My commitment is to frame this blog around Citizenship, Ownership and Stewardship in Alberta and Canada. It is so easily accomplished when I look at the volunteer work being done in the spirit of those principles by a group of citizens coming together in the Reboot Alberta movement.
The Reboot Alberta Launch in November 2009 was an overwhelming success and a unique political experience in citizenship for most, if not all, of the participants. People with a progressive personal philosophy came to Reboot Alberta at their own expense and on their own time. They came to explore some ideas about how to change the political culture and improve democracy in Alberta.
Reboot participants decided amongst themselves what they wanted to discuss and they self-selected how and where they wanted to participate in the conversations. The result was not chaos and cacophony. It was all about people being reflective, thoughtful and respectful as they listened and shared with each other. It was about authentic conversations, and as one participant noted, "Conversations are game-changers."
The event created a citizen's movement that has taken off and is now creating a life of its own. It is based on citizen engagement with people parking their cynicism about politicis and then coming back to participate in the political culture of the province. Some Rebooters want to start a new party. Others want to enhance the impact and effectiveness of civil society organizations on the political culture of the province. Others want to change the existing political parties and institutions to a more progressive mindset. Others are simply individual citizens who want to be better informed and more active in how they undertake their responsibility of citizenship.
The well worn cliches that "politics is all about perception" and "all politics are local" are being revived and taking on a renewed sense of reality because of Reboot. When individuals come to realize that their citizenship is more than about their rights, it also has an individual responsibility aspect, then the "local" nature of politics now becomes "personal." When individuals are starting to rethink their feelings about their government and how they are being governed, then the perceptional reality about politics becomes more personal too.
Citizens are starting to pay attention to politics again. They are seeing unacceptable things being done by THEIR government by the people THEY elected, or allowed to be elected becasue they could not be bothered to vote. When citizens come to realize those political decisions are not being made to serve the best interests of the public but rather to enhance or sustain the personal power interests of political leaders, political parties and the politicians, something snaps and people start pressing for change.
For progressive Albertans who are joining the Reboot Alberta movement, part of what has "snapped" is the realization that it is OUR government and what they do is in OUR NAME. After all we elected them and in a democracy you always get the government your deserve. When we elect a government we give our CONSENT for those chosen politicians to use their best judgement to make decisions on our behalf about the serious issues we face as a province.
When we see the decisions being made based on the pure preservation of political power and that trumps good government and democracy, we have to respond as citizens and press for change. We need to take back the political responsibility part of our citizenship. What does that mean and what does it look like for progressive minded Albertans? Reboot Alberta's launch started to frame the new questions we need to ask and set up a process to seek some new answers.
The first question the Reboot movement want explored was "What does it mean to be a Progressive in a 21st century Alberta?" A number of people in the movement have taken the time to share their thoughts on that question. The Reboot Alberta website as a link to those provocation papers. I encourage you to login to Reboot Alberta, read the the papers and comment as you see fit. Reboot will no longer allow anonymous or username comments. Engaged and effective citizenship demands courage of conviction and a new openness. Otherwise abuses, fear, and intimidation will continue to be used as political weapons against individuals and organzations to demand compliance to serve the personal political ends of those in power.
If you are intrigued, encouraged or just curious about what you see in Reboot Alberta, then register here and come to the next event in K-country Feb 26-28. I guarantee you will meet some of the most interesting people in Alberta from all over the province. They will be from all walks of life, ages, interests and experiences. They will come from every kind of community and with a common hankering to share their experiences and stories as citizens of Alberta. I can assure you at Reboot Alberta 2.0 you will be part of conversations with ordinary Albertans who have some of the most inspirational and aspirational stories imaginable - all focused on creating a better future for Alberta.
There truth is there is good news and bad news about the future of Alberta. The good news is we have all the pieces in place to not just be one of the best places in the world, we have the capacity to be one of the best places for the world. The bad news is, we as Albertans, will have to do the hard work to design and deliver a different sense of what is means to be an Albertan from what we have today. We need to change a lot of things currently going on in the governance, politics, economy, environment and how we serve the public interest if we are going be successful in defining and pursuing such a vision.
