WHY WE MUST WAIT AND WORK OUR WAY THROUGH IMPEACHMENT:
Many of us, and I am certainly one, are calling for the impeachment of George Bush, I believe there are many reasons to impeach this sitting president. Illegal eve’s dropping on American phone calls, authorizing the torture of captured "enemy combatants," ignoring the Constitution’s clear requirement for habeas corpus, outing a CIA agent under "non official cover" are just a few of the reasons.
So why do I think we must wait? Because I want George Bush removed from office, not just impeached. Impeachment is just a trial by the Senate. To remove George from office as the incompetent fool he is requires sixty votes. Democrats have a slim majority of fifty one to fourth nine members. If we do not proceed carefully, showing through investigations how George conspired with Cheney, Gonzales and the rest of his gang. If we do not show how they ignored the Constitution and grabbed power for themselves under the guise of protecting the American people, the vote in the Senate to impeach will go down strictly party lines and Bush will stay in office. I don’t want that.
The same thing happened to Clinton. The vote went down strictly party lines. In the case of Clinton, it was a witch hunt starting from when he first took office. They, the Republicans, spent millions of dollars investigating investment deals, affairs, and bank transactions. They finally got him on a technically and rushed to draft papers of impeachment. Fortunately, the Democrats had enough votes to prevent the sixty votes required. But there is a better example for impeachment; Richard Nixon.
I watched all those years ago while the Senate investigated the actions, conduct and cover up of Nixon and his gang. They spelled out such an obvious case that even the Republicans saw that he was guilty and were willing to impeach. Nixon was told he had to resign to avoid impeachment, so he resigned.
The effect of a slow, deliberate investigation made it plainly clear to the Americans and the Republicans alike that Nixon was guilty of several things, qualifying as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under the Constitution.
That is what we must do now. We MUST get the votes of the Republicans to join the votes of the Democrats so we can get this guy out of office. The only way to accomplish that is to make it very clear by uncovering the evidence. We must force the Republican senators to see the truth. And more importantly, we MUST make it clear to the Republican senators that the voters see the truth! Then the Republican senators have no choice. If they want to get reelected, they will have to vote to IMPEACH!
That’s As I see it. . .
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
VALUE VOTERS: Are they a Reality?
There’s a fundamental problem with labeling voters as “Values Voters.” What exactly does that mean? It implies (and there will be more on this later) that people or voters who do not agree with that particular philosophy do not have values. When you point that out to those who claim the “values voters” feel such-and-such a way, they respond with, “Well, we are not saying they don’t have values.” But they never complete the thought. They just deny.
I grew up in an area that had values. Those values also assumed everyone else also had the SAME values, whether they did or not. It was the way things were done and the way life was viewed. It was peer pressure, a statement that said, “If you are going to live here and have the people of this area as your friend, you MUST believe the same way we do!” THAT was the “values” they had.
One line statements that imply a particular assumption of fact are very illusive. Without even realizing it, a person reading or listening to a conversation can get caught up in the feeling and the assumptions rather that a factual look at the facts. Here are some examples:
“…Support our troops…” If you don’t agree with us, you don’t support our troops!
“Pro-Life …” If you don’t agree with us, you don’t value life!
“Flip flopper…” is a way to twist what you say to make you look foolish.
…and the more recent, “slow bleed”
…being bandied about in the right wing blogosphere. If you are a right-winger and normally read the right wing blogs, you have probably read that phrase. It originated from a right wing blogger and immediately got applied to the Liberal Democrats as though that was their strategy about the troop support. Do some home work! Look it up!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! If you don’t support the president’s “surge” idea, you don’t “support the troops.” This administration has sent troops into battle without proper armament, support and benefits. They have further cut the veterans benefits for wounded vets at the very time the war in Iraq was starting. This administration cut the combat pay and the isolation from the family pay for soldiers. At that same time they were spending billions, including billions of dollars that could not be accounted for, on private contractors. That’s the Republican way.
Pro-Life! Republicans and right wingers support the fetus but not the child! THEY will do whatever they can to ensure a woman has her baby. But when children need help, they cut the budget. THEY support the fetus but not the child.
