Amnesty questions claims about Libyan attrocities

[Benny26]

Topic?..What was that again?

Oh right, I remember...

In a June 27 interview on National Public Radio, Ban Ki-moon, Washington’s South Korean puppet installed as the Secretary General of the United Nations, was unable to answer why the UN and the US tolerate the slaughter of unarmed civilians in Bahrain, but support the International Criminal Court’s indictment of Gadaffi for defending Libya against armed rebellion. Gadaffi has killed far fewer people than the US, UK, or the Saudis in Bahrain. Indeed, NATO and the Americans have killed more Libyans than has Gadaffi. The difference is that the US has a naval base in Bahrain, but not in Libya.

Personally i feel that this is just a case of awful red tape (the UN), the US, like you say, having a base in Bahrain, and the fact that NATO, although may well try, can't be everywhere at once. Money may also be a factor, but then you wouldn't think so really.

A video taken by a US helicopter gunship, leaked to Wikileaks and released, shows American forces, as if they were playing video games, slaughtering civilians, including camera men for a prominent news service, as they are walking down a peaceful street. A father with small children, who stopped to help the dying victims of American soldiers’ fun and games, was also blown away, as were his children. The American voices on the video blame the children’s demise on the father for bringing kids into a “war zone.” It was no war zone, just a quiet city street with civilians walking along.

The video documents American crimes against humanity as powerfully as any evidence used against the Nazis in the aftermath of World War II at the Nuremberg Trials.

(I've heard about this video during some debate on one of the news channels here but never seen it, I wish I could find it on the net somewhere.)

I've seen this video. It just shows what US ego really is, not a very nice watch if you like to see people getting killed (although there's not that much "gore" in it)...I could easily give you a link, but with this being a more 'family friendly' website, I would probably only want to give you it in an inbox. (if you do want it then i'm afraid you'll have to wait untill about 7pm UK time, when i get back in tonight )

Edit: Another amusing but unrelated fact, excerpts from another article paints the picture bit more clearly

Yeah, alot of cash gone without a trace, nasty!

They might as well just close the investigation now, they wont find anything. Bush made sure they wont.

 

[Archean]

Its okay, there is not much point in seeing it anyway, having seen these soldiers kill countless other civilians, bombing, beheading, torturing them to death etc. You can search and will easily find such horrific war crimes being repeated again and again.

They might as well just close the investigation now, they wont find anything. Bush made sure they wont.

May be that was the real intention from the start any way, keep them going in circles while the beneficiaries make merry with their prized loot

I think, if the Afghan war is dissected, the facts tells one that Taliban (a creation of Saudis/Americans/Pakistanis) were 'pro Americans' to start with, and were not aligned with Bin Laden and his band of self proclaimed jehadis. Incidentally when 9/11 came to pass, provided that if US had the luxury of having an intelligent president at the helm, they would not have bracketed talibans and al-qaida militants as one entity, and may not have indulged in this war, simply put, they could hunt down bin laden without getting into war.

If I could, I would summarize the Afghan war (as someone has already said): The Americans have watches, but the Taliban has time.

What irritates me most is, since how so called logical foundations to wage these wars has been destroyed, there are certain political and military classes in these countries which mindlessly want to continue to wage new wars.

 

[Benny26]

I'm always talking about the wars and the Taliban with the family. Everyone pretty much agrees that the US just has no chance in winning Afghan through force; all a Taliban fighter has to do is put down his weapon and he immediately becomes a civilian, It's that simple. Why it has taken so long for them to see this, is just madness...and the money they've spent in that stupid mindset is another story in itself.

I think, if the Afghan war is dissected, the facts tells one that Taliban (a creation of Saudis/Americans/Pakistanis) were 'pro Americans' to start with, and were not aligned with Bin Laden and his band of self proclaimed jehadis

Yeah, when the Ruskies invaded, the Americans were pumping millions into Taliban coffers...then not long after the invasion, Bin Laden came along and allied with the Americans.

Alot of people think Bin Laden was just a scapegoat for 9/11...

Oops somehow I ended up double posting, I hope someone can delete this particular post.

Quick, someone ban him! :haha:

 

[Archean]

Ah Ruskie invasion ........ well they too were lured into this war by two factors a) they thought they can win and get away with it easily b) they were 'made to think that americans are increasing their influence in their backyard', hence the scare factor.

