That is what I saw as I watched the presidential debate. Both candidates addressed the financial crisis, but neither one showed an ounce of passion. No anger. Neither one related to we, the People.
As I listened to these two losers, all I heard was, "Gee whiz, I know you are hurting. And I will fix it." Not exactly what I would call commanding.
Tell ya what - regardless of party affiliation, I will vote for the first one to stand up, get angry, and say, "When I am president, I will find out the people responsible for this. I will identify those who robbed us of our pensions. And I will punish them to the maximum extent that the law allows. Jail time, not bail time! I don't care who they are, or what party they belong to. I'm going to nail them. And then I will make sure that this will never, ever happen again."
But I am betting that neither will do that, and do it with conviction. Because I do not see any passion or guts in either of them. Yes, McCain is a war hero. But in matters such as this, where the people expect him to take on the crooks, he and Obama are both gutless.
If you feel as I do, feel free to do as I did - write to the clowns that manage these losers and tell them how you feel. I wrote to both the chairman and the campaign manager, at chairman@gop.com and political@gop.com, because personally, I do not believe Obama would ever turn on those that supported him. But if you are an Obama fan, then contact his handlers. But for crying out loud, ONE of these idiots needs to show some passion, conviction and guts.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Fixing The Problem
During the Vice Presidential debate, Joe Biden said, concerning this economic crisis, that in order to prevent this from happening again, we must first understand how it happened this time. He's right. So some bright folks went forth and tracked it down, starting from the day it started in 1938. Joe, be careful what you wish for next time.
Today, as our economy is threatened with collapse, Americans are asking, "What happened? Who is to blame for this?" And, as can be expected, the majority automatically blame the current administration - Bush and Republicans (even though Republicans are not in control of Congress right now).
So, just what DID happen, and whose fault is it, really? The answer is complex, but can be broken down by following the history that brought us here.
During the Great Depression, FDR initiated the "New Deal", the largest upsizing of government in history. He was able to do this because the depression had created desperation among the people - much as 9/11 caused us to over-react with passage of bills that went too far, and encroached on our freedoms. People will accept the unacceptable when desperate.
Part of the New deal was the creation of Fannie Mae in 1938. The purpose of Fannie Mae was to make it possible for more people to own homes. Though a good intention, the basis was faulty.
30 years later, in 1968, Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat Congress initiated the second biggest upsizing of government, called "The Great Society". And part of this "great society" included the privatization of Fannie Mae, which put it into the position of allowing corruption to creep in. It opened the door to greed.
Then, in 1977, Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act. While this also had good intentions - bring fairness into lending, and making discrimination illegal, it also put lenders in the untenable position of having to make risky loans, to avoid being accused of, and prosecuted for, discrimination. Banks were now required to make loans to low income people who were less able to repay those loans.
Along comes ACORN, a radical activist group determined to push a radical agenda and change how American government works, to turn the economy upside down - the power would be in the hands of the poor. To this end, one of the things ACORN accomplished was to pressure banks into making even riskier loans. In fact, ACORN threatened families of bankers, and even took them to court. Eventually, by court order, they pressured lawmakers to lower the credit standards, to make even more low income people able to qualify for loans they could not afford, nor repay.
In 1999, President Clinton signed into law a bill that literally forced lenders to take on even riskier loans. The law actually required that fully one-half of all mortgage loans must be to low income people.
This, then, is the history of how we got here.
In 2003, 2004, and 2005, some Republicans, including John McCain and Judd Gregg, tried passing bills that would regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They saw the disaster looming on the horizon. But these bills were blocked by Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer, both Democrats.
How could they do this? Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paid millions of dollars into Democratic coffers. The three biggest receipients of those funds were, in order of amounts received, Chris Dodd (D), Barack Obama (D) and Chuck Schumer (D).
Republicans again tried to push through a regulatory bill in 2006, spearheaded by John McCain. But the bill was shot down by the Democratic majority in Congress.
