The Sokovia Accords were, ultimately, a response to the Avengers operating on their own orders without any supervision, right?
So, why didn’t they write Accords that dealt with the Avengers as an organization, a non-state entity operating outside the bounds of international law?
Because instead of creating a registry of powered people that is then controlled by the UN? the Security Council? some unnamed IGO? (which has a pretty severe “uh oh” factor), it would have accomplished something similar while still maintaining international diplomacy and cooperation and holding up international law as the goal and guide, rather than Ross’s weird vendetta against people with powers.
Not to mention, Tony Stark, Sam Wilson, James Rhodes, Scott Lang, Clint Barton, and Natasha Romanoff (at least as far as we know) are not “enhanced.” They wear suits or are very highly-trained, but it’s their position within the Avengers organization that places them under the jurisdiction of the Accords.
It was the actions of a private citizen that created Ultron, and it was funding by a private citizen that operated the Avengers. And when the Avengers went out and fought after the fall of SHIELD, there was no organization or government or any sort of entity overseeing their actions. So, in theory, these private citizens with unlimited resources could go anywhere in the world and wreak havoc, but there was no international law that could deal with the organization because it was not a state, and there was no one state that could deal with the Avengers because they were privately owned and operated, not representative of any government.
So, by framing the Accords as an agreement between a non-state party and the international community, the Avengers would have been put in check and given the opportunity to work within the system but not be controlled by it. Plus, it would have normalized enhanced individuals internationally as participants in the same institutions and norms that non-enhanced people value.
I physically cannot be on Facebook right now. To actually see my mother’s friend say “Give me a child rapist as president any day” in favor of Trump over Clinton makes me feel physically sick.
This is what our country has become. This is who Trump’s supporters are. These are the ideas that they’re defending. These are the people who are willing to turn a blind eye to girls being raped in favor of protecting the white man. These are the people who are willing to look away from the African Americans being shot and killed in the streets every single day by the police and then have the audacity to say “all live matter”. These are the people who don’t care about the struggles of minorities, the poor, veterans, and the LGBTQ+ community as long as their white, middle class, privileged ass is safe in their own home.
These people don’t care about the safety of others. They don’t care about the struggles that other human beings are facing every single day in this country. They only care about themselves.
“President” Trump: Not a Real President, just a #scarequotepresident
In a NY Times Op-Ed today, Charles Blow hinted at an idea that I am embracing, and I think that all that oppose Trump’s plans should adopt it as well.
It’s clear that Putin and Wikileaks influenced the election, and combined with Comey’s messing around, maybe that got Trump the windage he needed to “win” the election (which he lost, by the popular vote, mind you).
Blow wrote, with regard to Trump’s use of scare quotes around the word “intelligence” in a tweet,
You twist the truth like a string of yarn caught in a fan. But eventually, you and every citizen of this country must face the fact that you were not only elected but also installed, that your victory will be forever tangled up in the yellow tape of an international crime scene.
No wonder then that you have systematically sought to denigrate all inquiry into this act of cyber warfare that the intelligence report called “unprecedented.” You have scorned our intelligence agencies — you tweet “intelligence” in quotes the same way that we should eventually use quotes around the word “president” when it precedes your name — and you have continued your assault on the press.
Mr. Trump, your victory is tainted; your legitimacy is rightly in question. The American people cast their ballots in the fog of fake news and under influence of stolen property weaponized as a tool of propaganda.
Some may hesitate to say that the American presidency was stolen, but it is irrefutable that the integrity of our democratic process was injured when the sanctity of what we considered uncorrupted self-determination was assaulted.Donald Trump is Vladimir Putin’s American “president” — clearly his preference and possibly his product.
I plan to always use scare quotes around the word “President” whenever referring to “President” Trump (or “President-Elect” Trump). A small, needling gesture, one that everyone can use to indicate opposition to the plans, policies, and offenses of this illegitimate “presidency”.
He’s not a real president, he’s just a #scarequotepresident.
Twenty years from now, if I’m still kicking, I’ll write a post talking about the first time I called him “President” Trump. I’ll never stop.
Judgement’s regard for innocence victimized madness Bearing the cost already incurring focus group chiefs Resonating traumas’ way out West slicing deserts Shattering distractions in foreign sections’ associated agony.
Cross-examining lost innocence brutalized By macro-political forces fatal blow Extrapolating paranoia with adventurous sides Extinguishing exploitation’s justification left behind Burning on the right side of the road while seeking shelter
Rendering eyes formed out of sight’s careless smirk Missing mindful glitches shocked during tainting processes Started a while back towards peculiar misery Shouted by town criers relying only on rumors
a lot of clearly reactionary or fundamentalist movements in history had class politics that were based on rebellions of lower-class or marginalized people but that doesnt mean you “excuse” the other aspects.
like for example the Donatists were an early Christian heresy that are known for having an intolerant and absolutist morality which in general included the belief that no amount of penance can allow a priest who renounced Christianity under Roman duress to ever readminister the sacrements again and in some cases they even went so far as to say that no one who was coerced into performing pagan rituals after becoming a Christian could ever be redeemed. there was actually some class politics hidden under this because there was this perception with some people that societal elites were basically able to be wishy-washy with religion and could convert back and forth between Christianity and paganism depending on how they felt the political winds were blowing and that this was an excercise in societal privilege that people from lower classes werent able to access. this still doesnt mean the Donatists werent puritanical religious zealots that encouraged close-minded fundamentalist attitudes because they were not nice people but there was a material and societal basis for this theology to emerge. And there’s other examples in history of this sorta thing like the puritanical theology of the Almohad dynasty in al-Andalus is sometimes said to mark the end of the “Golden Age” of al-Andalus because of their harsh and fanatical morality but even there there was a basis going back a long time having to do with animosity towards Arab ruling elites who dominated the social and religious spheres.
anyway the reason im mentioning old ass and extinct religious movements is because when people point out that there is an economic basis for working class support of brexit or trump people will react in a knee jerk manner of “oh so youre excusing the racism” or “you know this only leads to you excusing their racism” or whatever and its like no you fuck the point is that these beliefs dont just fucking fall out of the sky and that there is a material reason for their existence and explaining something doesnt mean youre “excusing” it