down, but also, he needs some place to put his fulcrum.
Any physicists out there want to add any critique or additional insights, please feel free to do so in the comments section below. Always an honor to have my work reviewed.
Have you ever heard the expression that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result? Rest assured, you probably didn’t hear it from a psychiatrist, because it’s utter nonsense.
As it turns out, insanity is a rather generic term used in the legal realm for many disorders that would in fact be listed in the DSM, that would render a suspect unable to distinguish right from wrong, and therefore unable to assist in their defense.
Any numbers of diseases could be cause for finding someone legally insane, but the APA calling you insane, would be akin to the American Medical Association (AMA) giving you an official diagnosis of “Having a cold.” It’s simply a very broad and generic term that isn’t really used in the clinical world in any official capacity.
However, all that being said, there are many conditions and behaviors insanity could be attributed to. Certainly one of them might be someone who bangs their head up against a wall and thinks, “Ouch, that hurt.” Then, does it again nonetheless.
So while someone who does the same thing and expects a different result might in fact have a condition that would qualify them for an insanity defense in a court of law, it is in no way the definition of insanity.
So I’d like to quash this silly anecdote by not using it, and explaining to those who do, that it’s incorrect. Why, you might ask?
Why do space ships and comets get so hot returning to Earth?
Most people know that comets turn into a big ball of flames that burn up as they hurdle through the sky, and that space vehicles get extremely hot during re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere, but why?
There is a misconception that this is because of the friction of the air passing around the object, but that’s not the case.
If you’ve ever put your hand out the window of your moving car with your palm pacing forwards, you know what wind resistance feels like—that pressure pushing your hand backwards. Chances are, unless you or the driver had a death wish, you haven’t been doing much greater that 60-70 mph doing it.
All pressure generates heat because it compresses the atoms closer together than they would be if they weren’t under pressure. At 60-70 mph, not much heat is generated. At 18,000 mph, the speed that spacefraft are doing when they are in orbit however, a massive amount of heat will be generated as the spacecraft falls towards Earth through our atmosphere. Comets and other celestial bodies may even be going much faster than that depending on what forces sent them careening through space in the first place.
So the heat is from the pressure of the object pushing on the air in front of it which can’t get out of the way fast enough.
Another great example of this same phenomena are the rail guns the U.S. military is testing. These guns use magnets to fire an entirely inert projectile at thousands of miles per hour. They don’t use any explosives, gun powders, etc., whatsoever. Instead, they use magnets to repel the projectile away like when you put a magnet near another magnet with the same pole.
Yet, when the projectile is fired, it is launched at thousands of miles per hour; much faster than a traditional projectile. In the video below, you can see the flames all around it. Again, with no explosives used whatsoever, this is entirely due to the heating up of the air in front of it—just like a comet entering Earth’s atmosphere.
Do planets really orbit stars?
Technically, planets like Earth don’t orbit around their stars like our sun, they orbit around the center of the mass between the two objects.
Imagine a planet and a star had the exact same mass, they would both orbit round the point in space exactly between the two. If the sun for instance, was twice as big as Earth, the sun’s orbit would be half the size of Earth’s, and so on.
Think of a bola (See image below); a weapon that’s two balls tied to either end of a string. When you throw it, the two balls spin around a point at the very center of the string.
Scale it up to make those two balls a planet and a star, the string is gravity.
Since our sun has so much more mass than Earth (or any other orbiting body in our solar system), the sun’s orbit is mass-proportionate to the orbital motion of Earth (and the other planets, dwarf planets, and asteroids). For instance, an object that is 1/100th the mass of the sun would have an orbit 100 times larger than the sun.
All the planets, dwarf planets, etc. are many in numbers, so their orbits aren’t perfect circles, as they all affect each other dependent upon how close they are in relation to each other, and the proportionate mass of each of them. But the sun as well as the planets are all orbiting around a central imaginary point to all of them.
Warp-Drive – Not so awesome after all
In many Sci-Fi movies, you see space travelers go from a standard space cruising speed, to some “warp-drive” feature that sends them to light speed within about one second.
There’s a problem with this though. That acceleration puts G-Forces on the body.
Gravity is measured in m/s/s (meters per second per second), and gravity’s standard value for this on Earth is 9.8m/s/s.