The short take: From its inception in 1938, Democrats have spearheaded the Fannie Mae Debacle throughout its 70 years. Created by FDR (D), privatized by LBJ (D), forced to accept bad loans by Jimmy Carter (D), forced to make at least 50% of all loans to bad credit risks by Bill Clinton (D), with reform and regulation thwarted by Barney Frank (D) and Chuck Schumer (D), it would seem that the fault lies heavily at the door of the Democrats.
But the fault lies deeper than that. It lies with us. We, the People. First, we elected those people, and gave them the power to do this. And because this "loose credit" helped us all to live the American Dream with less hassle and responsibility, we soaked it up like a dry sponge soaking up a puddle. It was we, the People, who wanted the best of everything, and we wanted it now. We wanted it, even if we could not afford it.
So we kept electing these "beneficial Democrats" who were making it all possible.
We never stopped to think that if you want to dance to the music, sooner or later, someone must pay the piper.
The piper is here, and he's demanding to be paid!
The real question now, just before a critical election, is who should we trust to fix this mess. Frankly, not the party that created and fed the beast for 70 years, then set it loose among us.
I'm not certain the Republicans can fix it, either, but at least they were not part of its creation, and were the only ones to warn of this debacle years ago. So it would seem our best chance is with them.
To elect Democrats to fix the economy would be to hire the fox to guard the henhouse.
Care to begin your own research? Here are some places to start:
Origin/about Fannie Mae: http://hnn.us/articles/1849.html, and http://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/index.jhtml
Privatized: http://www.fanniemae.com/faq/faq8.jhtml?p=FAQ
Community Reinvestment Act of 1977: http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/
Gramm-Leach-Bliley act 1999: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_ActACORN & Obama: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/rnc-obama--acorn-fact/story.aspx?guid=%7B29569FA1-136D-4B95-9D51-4EF9E87ED547%7D&dist=hppr
Regardless of your party affiliation, understand this: the 2008 election is probably the most important election in American history. If you want to continue the trend of the New Deal and the Great Society that caused this problem, that is your choice. But if you want a chance at changing things, and fight the big government that caused this, then you need to get out there and vote this year. It is that close. If you sit back and leave it up to other people to vote, do not expect them to vote in a way that protects you and your family. Get up. Get out. Vote. Because this year, every vote counts. The people who created this monster, fed it, and set it loose to wreak havoc are pushing hard to win this election. They are getting new people registered. YOU can offset that. But only if you take this seriously and do your part. If you do not, it is a guarantee that you will not like what comes next!
Today, as our economy is threatened with collapse, Americans are asking, "What happened? Who is to blame for this?" And, as can be expected, the majority automatically blame the current administration - Bush and Republicans (even though Republicans are not in control of Congress right now).
So, just what DID happen, and whose fault is it, really? The answer is complex, but can be broken down by following the history that brought us here.
During the Great Depression, FDR initiated the "New Deal", the largest upsizing of government in history. He was able to do this because the depression had created desperation among the people - much as 9/11 caused us to over-react with passage of bills that went too far, and encroached on our freedoms. People will accept the unacceptable when desperate.
Part of the New deal was the creation of Fannie Mae in 1938. The purpose of Fannie Mae was to make it possible for more people to own homes. Though a good intention, the basis was faulty.
30 years later, in 1968, Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat Congress initiated the second biggest upsizing of government, called "The Great Society". And part of this "great society" included the privatization of Fannie Mae, which put it into the position of allowing corruption to creep in. It opened the door to greed.
Then, in 1977, Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act. While this also had good intentions - bring fairness into lending, and making discrimination illegal, it also put lenders in the untenable position of having to make risky loans, to avoid being accused of, and prosecuted for, discrimination. Banks were now required to make loans to low income people who were less able to repay those loans.
Along comes ACORN, a radical activist group determined to push a radical agenda and change how American government works, to turn the economy upside down - the power would be in the hands of the poor. To this end, one of the things ACORN accomplished was to pressure banks into making even riskier loans. In fact, ACORN threatened families of bankers, and even took them to court. Eventually, by court order, they pressured lawmakers to lower the credit standards, to make even more low income people able to qualify for loans they could not afford, nor repay.
In 1999, President Clinton signed into law a bill that literally forced lenders to take on even riskier loans. The law actually required that fully one-half of all mortgage loans must be to low income people.
