http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/03/obama_softens_on_iraq_withdraw.html

I'm not turning this into a one issue election but dammit getting out of this stupid war in Iraq is pretty important to me. So if my choice becomes between tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber I'm not sure what I'm gonna do.

Part of what gets me is politicians who say they're going to take advice from "commanders on the ground." Isn't letting the military guys make policy decisions just a little too much like letting the inmates run the asylum? If it were me I'd respect the opinion of a guy who was in theater but I wouldn't leave it up to him/her. We don't live in a military state. Things work best in the United States when: 1. the military isn't used and 2. the military is completely under civilian control.

Stick to your guns already Barrack. I'd vote for you to tell the military what to do, not vice versa.

Soldier on brave space-cadets.

Many of yall have probably heard about the giant atom smasher at the CERN laboratory in Europe that is coming online this summer called the LHC (Large Hadron Collider). Many of you might have heard something about a doomsday scenario where the LHC destroys the Earth or even the entire Universe. I'm here to say its all poppy-cock and explain why.

Before I explain too much it is worth pointing out that the LHC is not doing anything that doesn't occur in the upper atmosphere of our planet everyday. The LHC takes protons, the positively charged building blocks of atomic nuclei, and smashes them together in head-on collisions at velocities approaching the speed of light. This happens naturally here on Earth because there a lots of protons (and heavier nuclei) already streaming through our Universe at near the speed of light. We call these streaking particles cosmic rays. The Earth is constantly bombarded by these cosmic rays and when they hit the upper atmosphere they inevitably collide with atoms in the atmosphere. Viola! Nature's atomic accelerator. The only difference between these natural events and the ones that occur in the LHC is that the collisions in the LHC occur inside sensitive instruments that can observe and measure what happens during and after the collisions. So don't worry. If this kind of thing would have destroyed the Earth or the Universe, it would have happened already. The fact you are here reading this means that it is extremely unlikely the LHC experiments will end all of creation.

Why do we want to study these collisions? The short answer is that they will teach us about the very beginning of our Universe. Our Universe is observed to be expanding. If you run that process backwards we observe and infer that the Universe was once a much hotter and denser place than it was now. In those critical fractions of a second in the very hot very dense Universe, the physical laws of the Universe were created and set. So understanding the very early Universe helps us understand the way it is today. The LHC will hopefully create conditions in it that are hotter and denser than any other human experiment has ever created. Again, this shows that we probably don't have to worry about these experiments since the entire Universe was once this hot and dense and we apparently came through that just fine. As much as physicists would like to be able to, we are not yet anywhere close to being able to create conditions hot enough and dense enough where the laws of the Universe break down completely and become totally unpredictable (a la the episode "Trinity" on Stargate Atlantis, hey and even then Rodney just blew up 3/4 of a solar system, not the entire universe).

It is completely possible that the LHC will create micro-blackholes with the mass of about one proton. This is actually not dangerous at all and it is VERY exciting. Why isn't it dangerous? (Other than the fact that cosmic rays should create these in our atmosphere every day and yet the world does not end.) A blackhole occurs when mass is so tightly packed together that the escape velocity from the surface of the object exceeds the speed of light. For something with the mass of a proton, this surface would have a diameter 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times smaller than the diameter of a proton (that's 37 zeros there after that 1). In order for this mini-blackhole to grow, anything it "eats" would have to get within that diameter of it. Because atoms are mostly empty space, the probability of something hitting and being "eaten" by our mini-black hole is infinitesimal because its "surface" is so darn mini. We literally could not hit a target this small if we were trying to do it so the chances of it happening randomly are really really small.

We have to remember that a blackhole of a given mass doesn't have gravity that is larger or more powerful than any other object of the same mass. We could replace the Sun with a blackhole of the same mass and the Earth would happily continue along the same orbit it has now because the mass of the Sun would not have changed. Therefore the amount and force of gravity remains the same whether the mass is a large diffuse cloud or a tiny compressed blackhole. I'm not impressed with the puny nearly unmeasurable gravitational force of attraction that a proton has so I wouldn't be any more impressed with the gravitational force of attraction that a blackhole with the mass or a proton would have.