I know that’s a tad confusing, so let me explain.
Since this is theoretical, to be literal, you would have to remove all the air from Earth so there would be no wind resistance first. But once that is done, if you dropped any object above Earth, the first second, it would fall at 9.8 meters per second. The 2nd second would be 19.6 meters per second. The 3rd, 29.4 meters per second, and so on…each second increasing in speed 9.8 meters per second.
This is the acceleration of gravity, or often referred to as 1 g.
Knowing this, just to give you some examples of G-Forces people experience, many top fuel dragsters accelerate so fast, the drivers are exposed to 5 g’s of gravity, fighter pilots can get over 15 g’s of gravity, but risk black-outs doing so.
How many g’s can a person withstand?
Over a period of time, 15 g’s is about the most we can endure, and even then, only if you’re in peak physical condition. Because at 15 g’s, your effective weight is 15 times greater than normal, making your average 200 lbs. male a whopping 3,000 lbs.
But for a brief moment, like slamming into a wall (which are negative G’s, or deceleration vs. acceleration), humans have been known to survive as much as 46 g’s.
See link below, and poor John Stapps face, while achieving those negative g’s. He voluntarily strapped himself into a contraption that exposed himself to those high g’s for scientific research. If there was ever a hero who took one for the team of science, it’s that guy.
Now, here’s where the problem comes in for warp-drive.
In space, the fastest mankind has ever went is about 25,000 mph, when we went to the moon. So let’s assume that’s the approximate “cruising” speed that our Sci-Fi characters are bumbling about at.
25,000 mph is approximately 11,176 meters per second (m/s).
The speed of light is “slightly” faster, at a whopping 299,792,458 m/s.
So that means, that the acceleration is 299,781,282 meters per second per second (m/s/s) if they went from 25,000 mph to the speed of light in one second. If my calculations are right, and of course 1 g is 9.8 m/s/s, then that means that our Sci-Fi characters would be exposed to 30,589,927 g’s of force, roughly. Or 30,589,881 g’s more than any human has ever survived.
In order for them to accelerate to light speed from 25,000mph, and achieve no more than 10 g’s, a force that is still virtually unbearable, it would take approximately 3,058,992 seconds, 50,983 hrs, 2,124 days, or 5.8 years, then doubling of course to allow for the the equally powerful negative G-forces you’d achieve slowing back down.
So the moral of the story, is that they’d be human pancakes in a fraction of a second—which is not so cool after all. Not to mention, their space ship would be torn to shreds as well. While the writers at Star Trek deserve a little credit for identifying this problem and coming up with the idea of “inertial dampers” to overcome the effect, such inertial dampers fall under a category I like to call literary bullshit.
In January of 2013, an Oregonian bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, refused to bake a cake for a lesbian couple who were soon to wed. Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakery’s owners, are Christian, and felt that baking such a cake would violate their religious beliefs. As such, they refused the lesbian couple’s business.
As reported here by Fox, the couple faced a $150,000 fine, based on a January 29th, 2015 ruling, for discrimination as a result of such action.
Being an atheist and a libertarian, I find Aaron and Missy’s actions egregious and disgusting. I suspect many people who champion gay rights are happy to see them in trouble. But, as much as libertarians are indeed for gay rights, we are supposed to champion rights for all people, qualifiers be damned.
While the courts are doing a good job protecting the rights of the lesbian couple, they are taking away rights from the Kleins in doing so, and this is no better.
If the Constitution’s 1st amendment guarantees free speech under the law so people can say hateful things, shouldn’t the 1st amendment’s freedom of religion clause protect those who practice religion-based hate just the same?
U.S. Constitution: 1st Amendment
If I were the gay couple looking to get the aforementioned cake, I’d be rather insulted by the Klein’s actions, but if I believe in liberty, I’d fight vehemently for them to engage in such hate, so long as their hate isn’t harming me in some way. Let the free market deal with the Kleins in the court of public opinion.
I could do so by taking my story to local media, which happened as a result of this case, but I could also go on social media like Facebook and Twitter and spread the fact that the Kleins are not gay-friendly, hoping reasonable people opt not to frequent their store, harming their business accordingly.