This, then, is the history of how we got here.
In 2003, 2004, and 2005, some Republicans, including John McCain and Judd Gregg, tried passing bills that would regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They saw the disaster looming on the horizon. But these bills were blocked by Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer, both Democrats.
How could they do this? Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paid millions of dollars into Democratic coffers. The three biggest receipients of those funds were, in order of amounts received, Chris Dodd (D), Barack Obama (D) and Chuck Schumer (D).
Republicans again tried to push through a regulatory bill in 2006, spearheaded by John McCain. But the bill was shot down by the Democratic majority in Congress.
The short take: From its inception in 1938, Democrats have spearheaded the Fannie Mae Debacle throughout its 70 years. Created by FDR (D), privatized by LBJ (D), forced to accept bad loans by Jimmy Carter (D), forced to make at least 50% of all loans to bad credit risks by Bill Clinton (D), with reform and regulation thwarted by Barney Frank (D) and Chuck Schumer (D), it would seem that the fault lies heavily at the door of the Democrats.
But the fault lies deeper than that. It lies with us. We, the People. First, we elected those people, and gave them the power to do this. And because this "loose credit" helped us all to live the American Dream with less hassle and responsibility, we soaked it up like a dry sponge soaking up a puddle. It was we, the People, who wanted the best of everything, and we wanted it now. We wanted it, even if we could not afford it.
So we kept electing these "beneficial Democrats" who were making it all possible.
We never stopped to think that if you want to dance to the music, sooner or later, someone must pay the piper.
The piper is here, and he's demanding to be paid!
The real question now, just before a critical election, is who should we trust to fix this mess. Frankly, not the party that created and fed the beast for 70 years, then set it loose among us.
I'm not certain the Republicans can fix it, either, but at least they were not part of its creation, and were the only ones to warn of this debacle years ago. So it would seem our best chance is with them.
To elect Democrats to fix the economy would be to hire the fox to guard the henhouse.
Care to begin your own research? Here are some places to start:
Origin/about Fannie Mae: http://hnn.us/articles/1849.html, and http://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/index.jhtml
Privatized: http://www.fanniemae.com/faq/faq8.jhtml?p=FAQ
Community Reinvestment Act of 1977: http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/
Gramm-Leach-Bliley act 1999: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_ActACORN & Obama: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/rnc-obama--acorn-fact/story.aspx?guid=%7B29569FA1-136D-4B95-9D51-4EF9E87ED547%7D&dist=hppr
Regardless of your party affiliation, understand this: the 2008 election is probably the most important election in American history. If you want to continue the trend of the New Deal and the Great Society that caused this problem, that is your choice. But if you want a chance at changing things, and fight the big government that caused this, then you need to get out there and vote this year. It is that close. If you sit back and leave it up to other people to vote, do not expect them to vote in a way that protects you and your family. Get up. Get out. Vote. Because this year, every vote counts. The people who created this monster, fed it, and set it loose to wreak havoc are pushing hard to win this election. They are getting new people registered. YOU can offset that. But only if you take this seriously and do your part. If you do not, it is a guarantee that you will not like what comes next!
A New Direction?
A young college student, as often happens in our colleges, gets involved in radical activities. It is a sort of rebellion of the youth. This particular student is smart, and ambitious. He soon discovers that radical changes cannot make any headway because the vast majority of people do not want anything to do with radicalist changes.
He also understands that the only way he will be able to effect radical changes lies in being elected to a position of great power. So, he sets his sights on politics - the only hope for radical change. He then surrounds himself and learns from the most radical people in the country, including a radical domestic terrorist, a radical organizer, and a radical preacher, all of whom call for the annihilation of "white America".
But this young man is very clever. He knows there are two ways to approach this. He can tell everyone of his radical views, and ask people to elect him so he can effect those changes. But he knows that a person who takes that road would have no chance of getting elected.
The other road is to hide his radical agenda, and by using deceit, try to fool people into thinking he is their "saviour" of sorts. He builds his platform, not on radical change, but simply on "change". That becomes his mantra. He easily builds his popularity by convincing the public that we need "change". And we do. But what the people do not know is that his idea of change is nothing like the change they envision. The people want, and expect, change in how America handles its problems. But the young politician plans radical changes that involve transforming the actual method of government.