Flip flopper! Take ANY politician and you can show how what they say can be used against them. George Bush is the biggest flip flopper. Here are some examples. “There’s an old saying in the old west, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive’” George’s comment on what he was going to do about Osama Bin Laden. Later he said, “…I don’t know where he is. I just don’t give it a lot of thought.” Is that flip flopping?
John Kennedy said, “We must never negotiate out of fear. And we must never fear to negotiate.” George Bush is doing both with Iran and North Korea.
Another example of flip-flopping is John McCain. He says things that seem appropriate for the audience he addresses and then, with a different audience, he says the opposite. All the time condemning politicians that do such things. That’s some “values”!
Be aware, valued voter. When you hear phrases that make assumptions, question what those assumptions are! I am actually hopeful about the voting population. In the last election they showed they weren’t being fooled by the Republican administration. Not a single incumbent Democrat lost their office. Enough Republicans were voted out to swing both the House and the Senate for the Democrats. It gives the people a better choice in government. It also gives the Democrats the committee chairs. Republicans hate it.
Just when a voter might think that the Republicans got the message, Goergie Boy proposes a “Surge.” And the staunch right wing Republicans, blind to their duty as Americans and the obligation of listening to the American people, blindly support their “Leader” and his disastrous ways. Their ideology requires them to further their cause and ignore the common people, the masses. That is the Republican way.
My confidence is high that in the next election, We the People will take back our government. We will put into place a caring; serving administration that will heed the People. We will eliminate this present chaos and serving the desires of the wealthy.
What we have to fear is that Georgie is still in charge until January 2009. What will he do until then? The possibilities are all too real. George wants a war with Iran! Is that what you want? BEWARE the Republican in charge! BEWARE the one line phrases that assume values not explained. Keep thinking!
Value voters are a reality. It's just not the reality THEY want to have!
That’s As I see it. . .
There’s a fundamental problem with labeling voters as “Values Voters.” What exactly does that mean? It implies (and there will be more on this later) that people or voters who do not agree with that particular philosophy do not have values. When you point that out to those who claim the “values voters” feel such-and-such a way, they respond with, “Well, we are not saying they don’t have values.” But they never complete the thought. They just deny.
I grew up in an area that had values. Those values also assumed everyone else also had the SAME values, whether they did or not. It was the way things were done and the way life was viewed. It was peer pressure, a statement that said, “If you are going to live here and have the people of this area as your friend, you MUST believe the same way we do!” THAT was the “values” they had.
One line statements that imply a particular assumption of fact are very illusive. Without even realizing it, a person reading or listening to a conversation can get caught up in the feeling and the assumptions rather that a factual look at the facts. Here are some examples:
“…Support our troops…” If you don’t agree with us, you don’t support our troops!
“Pro-Life …” If you don’t agree with us, you don’t value life!
“Flip flopper…” is a way to twist what you say to make you look foolish.
…and the more recent, “slow bleed”
…being bandied about in the right wing blogosphere. If you are a right-winger and normally read the right wing blogs, you have probably read that phrase. It originated from a right wing blogger and immediately got applied to the Liberal Democrats as though that was their strategy about the troop support. Do some home work! Look it up!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! If you don’t support the president’s “surge” idea, you don’t “support the troops.” This administration has sent troops into battle without proper armament, support and benefits. They have further cut the veterans benefits for wounded vets at the very time the war in Iraq was starting. This administration cut the combat pay and the isolation from the family pay for soldiers. At that same time they were spending billions, including billions of dollars that could not be accounted for, on private contractors. That’s the Republican way.
Pro-Life! Republicans and right wingers support the fetus but not the child! THEY will do whatever they can to ensure a woman has her baby. But when children need help, they cut the budget. THEY support the fetus but not the child.
Flip flopper! Take ANY politician and you can show how what they say can be used against them. George Bush is the biggest flip flopper. Here are some examples. “There’s an old saying in the old west, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive’” George’s comment on what he was going to do about Osama Bin Laden. Later he said, “…I don’t know where he is. I just don’t give it a lot of thought.” Is that flip flopping?
John Kennedy said, “We must never negotiate out of fear. And we must never fear to negotiate.” George Bush is doing both with Iran and North Korea.