Good point about Bin Laden, and I will agree with your point of view about him being made a scapegoat. If you look at it as a neutral observer, it is amusing to note that (as far as I remember) not one american security official resigned in the aftermath of that tragedy. For they too were just as much at fault as the instigators were. Accountability with just punishment is very much essential in ensuring long term health of any nation.

Quick, someone ban him!

I haven't been banned from anything sofar ......... I wonder how it will feel like. Although I must admit one thing, for a brief period many many many years ago I used IRC, and it was fun to kick and ban people

Edit:
Thank goodness that Rafa didn't win the Wimbledon, well it was like cheering for the lesser evil in the end anyway.

 

[Benny26]

The American intelligence services came to the 'Bin Laden' conclusion so fast in the beginning, It was kinda suspicious. This is part of the "prior knowledge" theory that people keep coming with. I'll admit that reading these theorys about 9/11 are interesting, but most are hardly convincing, for me personally.

"A" in your Ruskie invasion reasons isn't far from what the American mindset was is the early days of the Afghan war...It can be thought of as ironic sometimes.

It does also make me wonder just what the Irainian's are doing behind the scenes in Iraq and Afghanistan; seen as the American's were supplying a Taliban to fend off a Soviet invasion in the 80's, you wouldn't bet against Iran supplying - or at least providing something - to the Taliban of today to fend off the old ally of America.

I haven't been banned from anything sofar

Same here. Not one black mark.

 

[Archean]

It does also make me wonder just what the Irainian's are doing behind the scenes in Iraq and Afghanistan; seen as the American's were supplying a Taliban to fend off a Soviet invasion in the 80's, you wouldn't bet against Iran supplying - or at least providing something - to the Taliban of today to fend off the old ally of America.

I don't think Iranians have been or would want to help Taliban in anyway, reason being, the two are totally different ideologically. In fact, Iran has been at loggerheads with Americans/Saudis/Pakistanis over their help to Taliban in the 1990s. Although I wouldn't be surprised if they are helping the 'northern alliance' elements in or outside of government.

Having said that, I don't think Iranians would let go of any chance of hurting the americans in their backyard in some way, so they can find political ways and economical reasons to do so. One example of this is they are building a network of highways to connect Iranian ports with Afghanistan.

The great game is being played in that area, but this time around, I'm afraid the Americans are no longer in control, neither they are the masters of their destiny any more. How things will turn out to be in few years time can be anyone's guess.

Oh and one more thing, Taliban factions don't really need to be funded for arms from anywhere else to survive, everything they need can be and is built in the tribal belts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, so they can sustain this war infinitely.

 

[Benny26]

Although religion and ideologically are very powerfull, especially in the middle east, I would think the natural hatred for the west Iran has would compel it to aid the Taliban in some form or another. We can say for certain that Iran would not like America taking over in Afghanistan, that's for sure.

Oh and one more thing, Taliban factions don't really need to be funded for arms from anywhere else to survive, everything they need can be and is built in the tribal belts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, so they can sustain this war infinitely.

Well if that's the case, you would think they would be, and would have been for some years, a top priority for the Americans. They don't really care for boundries, as we know with the killing of Bin Laden.

I'm slightly dubios with this sort of fact though. Pakistan has a very well equipped army thanks to NATO and America's fear of Pakistan 'losing' any nuclear bombs to any nearby enemys. Weapons such as anti-aircraft guns, even tanks and other vehicles, don't seem to make it through the numorous rogue elements in the Pakistan army to Taliban lines...Hell, even if they did, there's no cause for concern in Pakistan because the world knows how corrupt the place is and how much it's 'battling' to control it. Small arms though, I agree, those can be easily made in small discrete places. However, the base materials are coming from some sort of pipeline...I would put money on a pipe from Iran.

 

[captaincranky]

You know, all of you are wasting time, effort, and concern for human rights on a country whose chief export is illegal drugs. I think that's about the only viable industry they have.

Afghani "Primo" hashish, (laced with opium), was, at least at one time, the world's finest.

One reason we were unsuccessful in Viet Nam, is the weed was too good. An army runs on its stomach, not on its burned out head..

Well, the fact that there were 3 billion Chinese helping to finance and arm the NVA, may have factored into it also. We smartened up after that, surrendered, and decided to give the Chinese all our money. Much more civilized, wouldn't you say?