You know this man. He is a man whose first indoctrination to religion was as a muslim. He is part Arab, part white, and a very small part black. He attended colleges that tend to be radical in nature. He learned from and was influenced by radicals such as the Black Panthers, Louis Farrakahn (Nation of Islam founder), Saul Alinski, William Ayers, Kahlid al Masour, Flager and Reverend Wright.
This man spent his entire life learning from such people, and pushing a radical agenda. Muslim leaders, radical leaders, domestic terrorists, and those who have a serious problem with "white America". Discontented haters, all. And now, today, he tries to distance himself from those associations in an effort to convince Americans that he is our "agent of change". He is taking advantage of our unhappiness with our government to deceive us into electing him as our president.
If this does not open your eyes, and scare you to death, then this deceiver will win. And America will, indeed, get "change". But when you discover, too late, what that change entails, don't say you were not warned.
But I tell you this - if throughout my life my closest associates were White Supremacists, Nazi's, and members of the KKK, you could - and definitely should - determine that I am likely to be a racist who wants to destroy other races.
Barack Obama's closest associates are radicals, from terrorist William Ayers, to radical "black racist" Rev. Wright and muslims haters of America like Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakahn and Kahlid al Masour. Even his wife, Michelle, has expressed racist and radical views, including, "I have never been proud to be an American until now" (that my hubby is running for president). Obama has helped to organize and fund ACORN, the very group of radicals who helped push Congress into forcing lenders to give bad loans to people with bad credit - for which we are all paying today. ACORN has also been involved in several serious instances of voter fraud over the last several elections - all in favor of liberals and radicals.
The Bible tells us that false prophets, deceivers, shall come upon us and win over the hearts of the people with their deceitful ways. And they will do us great harm. The Bible even goes so far as to say these deceivers will convince the people that they are on the side of right.
Yes, you know the man. You just do not know who he really is.
No, I am not anti-Democrat. But I AM anti-deceiver. I AM against those who would radically change America to suit their racist, bigoted and radical agenda.
He also understands that the only way he will be able to effect radical changes lies in being elected to a position of great power. So, he sets his sights on politics - the only hope for radical change. He then surrounds himself and learns from the most radical people in the country, including a radical domestic terrorist, a radical organizer, and a radical preacher, all of whom call for the annihilation of "white America".
But this young man is very clever. He knows there are two ways to approach this. He can tell everyone of his radical views, and ask people to elect him so he can effect those changes. But he knows that a person who takes that road would have no chance of getting elected.
The other road is to hide his radical agenda, and by using deceit, try to fool people into thinking he is their "saviour" of sorts. He builds his platform, not on radical change, but simply on "change". That becomes his mantra. He easily builds his popularity by convincing the public that we need "change". And we do. But what the people do not know is that his idea of change is nothing like the change they envision. The people want, and expect, change in how America handles its problems. But the young politician plans radical changes that involve transforming the actual method of government.
You know this man. He is a man whose first indoctrination to religion was as a muslim. He is part Arab, part white, and a very small part black. He attended colleges that tend to be radical in nature. He learned from and was influenced by radicals such as the Black Panthers, Louis Farrakahn (Nation of Islam founder), Saul Alinski, William Ayers, Kahlid al Masour, Flager and Reverend Wright.
This man spent his entire life learning from such people, and pushing a radical agenda. Muslim leaders, radical leaders, domestic terrorists, and those who have a serious problem with "white America". Discontented haters, all. And now, today, he tries to distance himself from those associations in an effort to convince Americans that he is our "agent of change". He is taking advantage of our unhappiness with our government to deceive us into electing him as our president.
If this does not open your eyes, and scare you to death, then this deceiver will win. And America will, indeed, get "change". But when you discover, too late, what that change entails, don't say you were not warned.
But I tell you this - if throughout my life my closest associates were White Supremacists, Nazi's, and members of the KKK, you could - and definitely should - determine that I am likely to be a racist who wants to destroy other races.