The other thing about blackholes is that over time they evaporate via a mechanism know as "Hawking radiation" that you can read all about in Stephen Hawking's book, "A Brief History of Time." If we work out the physics the overwhelming likely scenario for a mini-blackhole is that it will evaporate completely in much less time than it will take to colide with something else and "eat" it. So these mini-blackholes should "poof" disappear before they are able to grow to a size that might threaten anything, let alone an entire planet. And it would be really exciting if we made a mini-black hole and then watched it evaporate in our detectors. Observing a Hawking evaporation event would probably earn someone a Nobel Prize.

The LHC will also make anti-matter. This is also more exciting than it is dangerous. For nearly a century physicists have been able to make anti-matter in physics experiments. It isn't that hard. The hard part is keeping it once you make it because if your anti-matter encounters its matter counterpart it will annihilate in a flash of energy. Our experiments make a few anti-matter particles in each collision or reaction. The energy that is generated by an anti-proton and a proton-colliding is one ten-thousandth of a dyne. A dyne is a unit of energy that is roughly equivalent to a fly batting its wings. Even if we were able to make ten thousand anti-protons (a feat we've never achieved and the LHC won't even get close) the "gigantic" explosion caused by the simultaneous annihilation of all those anti-protons would be the energy equivalent of a common house fly kicking you in the shins. Doesn't sound like that could ruin anyone's day does it? So in the book "Angels and Demons", Dan Brown was, as he almost always is, full of shit. The people in Star Trek have obviously discovered how to make anti-matter in a much more efficient way since they use it to power starship propulsion. Our science isn't able to get even close to replicating that yet.

Therefore we can conclude that the American President is much more a threat to life on Earth than anything that will be going on in the LHC at CERN for the next couple years. I bless yall to go forth and spread the good news. Any questions?

Soldier on brave space-cadets.

Thanks to the 24 hour news cycle we've got the Jerusalem bulldozer rampage all over the news:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/02/israel.bulldozer/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/02/AR2008070200488.html

Some people have called this "terra" ("terrorism" to those out there that do not speak Texan). Okay so what makes this "terra?"
-The rampager was ethnically Palestinian. The rampagees are presumed to be primarily Jewish Israelis.
-The incident occurred in Jerusalem.
To me those are two very thin reasons to consider this terrorism. The substantial history of violence between Jewish Israelis and Palestinians doesn't mean that every cross-ethnic act of violence is provoked by historical political/ethnic issues. This has all the hallmarks of a crime of irrational impulse, passion, and rage. Dude acted alone without any clear provocation or purpose (unless we are to assume incorrectly that all Palestinians think about is how to kill Jews). I see something akin to the unfortunately familiar story of a blue collar laborer snapping and taking it out violently on whoever happens to be standing there. Its tragic but it ain't an international incident or "terra."

Soldier on brave space-cadets.

Last night and tonight I am pulling all-nighters out at the observatory. I haven't inverted my day-night schedule like this in several years and I was worried about how my difference in age would make it more difficult. Turns out it still isn't that hard for me. It is mildly disorienting but not so bad as to make me completely unproductive. Granted it is easier to do something like this in the summer when you are talking about shifting your sleep schedule only 6 hours instead of 12 hours. The other thing is that I'm only doing this for two nights and I remember that nights three and four were usually the worst part of the ordeal. I also get to sleep in my own bed this time.

I do get a little rush from staying up all night with the telescope. I don't like sleeping through the entire morning, which is normally my most productive part of the day.

Soldier on brave space-cadets.

An Op Ed in today's post takes the Supreme Court to the mat for misrepresenting their scientific research:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901476.html

Hooray for scientists! Hooray for quantitative statistics! Boo on judges who cite it incorrectly!

They get bonus points for agreeing with Scalia at the end and painting him into the proverbial corner. Don't fret about Scalia though. He has no problem being an inconsistent zealot.

Soldier on brave space cadets.