Another example of flip-flopping is John McCain. He says things that seem appropriate for the audience he addresses and then, with a different audience, he says the opposite. All the time condemning politicians that do such things. That’s some “values”!
Be aware, valued voter. When you hear phrases that make assumptions, question what those assumptions are! I am actually hopeful about the voting population. In the last election they showed they weren’t being fooled by the Republican administration. Not a single incumbent Democrat lost their office. Enough Republicans were voted out to swing both the House and the Senate for the Democrats. It gives the people a better choice in government. It also gives the Democrats the committee chairs. Republicans hate it.
Just when a voter might think that the Republicans got the message, Goergie Boy proposes a “Surge.” And the staunch right wing Republicans, blind to their duty as Americans and the obligation of listening to the American people, blindly support their “Leader” and his disastrous ways. Their ideology requires them to further their cause and ignore the common people, the masses. That is the Republican way.
My confidence is high that in the next election, We the People will take back our government. We will put into place a caring; serving administration that will heed the People. We will eliminate this present chaos and serving the desires of the wealthy.
What we have to fear is that Georgie is still in charge until January 2009. What will he do until then? The possibilities are all too real. George wants a war with Iran! Is that what you want? BEWARE the Republican in charge! BEWARE the one line phrases that assume values not explained. Keep thinking!
Value voters are a reality. It's just not the reality THEY want to have!
That’s As I see it. . .
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Neither of us knew the other was doing the same thing.
We grew up at about the same time, in different places and in different circumstance until we met. I still recall my first view of Mary. She was standing by her locker, selecting her books for the hours of high school ahead and turned to see who was being introduced as the new kid in school. I was interested at the very first glance. I have told her in those moments of doubt that every couple has, that we have a connection that lasts. Nothing is going to change that.
Still, I didn’t know she was doing the same thing I was. . .
I think I understand why. It’s because we lived through a very emotional time in our lives; the Vietnam War. She was a young woman watching a generation she was part of go off to war. Some of them didn’t come back. I was a draftee that found a way to look after myself by enlisting so that I had a choice where I could go. I ended up in Okinawa, working in electronics; missile sites and the like. It wasn’t fun.
We got together when I was home on leave. We eventually married and have had three wonderful (though challenging) boys who are all on their own now. Through all those years we rarely talked about the Vietnam era. It was something we lived through. It wasn’t pleasant. It was over. . . Only, it wasn’t. . .
I need to tell you about our usual evening routine. I get home about six from my job after a one-hour commute. She is making dinner and has it ready for us to dine together sometime between six thirty and seven. We discuss some things together, news of the day, interesting experiences; those sorts of things. But at seven o’clock, we watch the News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS. I think it’s the best available balanced news program in the media.
We watch the news of the day; finish our dinner and Mary starts putting the dishes away. If this sounds stereotypical, it is! She does not work outside the home and often describes herself as a “housewife.” I prefer “homemaker” but if you’re married to someone for thirty-five years, you know she is going to do and say what she wants.
My point is this. At the end of the News Hour program, they sometimes make an announcement about the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. They explain that they announce the deaths as soon as the deaths are confirmed and pictures are available. Then they play the statistics in complete silence: A picture of the dead with accompanying information of rank, branch of service, age, and hometown.
That’s when it happens. I didn’t know she was doing it and she didn’t know I was doing it. We are both engrossed in reading the names and studying the pictures, we are oblivious of the other, and both of us in complete silence. I can’t tell you how long that went on until we realized it. We made some mutual recognition of each other’s face and demeanor. Then we went quite again and just studied the faces of the dead soldiers.
We grew up at about the same time, in different places and in different circumstance until we met. I still recall my first view of Mary. She was standing by her locker, selecting her books for the hours of high school ahead and turned to see who was being introduced as the new kid in school. I was interested at the very first glance. I have told her in those moments of doubt that every couple has, that we have a connection that lasts. Nothing is going to change that.
Still, I didn’t know she was doing the same thing I was. . .
I think I understand why. It’s because we lived through a very emotional time in our lives; the Vietnam War. She was a young woman watching a generation she was part of go off to war. Some of them didn’t come back. I was a draftee that found a way to look after myself by enlisting so that I had a choice where I could go. I ended up in Okinawa, working in electronics; missile sites and the like. It wasn’t fun.