The free market appears to have done exactly that since the aforementioned article by Fox indicates they have since moved to doing business out of their home, because the loss of business cost them the ability to continue leasing their store. They opted to start a GoFundMe campaign to help them with their cause, but that later was shut down, again due to the free market flexing its muscle as gay rights groups got GoFundMe to pull the Klein’s campaign.
Religious groups on the right are calling for religious liberty, but in my opinion, they are equally bad in all of this, since I doubt many of them support the lesbian couple’s right to marry. If they do, good on them for not being hypocrites.
If America is indeed a free-market capitalist system, government has no right to impose its will on private enterprise in this way. Yet we Americans tolerate it because we ignore the fundamental basis of the Constitution—that we all have equal rights under the law, including business owners like the Kleins.
Equal rights under the law has to mean that any business should have the right to engage in, or refuse, business with anyone else for any reason imaginable, no matter how hateful and disgusting those reasons may be.
Why? Because it’s their business. Despite Obama’s claims to the contrary, they built it, and they own it. They should have the right to build it up or burn it down however they see fit.
But we so often call for such laws, because there seems to be this knee-jerk reaction that every time someone is wronged, instead of trusting in the free market to sort it out, we feel we must ask government to pass a law to prevent this from happening in the future instead. But that is not, nor ever should be, the purpose of government.
Government’s duty is only to protect your rights, not your feelings. In a free country, you are going to be exposed to people who offend you, but that also means you are free to walk away and not listen to them or deal with them.
The lesbian couple certainly could have found another bakery, or simply baked their own cake. Why would they want to do business with people they know don’t like them in the first place?
It’s certainly their right to ask the Kleins to bake them a cake, but how could anyone say they have a right to demand the Kleins bake them one? Don’t the Kleins have rights?
So as much as gay rights groups were up in arms until the January 29th decision was handed down, and now religious groups are up in arms instead, I’d call for both of them to stop being hypocrites. If you say you’re for freedom and rights, then you have to champion the rights for those who hate you too.
I recently stated among friends, that I’ve vehemently despised Hillary Clinton since she was first lady; she has not done anything to change my opinion of her since.
My friend, attempting to challenge me on this, poignantly asked me what she could have possibly done as first lady to raise my ire. He was assuming I was just being a political ideologue with a hatred for anyone who is a Democrat, or at least Democratic in nature.
Hillary Rodham ClintonLittle did he know, I actually do have a reason, and it’s called The Health Security Act of 1993, affectionately known as Hillary Care. Despite neither being an elected official of Congress or the Senate, Hillary Clinton, at the pleasure of her husband Bill, drafted a legislative proposal for a government mandated single-payer health care system—a socialized medicine scheme. It was similar to what Obama really wanted when he ultimately settled for the Affordable Care Act, a quasi-free market system.
This wasn’t “Just say no” or Michelle Obama’s campaign to get people to eat healthy, this was an attempt at a massive overhaul of the American way of life (free-market capitalism) that would have cost taxpayers more than any other subsidy before it—by far. Yet she didn’t have a single taxpayer vote for her, thus giving her any legitimate reason to do such a thing. Not to mention, it was equally disturbing her husband appointed her to do so.
If Hillary had an ounce of medical training, or a history of leadership in the insurance industry, she would have some qualifications to point to in proposing such a scheme, but she’s a lawyer, nothing more, and thus unilaterally unqualified to run a taxpayer-funded, trillion-dollar (likely) system.
In my opinion, this showed a monumental amount of arrogance, and an unprecedented lack of respect for the Constitution and the American people. As the years have passed, she has never shown herself to be anything other than arrogant, disrespectful to our nation’s framework. Since then, she has also demonstrated a massive amount of untrustworthiness, with her various lies and legal indiscretions.
The United States Constitution
While I would never vote for a Democrat due to their current largely non-libertarian ideology, there are many Democrats I at least find respectful and trustworthy, just possessing a different ideology than my own, and I can respect that, to some extent.
Nonetheless, it would appear that the rest of the Democratic machine wants to have a baby with her, and unless she executes a bunny on national TV, she’s likely to be their nominee.
So with that in mind, I want to address Senator Rand Paul’s reaction to her, along with others from the GOP, and potentially the LP.
FORGET ABOUT HER, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, UNTIL THE DEBATES.