The Post is running an interesting article this morning about the origin of the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim manchurian candidate:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062703781.html

I'm a fan of the First Amendment. It protects speech, but not anonymous speech (or slander or libel or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). Like Voltaire, I'll defend anyone's right to say anything they want but only if they accurately cite themselves. That's one of the reasons I don't allow unscreened anonymous replies on this blog but everyone who identifies themselves is free to post whatever they want. It is dangerous to only allow speech that meets a standard judged by a moderator because no one is completely unbiased. I'll grant that two people can have different but valid definitions of responsible speech.

However, I think it is an easy call when you have speech that is not attributed to a source. My reasoning is simple. No one censors your speech for you. You are responsible for deciding if your own speech is responsible and truthful. If you consciously refuse to attach your name to your statements that is a tacit admission that you refuse to take responsibility for what you say. Rights are implicitly attached to responsibilities. By the highest social contract, citizens are responsible for their speech and their actions under the law. There is no excuse or need for anonymous speech in a society where your freedom of speech is protected.

Allowing anonymity in free speech also weakens its protection. In a less than ideal world people do face retribution for their speech. As long as we accept anonymous speech as necessary to protect people from retribution then we are sadly enabling people who would mete out retribution for speech they do not agree with. There should be and there is justice for people who are unfairly maligned for what they say. People who use their freedom of speech to show the hate and ugliness resident in their soul also get justice. But that doesn't work if we allow and accept anonymity in speech. Fairness, justice, and ethics can only be served if statements are properly attributed to their source.

Soldier on brave space-cadets

I'd like to go on record with the idea that the Democratic party should drop all planks concerning gun control and the second amendment from the party platform. First of all, does the platform really have to contain an opinion on everything under the sun? Second of all it seems to me that people can agree with the Democratic party on economic issues, national security issues, etc. and still have vastly different opinions on gun control. We can have a diversity of opinions on specific issues in this party while still agreeing on core values. That is more in the spirit of Will Rogers who said, "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

Personally I'm for gun control. But I also agree with Lawrence Tribe that the Bill of Rights really doesn't explicitly allow an outright ban. I believe in my heart that the authors of the Bill of Rights meant the right to bear arms as a collective rather than individual right. But they didn't make it clear enough in what they wrote. No matter how much I'm for a ban, it isn't a part of the social contract I have with my government and fellow citizens. The illogic ranting of the NRA burns my ears but I can't say their conclusion on handgun bans is unfounded.

Frankly that's what Obama is trying to say if you really listen to him instead of hacking his full statements into itty bitty sound bites. You could selectively quote the my last paragraph in the same way to make me look like a flip-flopping ideologue. That someone would vote against their economic and international sensibilities because of this issue seems crazy to me. Is it really smart to vote for the guy who will land you and you family uneducated and on food stamps cause he's the one that "lets you keep your gun?" Cause frankly its a non issue. No canidate is proposing to take anyone's gun away from them.

Soldier on brave space-cadets.

And the winners of this month's "That's Classy" award goes to southern politicians looking to score points on US Supreme Court decisions:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/26/scotus.child.rape.ap/index.html

Let me paraphrase them: "We're going to put those bastards to death no matter what cause we know they did it." *sigh* If only they had to live by the code they preached! Pistols at dawn you gap-toothed heathens! (The Supreme Court has allowed that now right?)

It's another classic "What's the Matter with Kansas" moment where theses dooshes are pandering to the poor uneducated masses. Only you know primarily who ends up on death row: the poor and the uneducated. *head*desk*

Solider on brave space-cadets.

I have ranted before about the absolutely comcastic way that the US Supreme Court has been run lately. I'm putting my money down now on Roberts being the worst Chief Justice in US history. Everything being decided 5-4 is bad enough but now we are getting 1-1-3-4 or 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 decisions. Roberts is asleep at the switch and not doing his job. He should be building compromises on a court that is so clearly broken. I respect each of the justices as individuals and I respect the institution of the court but a 5-4 (or worse) decision is practically meaningless. It is the equivalent of a big "we dunno" from the bench.

I will single out Scalia because his recent decisions have become even more petty, bile-filled, and vindictive than they have been in the past. The man throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. His behavior in print is not becoming of an civil adult human being or a US Supreme Court Justice. His supreme arrogance will be his undoing.