If you want to be proud Alberta again then join Reboot Alberta. Reassert yourself . Dust off your citizenship and become part of the Reboot Alberta movement. Reboot is all about Albertans being intent on recreating a province that we can all be part of - and proud of once again.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Friday, January 08, 2010
Did Danielle Smith Ignore WAP Floor-Crossing Policy?
What gives? It now appears from a coupe of sources that the Wildrose Alliance Party has a policy on floor-crossing MLAs contrary to the comments of their leader Danielle Smith that there is no party policy.
Brian Dell outlines some of his personal experience in trying to clarify the WAP policy on the issue. A floor-crosser has to have the support of the WAP leader, the local constituency and be subject to a by-election if the constituency wants one. Dell suggests an opinion poll in the constituency would suffice to determine if a by-election should be called or not.
When citizens cast ballots it is unclear if they are voting for a party, a candidate, a leader, a platform, an issue of just name recognition or any combination of these motivations. Do we elect politicians to exercise their best judegement or to reflect the majority opinion of their constiuents or perhaps some other controversial but perhaps more "enlightened" position on an issue?
When a politician says "my constituents are telling me such and such how do we know that is a true reflection? Who spoke to them, in what context and how is the will and state of mind of "the constitencyu" determined. It is not. It is totally subjective and most often framed as a convenience for the benefit of the politician or their political party or purposes. Let's be truthful here, almost every time you hear a pooiticina say "My constituency tells me..." it is all about spin, posturing and the self interest of the politician and nothing to do with the best interests or actual instructions of their constituents.
So to my point, thanks for waiting. The WAP policy on floor-crossing MLAs is easy and practical so far as the requiremetn of the consent of the leader and the local party organization is concerned. It is vague and vacuous when it come to the best interest and desires of the citizens that potential floor crosser is support represent. How is the policy supposed to determine if the citizens in that constituency approve of their MLA joining another party between elections?
Should a potential floor-crosser go public first and run a poll to see if they have citizen support for them to cross? What happens if the citizens say no don't go? Where does that leave the MLA? Unwanted by the "receiving" party and distrusted by their current party. It forces them into de facto independent status, something that the citizens in their constituency did not vote for either.
This is WAP policy on floor crossing is naive at best and pandering populism at worst. It is impractical. If a politician is unhappy in their current party or the party is unhapppy with them, the simple answer is they go independent - period. Then they can explain to their constituency the reasons for them leaving or the leader who turfs them can do the same. After that, if the independent MLA wants to join another party they can canvas and even poll their constituents to see if that is acceptable and judge themselves accordingly.
The reason this approach makes more sense is because we don't know how to respond to the wide array of reasons why people voted. But there needs to be more respect shown by politicians, leaders and parties for all of those reasons. If a politician is no long comfortable with their party, its leader or its policies, they need the flexibility to leave, just as the party or the leader needs the power to kick someone out of caucus. That should put them in an independent status and as far as the politician, leader or party power should come into play.
Moving from there to another party is something that the citizens must have a say in before it happens. A poll that asks if a by-election should be called if the independent wants to join another party is not a solution. But a petition of say 20% of voters calling for one may be enough to trigger a by-election instead of a unilateral behind closed doors decision about joining another party is made.
I would be interested in thoughts from readers on this issue. The WAP has not solved it and they have not even followed their own policy. If we are to do politics differently the recent example of the floor-crossing by the WAP is not a shining example.
Brian Dell outlines some of his personal experience in trying to clarify the WAP policy on the issue. A floor-crosser has to have the support of the WAP leader, the local constituency and be subject to a by-election if the constituency wants one. Dell suggests an opinion poll in the constituency would suffice to determine if a by-election should be called or not.
When citizens cast ballots it is unclear if they are voting for a party, a candidate, a leader, a platform, an issue of just name recognition or any combination of these motivations. Do we elect politicians to exercise their best judegement or to reflect the majority opinion of their constiuents or perhaps some other controversial but perhaps more "enlightened" position on an issue?
When a politician says "my constituents are telling me such and such how do we know that is a true reflection? Who spoke to them, in what context and how is the will and state of mind of "the constitencyu" determined. It is not. It is totally subjective and most often framed as a convenience for the benefit of the politician or their political party or purposes. Let's be truthful here, almost every time you hear a pooiticina say "My constituency tells me..." it is all about spin, posturing and the self interest of the politician and nothing to do with the best interests or actual instructions of their constituents.