For all the corruption you've been railing about, we're all responsible in some part. We elect these morons, worship capitalism, and yet when we see it in action, we piss and moan like a bunch of infants with s****y diapers. As for the news media, they've lost so much credibility pandering "entertainment news and fluff BS, why would anyone concern themselves with what they have to say on important issues? Al-Jeezera tells it's listeners what they want to hear, and Fox does the same to us.

"Monday morning quarterbacking" doesn't work with politics. You have to get involved.

Trouble is when you do, you become a politician.

 

[Archean]

I'm slightly dubios with this sort of fact though. Pakistan has a very well equipped army thanks to NATO and America's fear of Pakistan 'losing' any nuclear bombs to any nearby enemys. Weapons such as anti-aircraft guns, even tanks and other vehicles, don't seem to make it through the numorous rogue elements in the Pakistan army to Taliban lines...Hell, even if they did, there's no cause for concern in Pakistan because the world knows how corrupt the place is and how much it's 'battling' to control it. Small arms though, I agree, those can be easily made in small discrete places. However, the base materials are coming from some sort of pipeline...I would put money on a pipe from Iran.

As I said earlier I am sure Iranian wouldn't waste an opportunity to hurt them, but I don't think they will go the Taliban route.

Beside I missed an important fact in my last post, i.e. NATO pays 2,000$ (2009 rate, so you can add escalation to this amount as well) for each container passing into Afghanistan to Taliban. Hence in a very unique way, Americans are funding both sides of the war, how umm ..... intelligent a military hierarchy they have in place which make such ludicrous decisions. In that period the total amount was something like 100+ million each year.

Afghani "Primo" hashish, (laced with opium), was, at least at one time, the world's finest.

One reason we were unsuccessful in Viet Nam, is the weed was too good. An army runs on its stomach, not on its burned out head..

If they have continued using that stuff, I am sure we would never ever have another war.

For all the corruption you've been railing about, we're all responsible in some part. We elect these morons, worship capitalism, and yet when we see it in action, we piss and moan like a bunch of infants with s****y diapers. As for the news media, they've lost so much credibility pandering "entertainment news and fluff BS, why would anyone concern themselves with what they have to say on important issues? Al-Jeezera tells it's listeners what they want to hear, and Fox does the same to us.

"Monday morning quarterbacking" doesn't work with politics. You have to get involved.

Trouble is when you do, you become a politician.

I completely agree with you on this one captain. However, leaving space for these crooks is also a huge part of this problem. Perhaps the best solution can be to eliminate the current crop of these thugs, and fill the void with well there is no other way of putting it .......... you know what I mean.

 

[Benny26]

As I said earlier I am sure Iranian wouldn't waste an opportunity to hurt them, but I don't think they will go the Taliban route.

Well, there's obviously a difference of opinion here. (and as i said earlier) I don't feel Iran would put religion before a common enemy. There will be people in Iran behind the scenes with brains on this one.

Beside I missed an important fact in my last post, i.e. NATO pays 2,000$ (2009 rate, so you can add escalation to this amount as well) for each container passing into Afghanistan to Taliban. Hence in a very unique way, Americans are funding both sides of the war, how umm ..... intelligent a military hierarchy they have in place which make such ludicrous decisions. In that period the total amount was something like 100+ million each year.

Sorry, I don't really understand that; I mean, why would they?...It's daft isn't it.

For all the corruption you've been railing about, we're all responsible in some part. We elect these morons, worship capitalism, and yet when we see it in action, we piss and moan like a bunch of infants with s****y diapers. As for the news media, they've lost so much credibility pandering "entertainment news and fluff BS, why would anyone concern themselves with what they have to say on important issues? Al-Jeezera tells it's listeners what they want to hear, and Fox does the same to us.

"Monday morning quarterbacking" doesn't work with politics. You have to get involved.

Trouble is when you do, you become a politician.

Why are all politicians nice when you first elect them, then almost straight away turn sour they step into 'halls of power'?...It's almost like it's not the people, It's the forever present system itself.

 

[Archean]

Sorry, I don't really understand that; I mean, why would they?...It's daft isn't it.