The decision that really gets me this term is the death penalty one. I am against the death penalty under all circumstances. The majority (which these days is 5) on the court is trending in the direction of finally abolishing this barbaric form of retribution. I refuse to call it "punishment" because it isn't. The person you are "punishing" is dead and hence beyond your reach so you can't punish them. That makes it more about satisfying uncivilized vengeful blood lust.

The dissent in the recent decision is childish and illogical. The majority reasons that the death penalty is the "ultimate measure" that the government can take against someone. Therefore it should be reserved for only the absolute worst crimes. The dissent says that raping a child is one of the absolute worse crimes. I say that the dissenters don't know the definition of absolute. We can all agree that raping a child, or raping anyone, is a heinous crime. But I ask the dissenters which is worse: raping a child or raping and killing a child? I think the overwhelming consensus would be that the later is worse. Therefore raping a child cannot be one of the absolute worst crimes because I just named something worse than it.

The majority opinion makes the point that when you start extending the death penalty to lesser offenses then whatever deterrence factor there might be in the death penalty is lost (ignoring that there is no statistically significant scientific evidence that the death penalty is ever a deterrent.) For example if you made armed robbery a capital offense reasoning that this would deter would-be thieves, then anyone committing robbery would do so knowing they were a dead man if they got caught. Therefore when the cops catch an armed bank robbery in progress the thieves would have nothing to loose. They're going to die for robbing the bank so they aren't going to think twice about shooting every cop dead. When you put your worst punishment on anything less than your absolute worst crime you are inviting a brutal escalation in criminal violence.

For this reason and others the minority report from that decision is broken. I could have summed their entire decision up in three words: "Kill them all." There is no regard for human life at all in that decision. That is really ironic when you consider that each of the four justices signing onto that opinion believes that a zygote is a human being. Following the logic of their current decision then abortion should be legal under the US Constitution even if zygotes are humans because according to them the state can legalize killing humans for whatever the heck it wants to.

Soldier on brave space-cadets.

Let the prognostication begin!




Looks like it could be a long winter for the Republicans but frankly it is their own damn fault.

Soldier on brave space-cadets.

Inspired by my belief that nothingness after death is beautiful, not scary. I'll be sorely upset if I have to live for fracking ever.

Into The Dark
Don't send me off to heaven/hell.
Don't embalm me in a box.
Don't light me all afire.
Don't hang me on a cross.

Let me go. Let me be.
Just let me disappear.
Back to universal entropy.
Let it start and end right here.

Since the national news media is obsessed with the recent release of the Pew Forum's survey of US religious life, I'm going to toss my two cents in.

First off, there is the ridiculous conclusion that 21% of atheists believe in god. Um. I think that conclusion should be 21% of atheists don't know what an atheist is. *head*desk* Really what I think it shows is a bias in the survey. I think that the Pew Forum so narrowly defined atheism and so broadly defined "god" that they reached the predestined position that some overwhelming majority believes in god or "a universal spirit." (Whatever the heck that is.) Off the bat that taints the results of this survey for me and makes me question if they really did the statistics in an unbiased manner.

I'm not saying that I think they got it ass backwards and that lots of people don't believe in god. But I think the survey put a rather rosy spin on some issues that favor the "religious" perspective. Everyone has commented on the high percentage of Americans (70%) who respond that their religion is not the only way to enlightenment/salvation. I see that acceptance as a significant weakening of the stranglehold of religion on cultural and social life. There is also a lot of blind ignorance out there about religions. The attitude that those 70% have is basically the core of Zen Buddhism (which keeps being falsely considered a religion when it is more of a pure philosophy). If we classified the population based on what they actually believe, versus what they say they are, I think you would find that most people have grossly misclassified themselves religiously.

That confusion extends to atheism. It is very hard in American society to admit, even in an anonymous survey, that you do not believe in "god." When you get down to it that statement is incredibly taboo. I think that the fact that most Americans feel that their religion is none of your damn business also comes into play. That and the bias in the survey lead me to think that the number of atheists and people who do not believe in god are grossly under-counted by these statistics.

Religion is a red-herring. Elected officials should stop pandering to it. A divinity degree should not be considered a license to speak with authority about anything under the sun.