We got together when I was home on leave. We eventually married and have had three wonderful (though challenging) boys who are all on their own now. Through all those years we rarely talked about the Vietnam era. It was something we lived through. It wasn’t pleasant. It was over. . . Only, it wasn’t. . .
I need to tell you about our usual evening routine. I get home about six from my job after a one-hour commute. She is making dinner and has it ready for us to dine together sometime between six thirty and seven. We discuss some things together, news of the day, interesting experiences; those sorts of things. But at seven o’clock, we watch the News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS. I think it’s the best available balanced news program in the media.
We watch the news of the day; finish our dinner and Mary starts putting the dishes away. If this sounds stereotypical, it is! She does not work outside the home and often describes herself as a “housewife.” I prefer “homemaker” but if you’re married to someone for thirty-five years, you know she is going to do and say what she wants.
My point is this. At the end of the News Hour program, they sometimes make an announcement about the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. They explain that they announce the deaths as soon as the deaths are confirmed and pictures are available. Then they play the statistics in complete silence: A picture of the dead with accompanying information of rank, branch of service, age, and hometown.
That’s when it happens. I didn’t know she was doing it and she didn’t know I was doing it. We are both engrossed in reading the names and studying the pictures, we are oblivious of the other, and both of us in complete silence. I can’t tell you how long that went on until we realized it. We made some mutual recognition of each other’s face and demeanor. Then we went quite again and just studied the faces of the dead soldiers.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
How can one man be so stubborn AND wrong?!
Georgie Boy wants to escalate the troops in Iraq. This administration has tried escalation four times already. On each occasion, insurgency rose from 20% to 84%. Please remember that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. To be completely fair, this time, George wants the Iraqis to take the lead with our troops supporting them. That is slightly different from previous escalations, although also tried before and the Iraqis didn’t show up.
I’m not sure why George believes this will work when it hasn’t before, but that’s not the point of today’s dissertation. Today I want to focus on the argument the goose-stepping supporters are saying; that if you don’t support George, you don’t support the troops! Let’s examine that.
According to the Pentagon’s own report, the troops going to Iraq will not have proper weapons, proper armored vehicles, and even proper ammunition. They will be required to share existing vehicles already there. The up armoring problem was discovered in ’04 and still has not been resolved. The question comes immediately to mind, “How can a country that switched from a peace time economy to a war time economy to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese, NOT be able to provide the proper tools needed by the troops? And how dare this administration send them in without vital needs?” We’re not talking optional equipment. We are talking about NEEDED armor, weapons and ammunition. You can’t ask the enemy to wait while you run and get some ammunition! And how do you share a bullet? It can only be fired once!
The answer to my question is this. This country COULD dedicate itself to a war effort, IF it felt it was at war! But nothing has changed for the average American citizen. Except, of course, that we are worse off than we were six years ago. No one feels like we are at war. We make no sacrifices. We make no effort to produce enough war materials. We are told, instead, to go shopping. That was George’s advice for Americans.
Would you call any of this supporting the troops? And when Americans say this is enough! Bring our troops home, THEY are accused of not supporting our troops? The logic escapes me. Remember the definition of insanity? It is insane to send troops into battle without proper armor, ammunition and support! Condemning that choice is not Unsupportive, it is the epitome of SUPPORT!
And yet, we have Republicans arguing in the Congress today that condemning Georgie’s choice for escalation is NOT supporting the troops.
The second conflation the Republicans want to fool you with is that the war in Iraq is but a sample, the front, of the greater war on Islamic Fundamentalists Terrorism. This, too, is a lie! We can fight the fundamentalist terrorists with an effective method of policing. The British have already demonstrated that. ALL of the terror attacks uncovered in Britain have been done with policing procedures, not a standing army.
And yet, when John Kerry suggested this policing method in the presidential debates in 2005, Bush and the Republicans ridiculed him. Yet, all things have proven he was correct. George’s way; failure. John Kerry’s way, proven to work by Britain. When are we going to be realists and recognize the correct path? Get out of Iraq! Focus our efforts, money and young people on the greater threat through police action.