It is, but if they don't pay I am sure they will only get about 20-30% of total dispatched trailers, the region through which they have to go is very treacherous, and the terrain itself is very conducive for gorilla warfare. Only two people in history has 'conquered' this area, i.e. Taimur and Babur, but they had totally different set of circumstances which ended up helping them.

Why are all politicians nice when you first elect them, then almost straight away turn sour they step into 'halls of power'?...It's almost like it's not the people, It's the forever present system itself.

One simple reason, one person one vote means they get elected, but once in power, that one person is no longer important. Rather, they divert their attention to people who have helped them (and their parties) to get in power in the first place, the real masters of these puppets. Unfortunately people haven't yet understood this aspect of democracy, you can't do much about it unless you are willing for a very radical surgery.

For all the corruption you've been railing about, we're all responsible in some part. We elect these morons, worship capitalism, and yet when we see it in action, we piss and moan like a bunch of infants with s****y diapers. As for the news media, they've lost so much credibility pandering "entertainment news and fluff BS, why would anyone concern themselves with what they have to say on important issues? Al-Jeezera tells it's listeners what they want to hear, and Fox does the same to us.

Exactly, but have we done anything about it? Well nothing, and herein lies the problem, somehow, people have developed a mindset which is, that they are doubting their own abilities and feel helpless about affecting a change.

 

[Benny26]

It is, but if they don't pay I am sure they will only get about 20-30% of total dispatched trailers, the region through which they have to go is very treacherous, and the terrain itself is very conducive for gorilla warfare. Only two people in history has 'conquered' this area, i.e. Taimur and Babur, but they had totally different set of circumstances which ended up helping them.

Oh i see, I mis-understood what you said. I thought you said that "NATO are supplying the Taliban so the Taliban can fight NATO and other forces"...which is obviously crazy. I think i understand what you were saying now though.

One simple reason, one person one vote means they get elected, but once in power, that one person is no longer important. Rather, they divert their attention to people who have helped them (and their parties) to get in power in the first place, the real masters of these puppets. Unfortunately people haven't yet understood this aspect of democracy, you can't do much about it unless you are willing for a very radical surgery.

In England also, the government is set up to regulate itself, which is obviously a recipe for disaster. The toxic party political system which England has is only answerable to itself inside whitehall. The people don't even get a chance to change these things because the power to call referendums on stuff like this belongs soley to the government.

"Democracy" in a place like England is also laughable. We don't even get to choose our own leader. In the US, people vote for a person to lead their country on the values that person presents to them...while in England, all we vote for is a local MP in our general election; then it's those MP's of the winning party that choose our leader.

And we only get that vote every 5 years also.

It's a sham basically.

 

[captaincranky]

"Democracy" in a place like England is also laughable. We don't even get to choose our own leader. In the US, people vote for a person to lead their country on the values that person presents to them...while in England, all we vote for is a local MP in our general election; then it's those MP's of the winning party that choose our leader.

And we only get that vote every 5 years also.

It's a sham basically.

Don't believe that. We get marketed a figurehead every four years. You can't get elected on merit. The party machine tells voters what they want to hear, then the advisers tell the president what to think and do. In Bush's case it was **** Cheney.

The system you're describing does indeed sound crappy. But remember, we still have the "electoral college" as our proxy.

Then again, at least your government can claim they no longer rule by "divine right". But is that the truth?....:suspiciou

 

[Archean]

In the US, people vote for a person to lead their country on the values that person presents to them

Absolutely wrong impression, beyond the cosmetics of voting, that one person hardly ever represent will of the people on the street. All the US presidents since (at least) Reagan, I don't think there is one single president who did anything good for the people for the actual well being of the people (even if by an accident they ended up doing something generally it was to serve corporate interests). Every one of them is responsible for creating 'so called economic freedom' which is destroying the very fabric of society, and yet hardly any one raises their voice against it.

In Bush's case it was **** Cheney.

I think Bush and his cronies e.g. Cheney and Rumsfeld were; and Obama and his gang of incompetent imbeciles are 'ultimate' thugs in cop's disguise.

 

[Benny26]

Don't believe that. We get marketed a figurehead every four years. You can't get elected on merit. The party machine tells voters what they want to hear, then the advisers tell the president what to think and do. In Bush's case it was **** Cheney.

The system you're describing does indeed sound crappy. But remember, we still have the "electoral college" as our proxy.

Then again, at least your government can claim they no longer rule by "divine right". But is that the truth?....