The last thing is just a general thought about surveys like this. If I went through and replaced every instance of the word "god" with the words "magic rock" people would think that the text was absolutely off the wall ridiculous. I mean magic rocks? Don't we all know better? There is no such thing as a magic rock! Yet if you call something "god" then people stand back in awe. I see that as a fatal flaw in human behavior, that someone can lead you around by your nose by invoking a deity yet magic rocks are too absurdly superstitious. The point I'm making is not that you should start respecting the magic rocks. But just think about how silly it all would seem in a different context.

Soldier on brave space-cadets.

We were in Minnesota this weekend for R & D's wedding and to see Sarah's family. The wedding was great. The couple did their own thing (no canned religious stuff) and it was very personal and heartfelt. There is a lot more crying tears of joy at weddings like that. It was neat to go to another wedding so soon after my own as a way to reflect on things.

R & D are so good for each other. If they met in a time of their lives when they were care free without responsibility, their romance would have been a no brainer. There are few thing as clear as how well these two fit together. But life rarely gives you that completely unencumbered state of freedom where you can forget about everything but the soul-mate you just met. R would be the first to point out that since we are the sum of our parts, neither of them would have been the same if they had met earlier or later. So loving each other is about loving everything each of them brought to this point. They both had to work to build the foundation for a life together. But still, it would have been a tragedy if they had taken a path of less resistance and didn't make the effort.

I also thought about something you don't hear a lot about that genuinely surprised me at my own wedding. When the bride makes her entrance everyone's eyes are on her, as it should be. But the overwhelming swell of emotion at that point is entirely focused on the groom even with the attention elsewhere. Sarah and I didn't pay heed to any of the dogma about not seeing each other before the wedding. We stayed together the night before and I'd seen her in her dress before the ceremony. So there was no intentional building of anticipation. But I still completely lost it when I saw her enter the room. There is something about that moment when everything that matters most to you in your life gets focused in one place and moment. It was an amazing feeling that I hadn't really expected until it knocked me on my butt. Everyone raves about the birth of a child being something like that but I got it just from seeing my partner walk to me.

Soldier on brave space-cadets.

The Washington Post has an article about how the floods in Iowa this summer could be affected by human created environmental problems, and we aren't just talking about global warming:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/18/AR2008061803371.html

Its like for carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere. One guy driving an SUV isn't going to affect it. But if everyone starts driving an SUV that can cause a problem. Or like locusts. One on its own ain't bad but a few million together is a swarm that will tear a swath of devastation.

The goal of modern agriculture has been to increase yield and increase acreage. These are admirable goals since feeding the world is an important socio-economic problem. However, it will start to cause problems when those goals are pursued single mindedly to the exclusion of other concerns. We can't grade all out land flat or drain all our wetlands to turn every square inch into a percent increase in yield. Market forces aren't going to help because the market says raise as much corn as you can as fast as you can, damn everything else. Its the swarming locust mentality that takes over.

I'm all for individual rights but there is a point where we need some regulation. We can't afford an environmental disaster every-time we get a heavy rain or the annual agriculture induced algae bloom in the Gulf of Mexico. We also can't afford to plant the entire state in something less destructive than corn or turn Iowa back into open prairie. There are competing interests that have to be managed. But my point is that they haven't been managed and "the market" is not going to correct them.

Soldier on brave space-cadets

Here's why I'm against instant replay in baseball:

1. Lights a Wrigley?! Instant replay?! Next comes the rapture!

2. Umpires use sight AND sound to make calls. Instant replay neglects the sound completely.

3. The games are getting flipping long enough without five minutes of the Jeopardy music while some dude in an air-conditioned box seat picks his nose while trying to decipher a blur on a TV monitor. Seriously, I'm a fan but there are some pitchers I have to watch at twice normal speed to keep awake. The outfielders behind those guys must be madly hopped up on uppers and speed to stay in the game.

4. Instant replay is for mindless sports like American football. Soccer, cricket, chess, professional wrestling, and other man's sports don't have replay.