Rand, Rubio, Cruz, and others are on full attack mode against Hillary, and it’s a horrible strategy. People already hate attack ads, but for better or worse, a trait instilled within all of us is that a man attacking a woman, even if only verbally, is unbecoming and in poor taste. Just close your eyes for a minute, and imagine a bunch of guys angrily ganging up on a woman, and tell me who comes off looking like the villain—I assure you, it isn’t Hillary.
Senator Rand Paul (R)
There is no metric where any GOP or LP candidate will win votes from people who weren’t going to already vote for them by attacking Hillary.
Instead, they should focus on why they will be a great president as they see it, then if asked about Hillary in general, simply respond that they assume she’s a patriot, but simply has a different idea for America than they do, and more importantly, than our forefathers did when they drafted the Constitution.
The news media, led by Fox News, but also some main stream outlets, print media, and internet agencies have challenged Hillary’s shortcomings, let them be the ones pointing out the flaws in her character, they aren’t running for anything.
Her ideas are atrocious, socialism always is. So attacking her character as a campaign opponent is unnecessary when you can simply point out the flaws in the ideas she’s promoting with logic and reason, letting her and her ideology die on their merits, without ever even mentioning her name.
But every time a candidate mentions her, she is effectively getting press. If you mention her in an attack, she’s now getting press as the woman being attacked by those mean men (since no other woman has indicated she is looking to enter the fray). This will only bolster her likability as she milks playing the victim.
Former Governer Gary Johnson – Libertarian nominee for President
I’ve made it clear on numerous occasions that while I like Gary Johnson first and foremost, Senator Paul is the one GOP candidate who would likely wrestle my vote from Governor Johnson. But I would still consider Rubio or Cruz a severe improvement over Obama a monumentally better choice than Hillary, even if they don’t get my vote.
So Senators Paul, Rubio, and Cruz, and anyone else yet to enter the presidential arena who happens to be a champion of liberty, please heed my advice, and consider Hillary “she who should not be named.”
Focus on the issues, and attack Democratic issues, but do whatever you came to not let the name Hillary Clinton leave your mouth unless you have to.
As someone who loves science, with more than just a passing interest, I tend to trust scientists in general far more than politicians, Hollywood stars, CEO’s or the general public.
Sometimes scientists get things wrong, but I think you’d be hard-pressed to argue that any group of people are more right about how the world works; my trust is placed in the most capable hands.
One of the more controversial subjects these days is genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Many people consume them without knowing it, some actively avoid them, and some are like me—trustful of the people who know more than me that the product that they are bringing to market has been well-researched, and has provided no evidence of any harmful effects to the consumer.
McDonald’s have not elaborated on their reasons to my knowledge, but assuming they’re aware of the science behind them, and the rigorous testing these potatoes must have passed by their manufacturer, J.R. Simplot, and then the FDA, I feel it’s safer to assume McDonald’s is simply making a smart marketing decision.
People who are OK with GMOs will still buy from McDonald’s if they already were a customer, and people who are afraid of GMOs will too. The only people McDonald’s might lose are people making a principled stand to avoid them because they’re being anti-science, and I suspect such people are pretty small in numbers.
One group of people are unwitting hypocrites however, and that’s the high number of marijuana users who say they only consume organic, non-GMO foods.
Go to any pot dispensary, and you will find a myriad of choices available to the consumer so vast, that no other consumable crop likely exceeds it in variance. There are certainly more marijuana choices available than there are varieties of apples and potatoes.
The reason for this is that marijuana is one of the most heavily genetically modified organisms on the planet. People have been combining varieties of seeds for centuries to come up with crops that are either heartier to produce a greater yield of usable plant, or more often than not to yield a higher THC content for better highs.
The bottom line is that it’s nearly impossible to procure marijuana in its natural state these days.
Marijuana Harvest
So these users are either supremely ignorant as to how that pot came to be, or somehow have decided that the “scientist” who lives next door working out of their basement, and may or may not have taken a few biology classes, knows more than the multitude of PhD holders at Monsanto, Simplot, and/or the FDA as to what is safe for human consumption. If there’s logic in that, I don’t see it.
The argument is that marijuana is genetically modified by cross-pollination, or cross-breeding, a process where the pollen of one plant is introduced into the stigma of another. Essentially, it’s the plant version of crossing a horse with a donkey to create a mule.