So to my point, thanks for waiting. The WAP policy on floor-crossing MLAs is easy and practical so far as the requiremetn of the consent of the leader and the local party organization is concerned. It is vague and vacuous when it come to the best interest and desires of the citizens that potential floor crosser is support represent. How is the policy supposed to determine if the citizens in that constituency approve of their MLA joining another party between elections?
Should a potential floor-crosser go public first and run a poll to see if they have citizen support for them to cross? What happens if the citizens say no don't go? Where does that leave the MLA? Unwanted by the "receiving" party and distrusted by their current party. It forces them into de facto independent status, something that the citizens in their constituency did not vote for either.
This is WAP policy on floor crossing is naive at best and pandering populism at worst. It is impractical. If a politician is unhappy in their current party or the party is unhapppy with them, the simple answer is they go independent - period. Then they can explain to their constituency the reasons for them leaving or the leader who turfs them can do the same. After that, if the independent MLA wants to join another party they can canvas and even poll their constituents to see if that is acceptable and judge themselves accordingly.
The reason this approach makes more sense is because we don't know how to respond to the wide array of reasons why people voted. But there needs to be more respect shown by politicians, leaders and parties for all of those reasons. If a politician is no long comfortable with their party, its leader or its policies, they need the flexibility to leave, just as the party or the leader needs the power to kick someone out of caucus. That should put them in an independent status and as far as the politician, leader or party power should come into play.
Moving from there to another party is something that the citizens must have a say in before it happens. A poll that asks if a by-election should be called if the independent wants to join another party is not a solution. But a petition of say 20% of voters calling for one may be enough to trigger a by-election instead of a unilateral behind closed doors decision about joining another party is made.
I would be interested in thoughts from readers on this issue. The WAP has not solved it and they have not even followed their own policy. If we are to do politics differently the recent example of the floor-crossing by the WAP is not a shining example.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Harper's Teflon is Cracking - Can He Stand the Heat?
Reading the Globe and Mail this morning I was engaged by the editorials on Prorogation and Senate reform. More particularly I was drawn to the op-ed pieces by Gary Mason and Lawrence Martin. All of these pieces connected with my theme of citizenship for 2010.
The unilateral and conniving tactical appraoch by Prime Minister Harper to use prorogation to delay accountability of his government and defer the truth on Harper and his Ministers knew about the torture of Afghan detainees. This is an affort to democracy as we know it. His contempt of Parliament in stopping the business of the country in it tracks because of the Olympics and "recalibrating his government" is laughable. He presumes Candians are suckers.
As for Senate Reform the hypocracy of the Prime Minister is monumental. He is appointing 5 more Senators to add to his personal record for such appointments to the Upper House and pandering to his base by trotting out the last old Reform policy chesnut of a elected Senate. He is not anymore serious about this policy charade than he was about not eliminating Income Trusts.
Lawrence Martin is continuing his very dispassionate but effective pressure on the credibility and integrity of Prime Minister Harper. The Harper government is all about messaging, raw politics and personal power for Prime Minister Harper. The sense is the teflon coating of Harper is cracking and some light is shining through and Canadians are waking up and not liking what they are seeing.
Gary Mason's piece is such a nice complement to the edictorials and the Martin column. We says we citizens have been indifferent and disengaged from our citizenship responsiblities for far too long. The decline of our democracy at the hands of Prime Minister Harper is the direct result. We have enormous policy problems at hand and on the horizons but the debate and discussion in Parliament and amongst politicians and people is stifled. The lack of public outcry he says is "eerie."
All this underscores the personal energy and citizen re-engagement I am seeing in and around Reboot Alberta. Democracy is fragile and needs nurturing, even in mature states like Canada. Alberta's democrcacy is also seriously undermined and our institutions are ill-equiped to deal with the pace, scale and intensity of change we are seeing.
Citizens sense the political culture systems need a Reboot. Citizens haved to retake CONtrol of their democracy. We have to start to exercise our rights and assume our responsibilities to be informed and engaged in the politics of our times. We need viable ALTernatives to the current state of affairs and distructive aderserial political posturing of the Conservatives in Ottawa and Alberta. We need to DELete a buch of politicians and policy approaches that are ideological but not practical or pragmatic in the face of current and emerging realities.