The question, my dear fellow Americans, is not about the troops. The question is how much longer are we going to allow this abuse of our troops by a madman? We can’t wait ‘til ’08. As much as that could be a bumper sticker, we must impeach Bush and Cheney and get the entire administration turned around.
“President Pelosi;” sounds pretty good to me!
That's As I see it. . .
Georgie Boy wants to escalate the troops in Iraq. This administration has tried escalation four times already. On each occasion, insurgency rose from 20% to 84%. Please remember that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. To be completely fair, this time, George wants the Iraqis to take the lead with our troops supporting them. That is slightly different from previous escalations, although also tried before and the Iraqis didn’t show up.
I’m not sure why George believes this will work when it hasn’t before, but that’s not the point of today’s dissertation. Today I want to focus on the argument the goose-stepping supporters are saying; that if you don’t support George, you don’t support the troops! Let’s examine that.
According to the Pentagon’s own report, the troops going to Iraq will not have proper weapons, proper armored vehicles, and even proper ammunition. They will be required to share existing vehicles already there. The up armoring problem was discovered in ’04 and still has not been resolved. The question comes immediately to mind, “How can a country that switched from a peace time economy to a war time economy to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese, NOT be able to provide the proper tools needed by the troops? And how dare this administration send them in without vital needs?” We’re not talking optional equipment. We are talking about NEEDED armor, weapons and ammunition. You can’t ask the enemy to wait while you run and get some ammunition! And how do you share a bullet? It can only be fired once!
The answer to my question is this. This country COULD dedicate itself to a war effort, IF it felt it was at war! But nothing has changed for the average American citizen. Except, of course, that we are worse off than we were six years ago. No one feels like we are at war. We make no sacrifices. We make no effort to produce enough war materials. We are told, instead, to go shopping. That was George’s advice for Americans.
Would you call any of this supporting the troops? And when Americans say this is enough! Bring our troops home, THEY are accused of not supporting our troops? The logic escapes me. Remember the definition of insanity? It is insane to send troops into battle without proper armor, ammunition and support! Condemning that choice is not Unsupportive, it is the epitome of SUPPORT!
And yet, we have Republicans arguing in the Congress today that condemning Georgie’s choice for escalation is NOT supporting the troops.
The second conflation the Republicans want to fool you with is that the war in Iraq is but a sample, the front, of the greater war on Islamic Fundamentalists Terrorism. This, too, is a lie! We can fight the fundamentalist terrorists with an effective method of policing. The British have already demonstrated that. ALL of the terror attacks uncovered in Britain have been done with policing procedures, not a standing army.
And yet, when John Kerry suggested this policing method in the presidential debates in 2005, Bush and the Republicans ridiculed him. Yet, all things have proven he was correct. George’s way; failure. John Kerry’s way, proven to work by Britain. When are we going to be realists and recognize the correct path? Get out of Iraq! Focus our efforts, money and young people on the greater threat through police action.
The question, my dear fellow Americans, is not about the troops. The question is how much longer are we going to allow this abuse of our troops by a madman? We can’t wait ‘til ’08. As much as that could be a bumper sticker, we must impeach Bush and Cheney and get the entire administration turned around.
“President Pelosi;” sounds pretty good to me!
That's As I see it. . .
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Could we all just TRY to get along?
Race is a sensitive, frustrating, volatile, and politically hot subject. It’s one most people try to avoid and also try to show how tolerant and accepting they are. I believe no one is truly tolerant or accepting until race is not an issue.
Two recent and ongoing events come to mind. Joe Biden’s comment about Barrack Obama and the Super Bowl.
Joe Biden: During an interview and when asked about Obama, (his competition in the upcoming 08 election), Joe Biden said, "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." I heard a replay of the interview and I felt Joe was choosing his words carefully, realizing that anything he said could and probably would be used and twisted. Joe labored over the words, articulating each one as a constructive and complementary adjective.
How did it get construed? As though Joe Biden made an ethnic slur. When I heard that I said to myself, "What? That’s not what he intended!" So the news report on PBS went onto say that African Americans consider the complementary word "articulate" as a racial slur because it is used in a way to imply they are acting "white like." I would never have known that if I hadn’t heard it on the TV.