By doing this, you’re coupling two plants with DNA which is nearly identical, but specifically that share a common trait you hope to enhance by combining them. This will usually work to some extent, because that’s how procreation works in general.
This is oversimplifying it a bit, but basically, when any two organisms procreate, the commonalities they share have a high chance of being part of the offspring, the traits they don’t share have a 50:50 shot at becoming part of the offspring, and of course, if neither have a particular trait, they are all but guaranteed not to produce offspring with that trait.
Think of shooting a shotgun at a target 100 feet away. Most of the shot may centralize around the bulls-eye, assuming your aim was true, but there will be scattered buckshot all around your aiming point that’s rather indiscriminate. This is cross breeding. You’ll get pretty close, and you’ll often have something close to the desired result (a bulls-eye), but you’ll likely have a lot of other stuff you didn’t necessarily want as well (shot outside the bulls-eye).
What people like Monsato and Simplot are doing however, is specifically activating or deactivating a particular and singular gene they know will give the offspring they create the desired result, without changing anything else. If cross-breeding is a shotgun at 100 feet, GMOs are a marine sniper on his best day from just 5 feet.
While I know this can be a soft spot for creationists, evolution is a very natural process. Traits that are most common in surviving species carry on, traits that aren’t usually die off before procreation, and go extinct. It’s an incredibly slow process that can take up to hundreds, if not thousands of generations. Cross-breeding and GMOs simply speed it up to one generation, and often obtains something pretty close to the desired result of the breeder, GMOs are simply the significantly more precise of the two.
It may not seem natural, and by definition it isn’t, but it’s effectively just an infinitely faster version of evolution, something that is indeed entirely natural.
Science, somewhat justifiably so, isn’t always considered trustworthy. There is a long history of scientific discovery that has been at the expense of human lives. Whether it be malicious Nazi scientists doing experiments on their Jewish captors, or well-intentioned experiments that have simply gone wrong, scientific endeavors have occasionally killed humans.
However, when you think of all the diseases that have been eradicated, all the organ transplants and medical procedures that have given people new leases on life, or all of the wonderful technology that simply makes our lives easier, clearly science has had an overwhelmingly positive influence on the human race.
GMO producers are simply either trying to being a better product to market, or often save lives by creating crops that can grow in places around the world who are starving because the produced GMO’s natural cousin won’t grow there, saving many lives. So if you’re against that, you’re unwittingly asking people to starve to death because you think it’s wrong for mankind to “play god” with food.
Either way, I love science, and I love the idea of using science to provide the world a better organism. Now pass me the GMO french fries.
An American president is an icon, “The leader of the free world,” they’re often referred to. History has judged some kindly, others—not so much.
So what qualities does it take to ensure that a president has the kind of legacy that guarantees people will think of them with reverence?
First, the president must be a leader. Ask anyone what it takes to be a leader, and you’ll hear things like charisma, strong ideas, motivation, etc. But frankly, the only thing you need to be a leader, by definition, is followers.
While I don’t think there are any polls indicating how many Americans consider themselves apolitical, the fact is, if you attempt to start a political conversation with a majority of Americans, in my experience, people more often than not will say things like, “they’re all corrupt” or “I couldn’t care less about politics.”
Many people do have political views, but not many can be bothered to actually listen to the news, inform themselves on the issues, consider both sides of an argument, and actively be engaged in the political process.
The Washington Times reported that voter turnout was just 36.4% in 2014, indicating that a significant majority of Americans have simply succumbed to whatever fate the voting minority foists upon them. This is a clear indication that few of our politicians anymore are leaders, because they simply aren’t engaging people in a way that makes them want to participate.
So what should a potential president do to be a leader?
Leaders are the opposite of followers. Seems simple enough, but that means that by definition, they should not be using polling, social media trending, or other such factors when making arguments. Instead, they should be original in their thoughts. Find issues people have either ignored, forgotten about, or weren’t aware of, and bring them to light with a fresh focus, and clearly understandable arguments.
For instance, Steve Jobs brought the iPod, iPhone, and iPad to market, not because of focus groups, but because he thought of something no one else did that we consumers didn’t even know we wanted, but now can’t live without. There was no focus group telling him to do it, he used his imagination to pave a trail every one of his competitors are now following. That’s leadership.