If you share some of thiese concerns, visit http://www.rebootalberta.org/ and start reading about a New Progressive approach to politics and public policy in Alberta. If you want to start doing something about the democratic deficit and the policy approach of the conventional political parties, join in the Reboot conversations and register are part of this movement.
The unilateral and conniving tactical appraoch by Prime Minister Harper to use prorogation to delay accountability of his government and defer the truth on Harper and his Ministers knew about the torture of Afghan detainees. This is an affort to democracy as we know it. His contempt of Parliament in stopping the business of the country in it tracks because of the Olympics and "recalibrating his government" is laughable. He presumes Candians are suckers.
As for Senate Reform the hypocracy of the Prime Minister is monumental. He is appointing 5 more Senators to add to his personal record for such appointments to the Upper House and pandering to his base by trotting out the last old Reform policy chesnut of a elected Senate. He is not anymore serious about this policy charade than he was about not eliminating Income Trusts.
Lawrence Martin is continuing his very dispassionate but effective pressure on the credibility and integrity of Prime Minister Harper. The Harper government is all about messaging, raw politics and personal power for Prime Minister Harper. The sense is the teflon coating of Harper is cracking and some light is shining through and Canadians are waking up and not liking what they are seeing.
Gary Mason's piece is such a nice complement to the edictorials and the Martin column. We says we citizens have been indifferent and disengaged from our citizenship responsiblities for far too long. The decline of our democracy at the hands of Prime Minister Harper is the direct result. We have enormous policy problems at hand and on the horizons but the debate and discussion in Parliament and amongst politicians and people is stifled. The lack of public outcry he says is "eerie."
All this underscores the personal energy and citizen re-engagement I am seeing in and around Reboot Alberta. Democracy is fragile and needs nurturing, even in mature states like Canada. Alberta's democrcacy is also seriously undermined and our institutions are ill-equiped to deal with the pace, scale and intensity of change we are seeing.
Citizens sense the political culture systems need a Reboot. Citizens haved to retake CONtrol of their democracy. We have to start to exercise our rights and assume our responsibilities to be informed and engaged in the politics of our times. We need viable ALTernatives to the current state of affairs and distructive aderserial political posturing of the Conservatives in Ottawa and Alberta. We need to DELete a buch of politicians and policy approaches that are ideological but not practical or pragmatic in the face of current and emerging realities.
If you share some of thiese concerns, visit http://www.rebootalberta.org/ and start reading about a New Progressive approach to politics and public policy in Alberta. If you want to start doing something about the democratic deficit and the policy approach of the conventional political parties, join in the Reboot conversations and register are part of this movement.
Monday, January 04, 2010
Forsyth and Anderson Cross the Floor on the Stelmach Government
So another shoe drops on the heads of Alberta PC government with two Progressive Conservative MLA defections to the Wildrose Alliance Party today. My guess is this is just the start and we can expect some more MLAs to be evaluating their future with the current government.
Rob Anderson is a social conservative and has been pushing buttons in the government for a while now. His head and heart is more aligned to a far right political philosophy. He was a big proponent of the Bill 44 that was push through in spite of protestations of progressive Albertans. The raw political power push to pass that draconian social conservative legislation was a tipping point event for progressive Albertan’s attitude about “their” government. It made many progressives in the PC party realizes they were no longer being listened to, including me.
I was surprised that Heather Forsyth being one of the early defections. I know and respect Heather and know her to be a quality person and conscientious MLA. She is a political realist too. From listening to her reason to cross today, there was the usual stuff about representing her constituency but there was more. She listed a lot of serious issues and concerns about the Stelmach government’s approach to many social and economic concerns she has been dealing with at the door steps. She said the “government has lost its way” and commented that “Albertans need to feel proud of their province” again. I think she is right and those realities resonate.
These decisions are never easy. Both of these MLAs have to be taken seriously and I respect their decisions. But I sense this is just a beginning not the end of Stelmach’s woes with the Wildrose Alliance. I would not be surprised if more PC MLA defections are in the Wildrose plan but don’t expect anything until after the Cabinet Shuffle.
Reality in politics is about perception and just because that’s a cliché does not mean it is not true. Perceptions come from stories and narratives more than facts. The emerging narrative is that the PCs are in disarray. They are scrambling for relevance and respect and squandering what they have left of both qualities. The WAP is getting organized and has been an effective place to park ones protect about the PCs.