I'm not fully up to speed on the "electoral college" system, although it does look sketchy from here, across the pond. I suppose it's part of the way the US has its election results gathered up so fast. We take at least 4 hours to get our first projections.

Absolutely wrong impression, beyond the cosmetics of voting, that one person hardly ever represent will of the people on the street. All the US presidents since (at least) Reagan, I don't think there is one single president who did anything good for the people for the actual well being of the people (even if by an accident they ended up doing something generally it was to serve corporate interests). Every one of them is responsible for creating 'so called economic freedom' which is destroying the very fabric of society, and yet hardly any one raises their voice against it.

I never said that the US had good or bad presidents, I was just making the point that in the US people - at least - get the vote (whether the vote is meaningless or not) to choose between this person, or that person to lead the country. What we get is a list of 20 different people to choose for local governance...not a choice for a leader.

And people in Britain are so stubborn to certain partys, that we'll never, ever get out of the "ping pong" party system that exists here. The only outside chance we can get out of it is if the government itself makes that choice...and obviously that'll never happen.

The proof of our "democratic" system happened with our last Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. The guy was given the job in 2007, with no election from the public, by Tony Blair (who won the election in 2005)...Gordon was our leader for 3 years, and not one person in our country voted for him, not even party members themselfs. The top job in our country is like pass the bloody parcel.

People behind the scenes running things or not, that would be unthinkable in the US.

 

[Archean]

I'm not fully up to speed on the "electoral college" system

It is one of the most stupidest ideas in practice I've seen, as it is neither representative nor convey 'equality' in anyway.

And people in Britain are so stubborn to certain partys, that we'll never, ever get out of the "ping pong" party system that exists here.

Probably it is the same for any and every two party states.

I guess we need to come with a new system to govern and elect people. I mean how hard can it be?

 

[Benny26]

Probably it is the same for any and every two party states.

Yeah, problem with us though is we aint no two party state. Anyone can create a political party in Britain and attach it to any values you wish (even the bad stuff like fascism). Our problem is with the two biggest parties, Labour and the Conservatives; these are so deep rooted in our system that all the other parties are pretty much invisible, and might as well stop spending money on trying to get elected because it'll never happen.

I guess we need to come with a new system to govern and elect people. I mean how hard can it be?

....Yeah, i hear ya. I don't know, in my country maybe i would just settle for a seperate election, where we get to vote for a leader rather than just a Member for Parliament .

A directly elected Prime Minister, it's called...It's actually been disscussed in the past (but never taken further ).

 

[Archean]

Yeah, problem with us though is we aint no two party state. Anyone can create a political party in Britain and attach it to any values you wish (even the bad stuff like fascism). Our problem is with the two biggest parties, Labour and the Conservatives; these are so deep rooted in our system that all the other parties are pretty much invisible, and might as well stop spending money on trying to get elected because it'll never happen.

Still a two party system for me, as the minor parties are in no position to do anything. Although I agree with you, the mindset of people plays major role about continuation of this situation. I've felt/observed many times that in general, people are afraid of change. Probably thinking they are better off choosing a known evil, perhaps believing it to be a 'lesser evil' as well.

Yeah, i hear ya. I don't know, in my country maybe i would just settle for a seperate election, where we get to vote for a leader rather than just a Member for Parliament .

I was thinking more like, if we could arrange a duel, where all the leading contenders must kill the other one to win. Such evil plan can also succeed in 'steadily eliminating' corrupt politicians.

 

[Benny26]

Still a two party system for me, as the minor parties are in no position to do anything. Although I agree with you, the mindset of people plays major role about continuation of this situation. I've felt/observed many times that in general, people are afraid of change. Probably thinking they are better off choosing a known evil, perhaps believing it to be a 'lesser evil' as well.

Actually, at the moment in the UK we have a coalition government involving a third party (the Liberal Democrats), but this hasn't happened for around 80 years and it's only a small party that doesn't have any real clout. I think you're right, It's the fact that people are scared for change, that they would rather hold the center ground.

I was thinking more like, if we could arrange a duel, where all the leading contenders must kill the other one to win. Such evil plan can also succeed in 'steadily eliminating' corrupt politicians.

Oh, like that you mean. Well, I'm all for it mate, just let them slice and dice each other. The price for the TV ratings would be through the roof.