Barack Obama's closest associates are radicals, from terrorist William Ayers, to radical "black racist" Rev. Wright and muslims haters of America like Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakahn and Kahlid al Masour. Even his wife, Michelle, has expressed racist and radical views, including, "I have never been proud to be an American until now" (that my hubby is running for president). Obama has helped to organize and fund ACORN, the very group of radicals who helped push Congress into forcing lenders to give bad loans to people with bad credit - for which we are all paying today. ACORN has also been involved in several serious instances of voter fraud over the last several elections - all in favor of liberals and radicals.
The Bible tells us that false prophets, deceivers, shall come upon us and win over the hearts of the people with their deceitful ways. And they will do us great harm. The Bible even goes so far as to say these deceivers will convince the people that they are on the side of right.
Yes, you know the man. You just do not know who he really is.
No, I am not anti-Democrat. But I AM anti-deceiver. I AM against those who would radically change America to suit their racist, bigoted and radical agenda.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Figures Are In
There has been a lot of talk - and concern - about all the pork-barrel spending in Washington. "Pork" is when Congress takes money from all of us, and funnels it back to just a few of us, in "special" projects. Some bright person decided to check on just how much pork each of our presidential candidates has actually requested.
In the 941 days that Barack Obama has been in the Senate, he has requested 931 million dollars in pork. About a million dollars a day.
In the 7000+ days that John McCain has been in the Senate, he has asked for - are you ready for this? - he has requested ZERO dollars for pork.
The Democrats are telling us that Mr. Obama will cut pork. The Republicans are saying Mr. McCain will cut pork.
Who do you suppose I am more apt to believe?
In the 941 days that Barack Obama has been in the Senate, he has requested 931 million dollars in pork. About a million dollars a day.
In the 7000+ days that John McCain has been in the Senate, he has asked for - are you ready for this? - he has requested ZERO dollars for pork.
The Democrats are telling us that Mr. Obama will cut pork. The Republicans are saying Mr. McCain will cut pork.
Who do you suppose I am more apt to believe?
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Survival
I was listening to the co-founder of Code Pink the other day. Code Pink and several other far-left looney groups have all stated as part of their mission that America should get rid of its military, or keep only a token military to keep order in America, so there can be "peace on Earth". Never has there been a more naive, nor dangerous thought.
Let's assume we did become a nation of peace, without any substantial military strength. Does anyone really believe there would be peace? Particularly since all other countries - and some that hate us - would still have a military. What would prevent them from just walking in and taking over? Korea, Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia, Syria would all race to see who could get here first and plant their flag on the White House lawn.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's go to La-La land with the far left and assume Code Pink could convince ALL countries to give up their military. Then we would have peace, right?
Wrong! Because then the crime lords, drug lords and street gangs would take over. Who would stop them? Code Pink? Michael Moore? Mayor Newsom? Nancy Pelosi? Barak Obama? Not likely.
The far left needs to come into the real world, a world where there are good people, and there are bad people. And you simply cannot make bad people into good people by smiling, holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" around the campfire.
They need to understand that the universe is ruled by natural laws. And the first law of nature is "survival of the fittest". And that is, indeed, a law, not just a suggestion. And as long as survival depends upon fitness and competition, there can never be peace. Nor should there ever be any lasting peace.
War is ugly. War is painful. But war is a necessary part of life. It is one of the mechanisms that nature created in us, as a driving force, to help keep the population weeded. To separate the wheat from the chaff. To determine who is strong enough to carry on the race. And to keep us from over-populating the Earth. And as the population grows, and resources become more scarce and incapable of sustaining everyone, war will become even more prevalent - and more necessary. It is nature's way.
The issue I have with Code Pink and their looney compadres is the simple fact that they want us to lose the race for survival, by default. They want us to give up our teeth, and our claws. And even a 5 year old understands that anything that has no teeth or claws is called "PREY".
In nature, you can be predator, or you can be prey. Being a predator can be a bloody choice, to be sure. But regardless of which you are, there will be bloodshed. The objective should be that the blood is someone else's.