Today the narrative changed – dramatically. Today the cracks in the brain trust of the Stelmach leadership are being discussed by disaffected former party and government loyalists like Heather Forsyth. The light is shining in and what we are seeing is not helping the plight of the PC government or its leadership. The defector’s new conference comments today about the Stelmach government being undemocratic, authoritarian, intimidating and bullying inside the caucus reflects badly on the government. These same innuendos and coercion tactics have been happening from the government about many vulnerable but courageous people outside politics too. I know this from direct experience and reports from the not-for-profit community based social service sectors, most recently in the Persons with Developmental Disabilities area.
Here is another narrative that is totally speculative but as plausible as any other in the volatile and variable world that Alberta politics in now all about. Consider this story line. What if Ted Morton is not happy with his Cabinet position in the coming shuffle? Why would he stay in the Stelmach government? I don’t think he will cross the floor however. He will resign and return to the University of Calgary. His leave of absence from the U of C must be running out and if he does not return could he lose his tenure? He is not going to be Premier via the PCs or the WAP route so why stay in politics? He resigns and causes a by-election just outside of Calgary that Danielle Smith wins. She owes Morton big time as a result and he can then become anything he wants to be in advising and directing the future of the WAP.
Even the plausibility of this narrative will smoke out the rest of the disenchanted social conservatives in the PC caucus to jump to the WAP in the coming weeks. The internal politics will preoccupy and destabilize the government for some time to come. The more serious question is what will Stelmach do in response?
That is fodder for another blog post at another time. For now I think Albertans will be watching for big internal changes in the Premier’s office and in the Cabinet as well as with the fiscal, social and environmental policy agenda this month. Realistically, I see no scenario emerging today that would see a rebalance of the PC government towards a fiscally conservative and socially progressive and a resource stewardship and conservation mindset. That was the hallmark of the glory days of the PC party in Premier Lougheed’s day. To my mind we need to restore that kind of political culture so we Albertans can be proud of our province once again.
Rob Anderson is a social conservative and has been pushing buttons in the government for a while now. His head and heart is more aligned to a far right political philosophy. He was a big proponent of the Bill 44 that was push through in spite of protestations of progressive Albertans. The raw political power push to pass that draconian social conservative legislation was a tipping point event for progressive Albertan’s attitude about “their” government. It made many progressives in the PC party realizes they were no longer being listened to, including me.
I was surprised that Heather Forsyth being one of the early defections. I know and respect Heather and know her to be a quality person and conscientious MLA. She is a political realist too. From listening to her reason to cross today, there was the usual stuff about representing her constituency but there was more. She listed a lot of serious issues and concerns about the Stelmach government’s approach to many social and economic concerns she has been dealing with at the door steps. She said the “government has lost its way” and commented that “Albertans need to feel proud of their province” again. I think she is right and those realities resonate.
These decisions are never easy. Both of these MLAs have to be taken seriously and I respect their decisions. But I sense this is just a beginning not the end of Stelmach’s woes with the Wildrose Alliance. I would not be surprised if more PC MLA defections are in the Wildrose plan but don’t expect anything until after the Cabinet Shuffle.
Reality in politics is about perception and just because that’s a cliché does not mean it is not true. Perceptions come from stories and narratives more than facts. The emerging narrative is that the PCs are in disarray. They are scrambling for relevance and respect and squandering what they have left of both qualities. The WAP is getting organized and has been an effective place to park ones protect about the PCs.
Today the narrative changed – dramatically. Today the cracks in the brain trust of the Stelmach leadership are being discussed by disaffected former party and government loyalists like Heather Forsyth. The light is shining in and what we are seeing is not helping the plight of the PC government or its leadership. The defector’s new conference comments today about the Stelmach government being undemocratic, authoritarian, intimidating and bullying inside the caucus reflects badly on the government. These same innuendos and coercion tactics have been happening from the government about many vulnerable but courageous people outside politics too. I know this from direct experience and reports from the not-for-profit community based social service sectors, most recently in the Persons with Developmental Disabilities area.