However, would a top class swordsman and a cold hearted killer make a good leader? Hmmm.... :suspiciou

 

[captaincranky]

For your reading enjoyment, may I present Mr. Lyndon Larouche: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
Good old Lyndon was trying to get himself elected president for years. But, as you know, small parties can't win major elections. (Especially those with radical platforms).

Then, he formed a "PAC", (Political action committee). Anyway, PACs enjoy NPO status. Therefore Mr. Larouche can pretty much do as he sees fit with contributions. Wanna bet he lives in a big ole house?

Oh well, so much for those multi-party systems.

 

[Archean]

I am sure he thought he could make money out of this from the get go.

By the way Benny, I have been following NoW issue for few days. All the shenanigans of Rupert Murdoch and his cronies apart, I think people are at fault as well because they bought his paper / watch his channels just for the sake of scandalization of personal problems of anybody who is famous enough. I may be wrong, but I think people have developed a mentality, where they only talk about ethics and law, once they are in trouble. Otherwise, all is fair and fun.

Also, News Corps power clearly illustrates that my argument about 'creation of corporatocracies' is relevant.

 

[Benny26]

By the way Benny, I have been following NoW issue for few days. All the shenanigans of Rupert Murdoch and his cronies apart, I think people are at fault as well because they bought his paper / watch his channels just for the sake of scandalization of personal problems of anybody who is famous enough. I may be wrong, but I think people have developed a mentality, where they only talk about ethics and law, once they are in trouble. Otherwise, all is fair and fun.

Also, News Corps power clearly illustrates that my argument about 'creation of corporatocracies' is relevant.

Well i've been a valid reader of the News Of The World for many years and for my view, I'm sad to see them go. What happened hasn't even been investigated yet, but it's clear that the practices that were going on were from the stupidity of a select few, like: the Private investigators that were involved, the ex editors of the NoW, the corrupt police officers that were involved. 200 people have lost their jobs because of the mistakes of a few, and that few (one being Rebekah Brooks) are still working for News Corp to the unfairness of that 200.

I see all the good things that came from the NoW name: the crazy amount of scandals it uncovered (more than any British newspaper could ever find), the charity it's done for all the war heroes gone by from Iraq and Afghanistan. I find it shocking that its name has been tarnished in this way. 168 years that it's been running, all for it to end this way by a bunch of lowlifes.

I agree about News Corps power, but then it wasn't so bad with the good choice of papers we've had here for a long time. I also must say that i don't like Rupert Murdoch with a passion. His planned take over of British SKY Broadcasting is a joke, a joke that wouldn't come around in the US due to proper laws. I hope the UK regulator can nip this short before it happens.

 

[Archean]

Why don't Ofcom (I think that what it is called right?) simply block such take over attempts, which will inevitably lead to creation of a monopoly. Personally, if I could, I would ban anyone from owing a News Channel and a Newspaper at the same time, they can have one but not both.

I would also like to see how NoW discovered all those scandals in the past as well, hopefully a broader more comprehensive inquiry will do just that.

 

[Benny26]

Why don't Ofcom (I think that what it is called right?) simply block such take over attempts, which will inevitably lead to creation of a monopoly. Personally, if I could, I would ban anyone from owing a News Channel and a Newspaper at the same time, they can have one but not both.

That actually makes alot of sense and i would agree with that. Unfortunately, the way our laws are set up make that a no go, but i do hope that the law is changed because of what's been happening with the NoW thing. Apparently, Ofcom are planning a very detailed investigation into the takeover by Murdoch (or in other words: they're going to try and slow it down enough for Murdoch to hopefully call it off for now, as so the government can make a change to the law in that meantime)

I would also like to see how NoW discovered all those scandals in the past as well, hopefully a broader more comprehensive inquiry will do just that.

Alot of the most famous ones were due to the use of the named "Fake Sheikh": a reporter dressed as a middle eastern buyer of some sort...It was quite clever.

 

[Archean]

But an Englishman dressed as 'Sheikh' should be easily identified as 'fake sheikh' in the first place, not sure how that worked out.

Unfortunately, the way our laws are set up make that a no go, but i do hope that the law is changed because of what's been happening with the NoW thing.

One can always hope, but the way the system now works, it is subservient to big business, so I would not be holding my breath for this change coming any time soon.