I like this piece on Yahoo sports about it:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Get-me-rewrite-What-if-replay-had-existed-for-t;_ylt=Al_LYvPJfw4nKjwex2afK0MRvLYF?urn=mlb,88152

My favorite satirized scenario on that list:
Scenario: At a kid-friendly Yankee Stadium, a 12-year-old boy named Jeffrey Maier reaches playing over the right-field wall to snare an all-but-certain catch by Orioles outfielder Tony Tarasco. Instead, umpire Rich Garcia rules it a home run for Derek Jeter, and the Yankees proceed to take Game 1 of the ACLS 5-4. They eventually win the series, and the first of four titles under manager Joe Torre.
Replay ruling: Overturned!
Rendered Result: After receiving word of the reversal, Yankee Stadium erupts in near-riot, the stands are cleared and the game is completed — with the O's winning — in front of no live audience. Out for blood, or possibly corned beef, 56,495 fans storm the Carnegie Deli and destroy the Replay Nerve Center. Buoyed by their quick start, the Orioles knock out the Yankees in six games, with David Wells winning twice. The Orioles fall to the Braves in the World Series, but smell blood in the water of the AL East. Unimpressed and kind of frightened by the New York scene, Wells ignores the free-agent overtures by the Yankees, re-signs with Baltimore, dons No. 3 — for Baltimore native Babe Ruth, his favorite player — and pitches a perfect game against New York in 1997. The Yankees miss the playoffs that season, fire Torre, dismantle the roster and lose 116 games in '98 with a payroll of $9 million. Whatever happened to the kid who caught Jeter's ground-rule double? A pretty good athlete in his own right, Maier played ball for Wesleyan University in Connecticut. Not good enough to reach the pros, Maier instead quickly worked his way through scouting and administration and, in a shocking move, was named general manager of the Yankees in 2008 at the age of 24.

You know how many months/years I spent bitching about that call? Jeffery Maier still better hope he never meets me in a dark abandoned alley. As much as it would have been great to see the alternative scenario happen, I wouldn't take it. Because refs blow calls and dealing with that is life. Baseball isn't some perfect ideal nirvana. It's meant to mirror real life. And their ain't no instant replay in real life. I wouldn't want it either. Because the memory and feeling of what happened is always sweeter anyway... even if it leaves you wanting to strangle a 12-year-old punk who was suppose to be in school.

Soldier on brave space-cadets.

It's Bloomsday! A good day for traveling or staggering as the case may be only to return to loved ones at the end of the day.

Soldier on brave space-cadets.

Not to be overly crass but who's going to ask politicians the really stupid questions now that Tim Russert is gone?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/13/tim.russert/index.html

The man holds the record for the worst celebrity appearance on the game show Jeopardy ever. God speed Russ. Terry McAuliffe's dad will be in heaven waiting to have a drink with you.

Soldier on brave space cadets.

I'm feeling completely unmotivated today. No good research ideas are popping into my head so I'm playing with my new hand cranked Van de Graf generator. I can make my hair stand up by induction but it hurts when the generator discharges through the tip of my nose.

Soldier on brave space-cadets.

Sister #2 posted her pictures from the bridal tea, groom's dinner, and the wedding:

http://www.kodakgallery.com/ShareLandingReg.jsp?Uc=ufvmur7.5d982j0b&Uy=-8mklab&Upost_signin=Slideshow.jsp%3Fmode%3Dfromshare&Ux=0&UV=497961522691_681116371307&localeid=en_US

You guys can start psyco-analyzing each of my sisters based on the way they take pictures. Sister #1 is the analytical one. Sister #2 is the artistic one. Sister #3 was having too much fun to take pictures.

Solider on brave space-cadets

The guy who invented the gutter guard should be awarded the Nobel Prize. I thought that our house had gutter guards on all our eaves. But Friday I noticed trees and grass growing out of my gutters on the front of the house. I borrowed my neighbor's 12 meter extension ladder and climbed up to see that my gutters were effectively now planters.

I really hate standing on a ladder 10 meters above the ground with nothing to hang on to since I've got both hands over my head in the sludgy mess accumulated in my gutters. I love my house. But I wish the roof wasn't so far off the ground or pitched at a steep angle. The only person that hates it more than me when I'm playing spider-man on the roof is Sarah. I'm going to buy some gutter guards for the front of my house because I'm not climbing up there again.

Soldier on brave space-cadets.