I will be a predator, thank you. Then the blood will not be my own. Survival of the fittest. I would rather be the one to eat the rabbit than to be the rabbit that gets eaten. And don't anyone dare ask me to feel guilty about that.
Let's assume we did become a nation of peace, without any substantial military strength. Does anyone really believe there would be peace? Particularly since all other countries - and some that hate us - would still have a military. What would prevent them from just walking in and taking over? Korea, Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia, Syria would all race to see who could get here first and plant their flag on the White House lawn.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's go to La-La land with the far left and assume Code Pink could convince ALL countries to give up their military. Then we would have peace, right?
Wrong! Because then the crime lords, drug lords and street gangs would take over. Who would stop them? Code Pink? Michael Moore? Mayor Newsom? Nancy Pelosi? Barak Obama? Not likely.
The far left needs to come into the real world, a world where there are good people, and there are bad people. And you simply cannot make bad people into good people by smiling, holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" around the campfire.
They need to understand that the universe is ruled by natural laws. And the first law of nature is "survival of the fittest". And that is, indeed, a law, not just a suggestion. And as long as survival depends upon fitness and competition, there can never be peace. Nor should there ever be any lasting peace.
War is ugly. War is painful. But war is a necessary part of life. It is one of the mechanisms that nature created in us, as a driving force, to help keep the population weeded. To separate the wheat from the chaff. To determine who is strong enough to carry on the race. And to keep us from over-populating the Earth. And as the population grows, and resources become more scarce and incapable of sustaining everyone, war will become even more prevalent - and more necessary. It is nature's way.
The issue I have with Code Pink and their looney compadres is the simple fact that they want us to lose the race for survival, by default. They want us to give up our teeth, and our claws. And even a 5 year old understands that anything that has no teeth or claws is called "PREY".
In nature, you can be predator, or you can be prey. Being a predator can be a bloody choice, to be sure. But regardless of which you are, there will be bloodshed. The objective should be that the blood is someone else's.
I will be a predator, thank you. Then the blood will not be my own. Survival of the fittest. I would rather be the one to eat the rabbit than to be the rabbit that gets eaten. And don't anyone dare ask me to feel guilty about that.
Getting it Straight
Let me see - correct me if I am wrong (I'm not, because I have the videos):
2007, Biden says, "Obama is totally unqualified to be President."
2007, Biden says, "Obama's position on the war, and funding it, is 100% wrong."
June, 2008, Biden says, "I will never consider accepting the nomination for VP."
Last night, during his debate with Palin, Biden said, "Obama is the person most qualified to be President, he was 100% right on the war, and I am proud to be the VP nominee."
My question: where am I supposed to find credibility in Biden, or his ticket?
I don't really care which party holds the office. But I DO insist that whoever it is, they are HONEST, and CREDIBLE, and someone I can TRUST be be straight with me.
Of the 4 people - Obama, McCain, Biden and Palin - the only one that meets that criterion seems to be Palin. So that is where my vote must go. But please note - my vote for McCain is not a vote for McCain - it's a vote for Palin. She'll keep McCain on the straight and narrow. She must, because she plans on being America's first woman President. If McCain gets elected, and fouls it up, her future is over. So I trust she will keep his eye on the ball, and get the job done.
2007, Biden says, "Obama is totally unqualified to be President."
2007, Biden says, "Obama's position on the war, and funding it, is 100% wrong."
June, 2008, Biden says, "I will never consider accepting the nomination for VP."
Last night, during his debate with Palin, Biden said, "Obama is the person most qualified to be President, he was 100% right on the war, and I am proud to be the VP nominee."
My question: where am I supposed to find credibility in Biden, or his ticket?
I don't really care which party holds the office. But I DO insist that whoever it is, they are HONEST, and CREDIBLE, and someone I can TRUST be be straight with me.
Of the 4 people - Obama, McCain, Biden and Palin - the only one that meets that criterion seems to be Palin. So that is where my vote must go. But please note - my vote for McCain is not a vote for McCain - it's a vote for Palin. She'll keep McCain on the straight and narrow. She must, because she plans on being America's first woman President. If McCain gets elected, and fouls it up, her future is over. So I trust she will keep his eye on the ball, and get the job done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)