Steve Jobs – Apple Founder
Rand Paul is doing a great job of this by reaching out to colleges, minority groups, and other potential voters who traditionally do not vote GOP, and he’s making a solid case as to why they should.
Saddam Hussein ignored the warning, and the full brunt of the United States military and its willing allies was unleashed on Saddam’s army the following night. Bush did not give him a second warning, he did not do some half-hearted, “I mean it Saddam, get out” nonsense, extending the deadline to avoid war. He said what he was going to do and he did it. This kind of strength of conviction puts all other would-be enemies on notice that we are not to be messed with.
George H.W. Bush
A president must be an intelligent problem solver. Some of the greatest corporate leaders are great, not because they know everything, but because they know who to ask when they need answers and/or help, and can make intelligent decisions based on the information those advisers provide.
When you see a president who behaves as if they know everything, that should be your first sign they are not an effective leader, as they’re simply far too arrogant and ignorant to listen to people who often know better.
For instance, when Obama fired then GM CEO Rick Wagoner, as if somehow he knew what was better for GM than their acting CEO, his unwarranted hubris was obvious to everyone in the automotive industry, many of who rightfully found it offense and wrong, and of course, GM ended up filing for bankruptcy anyway, which is what Wagoner said needed done all along.
A most recent Gallup poll shows that 42% of Americans are also independent. This makes independents effectively the largest “party” in America, albeit effectively a non-party. So a great president will find a way to not only appeal to their base, but also to reach out to people who aren’t partisan.
How does a president do that? It is my opinion that such a president would have to show that he or she places logic and reason before party lines. Any conclusion they come to should be well thought out, well-reasoned, and then told in a way that everyone can understand.
It is all too common for a Democrat or Republican to be strangely apoplectic about something the opposition does that is obviously quite benign, and most people can’t be bother with. A president should understand that the more they complain about their political opponents, the more they become the boy who cries wolf. If you want to be a great president, put politics aside when analyzing any issue, and make sure if you do attack, it is genuinely warranted—pick your battles wisely.
The president should be someone who doesn’t want the job, but begrudgingly accepts the position for the greater good.
When it came time for a potential 3rd term, he stepped down voluntarily, again to avoid the idea of being some sort of supreme ruler. As such, all following presidents, until the American statist icon Franklin D. Roosevelt ran and was re-elected for a third term, never sought out a 2nd re-election as an homage to Washington.
An American president should ultimately see themselves not as a ruler, but as a guarantor of rights—a person charged with protecting the people, not presiding over them. Sadly, Gary Johnson and Rand Paul seem to be the only two candidates running with this mentality. But with any luck, one of them will gain the traction to bring America what can fairly be called another great president.
log·i·cal: capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion lib·er·tar·i·an: an advocate of the doctrine of free will; a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
![cigar_label_600dpi[1]](http://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Pictures/cigar_label_600dpi.jpg)
![snap2[1]](http://www.mathteacherctk.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/snap2.gif)
![americanpsychoass[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/americanpsychoass1.jpg?w=300&h=300)
![john-stapp-during-a-high-g-force-test-on-a-sled-nasa[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/john-stapp-during-a-high-g-force-test-on-a-sled-nasa1.jpg?w=474&h=281)
![gay-marriage1[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/gay-marriage11.jpg?w=300&h=223)
![lesbian_wedding_cake[1]](http://media.salon.com/2013/02/lesbian_wedding_cake.jpg)
![Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_crop[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/hillary_clinton_official_secretary_of_state_portrait_crop1.jpg?w=240&h=300)
![fda_sign_web_14_0_0[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/fda_sign_web_14_0_01.jpg?w=300&h=168)
![Simplot logo[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/logo1.jpg?w=474){kind=logo}
This is cross breeding. You’ll get pretty close, and you’ll often have something close to the desired result (a bulls-eye), but you’ll likely have a lot of other stuff you didn’t necessarily want as well (shot outside the bulls-eye).
![Gilbert_Stuart_Williamstown_Portrait_of_George_Washington[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/gilbert_stuart_williamstown_portrait_of_george_washington1.jpg?w=251&h=300)
The Logical Libertarian™ 