Here is another narrative that is totally speculative but as plausible as any other in the volatile and variable world that Alberta politics in now all about. Consider this story line. What if Ted Morton is not happy with his Cabinet position in the coming shuffle? Why would he stay in the Stelmach government? I don’t think he will cross the floor however. He will resign and return to the University of Calgary. His leave of absence from the U of C must be running out and if he does not return could he lose his tenure? He is not going to be Premier via the PCs or the WAP route so why stay in politics? He resigns and causes a by-election just outside of Calgary that Danielle Smith wins. She owes Morton big time as a result and he can then become anything he wants to be in advising and directing the future of the WAP.
Even the plausibility of this narrative will smoke out the rest of the disenchanted social conservatives in the PC caucus to jump to the WAP in the coming weeks. The internal politics will preoccupy and destabilize the government for some time to come. The more serious question is what will Stelmach do in response?
That is fodder for another blog post at another time. For now I think Albertans will be watching for big internal changes in the Premier’s office and in the Cabinet as well as with the fiscal, social and environmental policy agenda this month. Realistically, I see no scenario emerging today that would see a rebalance of the PC government towards a fiscally conservative and socially progressive and a resource stewardship and conservation mindset. That was the hallmark of the glory days of the PC party in Premier Lougheed’s day. To my mind we need to restore that kind of political culture so we Albertans can be proud of our province once again.
Greener Oil Sands, Greener Planet and Alberta's Role.
The op-ed in today’s Globe and Mail “Greener Oil Sands, Greener Planet” by my business partner Satya Das is a perfect example of how to integrate the guiding principles I set for myself in 2010. Those were, citizenship, ownership and stewardship, especially in an Alberta context.
We clearly need to get serious about a low-carbon future and it is Alberta with the best opportunity and duty to lead the way in Canada and the world for that matter. We have a $15 trillion concentration of hydrocarbon based wealth in the oil sands. That wealth is a key to an effective transition to alternative energy and cleaner greener hydrocarbons too.
Alberta is also the best place for ethical investors to place their energy, and innovation investments, especially when compared to the uncertainty and corruption of other large energy providers in regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq.
Albertans have to exercise their citizenship right and responsibilities and as owners of the oil sands to ensure they are developed sustainably and responsibly. We also have to ensure we get the best value from the resource for the benefit of current and future generations of Albertans and yes – Canadians too.
Stewardship is about the environment and preserving biodiversity. But it is also part of policy and programs to encourage Albertans to personally adapt and adopt new and greener practices in our personal and community lives. That includes investment in capturing the wealth of the oil sands. One way is to have a Natural Resources Severance Tax that would fund the transition and new technologies necessary for a carbon neutral future for oil sands development.
Here is the link to Satya’s Globe and Mail op-ed piece. Here is a link to his book Green Oil too.
Finally if you are also an Albertan interested and concerned about you citizenship, your resource ownership and stewardship you may want ot join in the movement known as Reboot Alberta. That where you will find like-minded people who are gathering together and starting to get actively engaged in these and other aspects of our democracy in Alberta.
We clearly need to get serious about a low-carbon future and it is Alberta with the best opportunity and duty to lead the way in Canada and the world for that matter. We have a $15 trillion concentration of hydrocarbon based wealth in the oil sands. That wealth is a key to an effective transition to alternative energy and cleaner greener hydrocarbons too.
Alberta is also the best place for ethical investors to place their energy, and innovation investments, especially when compared to the uncertainty and corruption of other large energy providers in regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq.
Albertans have to exercise their citizenship right and responsibilities and as owners of the oil sands to ensure they are developed sustainably and responsibly. We also have to ensure we get the best value from the resource for the benefit of current and future generations of Albertans and yes – Canadians too.
Stewardship is about the environment and preserving biodiversity. But it is also part of policy and programs to encourage Albertans to personally adapt and adopt new and greener practices in our personal and community lives. That includes investment in capturing the wealth of the oil sands. One way is to have a Natural Resources Severance Tax that would fund the transition and new technologies necessary for a carbon neutral future for oil sands development.
Here is the link to Satya’s Globe and Mail op-ed piece. Here is a link to his book Green Oil too.
Finally if you are also an Albertan interested and concerned about you citizenship, your resource ownership and stewardship you may want ot join in the movement known as Reboot Alberta. That where you will find like-minded people who are gathering together and starting to get actively engaged in these and other aspects of our democracy in Alberta.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)