I remember my days in the south as a youth and the popular phrase to show that one was not racist was, "some of my friends are black." It was said sincerely, to reflect that one did not choose the value of one’s character by the color of their skin. I understand that, but the way it was over used became a stereotype of white acceptance. I understand that, too. This thing about the word "articulate" is completely new to me. I suspect it was also unknown to Joe Biden.
When I heard Joe’s quote, I suspected the objection would be to the word "clean." But that turned out to be okay. My bad!
What did offend me was the notoriety given to the coaches of the two teams that made it to the Super Bowl, Chicago Bears and Indianapolis Colts. I watched during the entire playoffs and it never once occurred to me that the color of a coach’s skin was any kind of attribute OR hindrance. But when the two teams won and both coaches were "black" it was picked up on immediately.
My first and still prevalent thought was "Why should that be important?" But each coach was interviewed and both acquiesced to the recognition, saying something about it being historical and how they owed their success to other coaches who gave them an opportunity. I suppose those words are true enough. I just wish it wasn’t important!
I don’t think what Joe Biden said about Barrack Obama is important either. A candidate for the presidency running in the Democratic Party said something nice about an opponent running in the same party and for the same office. Race has nothing to do with it.
If you hear the opposing party (or the right leaning media) condemning Joe Biden, they will be making news and not reporting it. If you hear the conservative talk show circuit making a big deal about Joe Biden, that would make sense. What might fool some of the people most of the time is if the conservative talk show hosts say something nice about Joe or say that the incident is unimportant. THAT would be like saying "Some of friends are Liberals!" THAT would be VERY condescending.
That’s As I see it. . .
Race is a sensitive, frustrating, volatile, and politically hot subject. It’s one most people try to avoid and also try to show how tolerant and accepting they are. I believe no one is truly tolerant or accepting until race is not an issue.
Two recent and ongoing events come to mind. Joe Biden’s comment about Barrack Obama and the Super Bowl.
Joe Biden: During an interview and when asked about Obama, (his competition in the upcoming 08 election), Joe Biden said, "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." I heard a replay of the interview and I felt Joe was choosing his words carefully, realizing that anything he said could and probably would be used and twisted. Joe labored over the words, articulating each one as a constructive and complementary adjective.
How did it get construed? As though Joe Biden made an ethnic slur. When I heard that I said to myself, "What? That’s not what he intended!" So the news report on PBS went onto say that African Americans consider the complementary word "articulate" as a racial slur because it is used in a way to imply they are acting "white like." I would never have known that if I hadn’t heard it on the TV.
I remember my days in the south as a youth and the popular phrase to show that one was not racist was, "some of my friends are black." It was said sincerely, to reflect that one did not choose the value of one’s character by the color of their skin. I understand that, but the way it was over used became a stereotype of white acceptance. I understand that, too. This thing about the word "articulate" is completely new to me. I suspect it was also unknown to Joe Biden.
When I heard Joe’s quote, I suspected the objection would be to the word "clean." But that turned out to be okay. My bad!
What did offend me was the notoriety given to the coaches of the two teams that made it to the Super Bowl, Chicago Bears and Indianapolis Colts. I watched during the entire playoffs and it never once occurred to me that the color of a coach’s skin was any kind of attribute OR hindrance. But when the two teams won and both coaches were "black" it was picked up on immediately.
My first and still prevalent thought was "Why should that be important?" But each coach was interviewed and both acquiesced to the recognition, saying something about it being historical and how they owed their success to other coaches who gave them an opportunity. I suppose those words are true enough. I just wish it wasn’t important!
I don’t think what Joe Biden said about Barrack Obama is important either. A candidate for the presidency running in the Democratic Party said something nice about an opponent running in the same party and for the same office. Race has nothing to do with it.
If you hear the opposing party (or the right leaning media) condemning Joe Biden, they will be making news and not reporting it. If you hear the conservative talk show circuit making a big deal about Joe Biden, that would make sense. What might fool some of the people most of the time is if the conservative talk show hosts say something nice about Joe or say that the incident is unimportant. THAT would be like saying "Some of friends are Liberals!" THAT would be VERY condescending.
That’s As I see it. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)