The "Story"
So we have news today out of The New York Times that Halliburton and its construction arm Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) not only expect no more hiccups in their efforts to rebuild Iraq, but they also are telling investors they don't believe they'll have to pay any of the fines levied against them so far. Why? Well why should they? After all, when has the law ever applied to Halliburton in the first place?

"I don't expect we're going to get fined," Halliburton general counsel Bert Cornelison told investors today via a conference call. "We haven't done anything wrong so it's very hard for me to sit here and speculate what a fine could be."

So far Halliburton has been doing several things "wrong." The company has been accused of grossly inflating its bids for construction projects, overcharging for fuel delivered from Kuwait and charging for meals to soldiers based on estimates and not on actual meals delivered. And those are just the things we know about--so far. Concerning the fuel deliveries, President Bush himself last December stated he believed there had been an overcharge and that "we expect that money to be repaid."

The News
All of this is, of course, our own fault.

Our government set up and approved the "no-bid policy" in Iraq, letting contractors issue bids on construction projects with no questions asked, no haggling, no quibbling about price, cost or fees.

Questions have been raised, quietly, concerning Halliburton's preferential treatment, especially in light of Cheney's five-year stewardship of the company. But that issue has since become stale, old news. And, like most politically sensitive issues these days, it has been quietly laid to rest by a cowering, lazy and ineffectual U.S. news media.

Where are the hard-hitting investigative journalists with the resources and the fortitude necessary to take this story on? For that matter, where is the General Accounting Office in this whole mess? That agency, set up by and responsible to Congress, is specifically designed to investigate just these sorts of wrongdoings. They've done good work in the past, where are they now?

Then there's the issue of Vice-President Cheney's involvement with the company. Cheney wisely stepped down as Halliburton's CEO when he was added to the presidential ticket in 2000, but doubts still remain concerning his presumed impartiality.

And there's really no great mystery there--of course there is cronyism going on. Halliburton has been around for a long, long time and was awarded major contracts during President Clinton's term(s) as well. But the fleecing we're getting now at the company's hands has much to do with opportunism and cronyism, that can't be denied.

Much of this post will be old news for some and, yes, Halliburton is an easy target. But 3N simply couldn't ignore today's denial of any wrongdoings from the company's mouthpiece.

For some real news on the subject, Mother Jones always is a good place to start. In fact, try this story on for size. If it doesn't make you angry, well then you're simply at the wrong site.

The "Story"
I tell you, sometimes this page just writes itself. There's just so much to choose from today.

Is it the "news" that George Michael is quitting the record business, deciding instead to release his albums gratis over the Internet? George who? Oh yeah, the guy who hasn't released an album in eight years and whose last two flopped miserably. Yeah, good story there. Thanks to Rolling Stone for that one.

Do we report on the 60-odd Germans who bought parcels of real estate on the moon from an American entrepenuer and are now concerned that a proposed U.S. lunar base could infringe on their property rights? I can't make this stuff up--check out the story from the AFP for yourself.

Or maybe it's the report from Internet "experts" that the newly enacted Can-Spam Act may not put an end to Spam after all. You think? I'm laying odds that a year from now I'll still be sitting at my computer mulling over ways to reduce my mortgage, enlarge my penis and buy cheap Viagra over my morning coffee. Read more at The Washington Post.

No, the top "story" has to be the House bill passed today that would bar individuals from suing fast-food restaurants for contributing to their obesity. The so-called "Cheeseburger Bill" seeks to shift the blame for our sagging society from restaurants and place it squarely where it belongs: on the broad yet flabby shoulders of the American public. Somewhere top executives from Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds are rubbing their hands in glee.

3N has mixed feelings about this bill. On the one hand we are always in favor of Americans taking responsibility for their own actions, something we are loath to do these days. We wonder why similar legislation was not enacted for the tobacco industry. But on the other hand, 3N is always worried when government steps in to shield corporate America by limiting the kinds of lawsuits and the damages awarded.

Basically this "story" is non-news because it does nothing to address to the real problem this country faces: we are overweight, lazy and out of shape. Read the full story at The New York Times among others.

In a related item, UPI reports the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is embarking on a sweeping campaign to stamp out obesity, citing a new study which suggests poor eating habits and a lack of exercise will soon top smoking as the leading cause of death in the U.S. HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson plans to eradicate obesity by airing a series of public service commercials created by the Ad Council. And if that doesn't work, 3N doesn't know what will.

The News
While the Cheeseburger Bill takes the moral high ground by attempting to place blame where it belongs, it is yet another move in the direction of protecting corporate America by limiting damages and the types of lawsuits we are allowed to bring. President Bush has a history of doing just this sort of thing. He did it as governor in Texas and he's doing it now on a national level. And it should scare the hell out of you.

As president, Bush kicked off his defense of corporations and his assault on the working class by repealing a slew of work-safety measures, specifically ones protecting workers from repetitive-stress injuries.

Next up was the repeal of the bankruptcy bill, making it more difficult for Americans to declare bankruptcy and giving more power to creditors eager to get their money back.

Lately Bush has been trying to once again push through legislation that would severely limit the awards handed out for medical malpractice. Look to this story from London-based newspaper The Guardian for more.

As we said before, none of this is new for Bush. As governor of Texas, Bush introduced a series of measures aimed at tort reform, measures that, "set back hard-fought consumer protection victories by decades," according to Dan Lambe of the consumer group TexasWatch.

Then-Governor Bush enacted laws that capped the amount of damages paid by large corporations in cases of serious injury and/or death, prohibited Texas cities from suing gun retailers and manufactures, and, you guessed it, made it more difficult for individuals to sue doctors and hospitals in cases of malpractice. Look to this excellent article from Tom Paine for more.

Today's lesson? Get your lawsuits while you can America. Because if Bush has his way, soon there will be no one left to sue.

The "Story"
Today's non-news comes courtesy of the "story" that will not die, the non-news item we are calling Boobygate. Yes, the never-ending saga of Janet Jackson's bare breast surfaces yet again.

Today we hear, courtesy of Matt Drudge that media giant Sumner Redstone has declared "to me, a woman's breast is not such a big deal."

Normally we at 3N would applaud such bold, plain speaking, but we were appalled to find Redstone still denies Boobygate was a planned affair.

"The FCC knows we're a victim and not a culprit," Redstone said at a media conference in Boca Raton, FL. "It was a complete shock to us when it occurred."

So much for plain talk.

Redstone is not a stupid man yet he obviously believes the general public is. Jackson's Superbowl indiscretion clearly was nothing more than a shameless attempt to revive her sagging . . . career. And it worked. Sort of.

While Jackson briefly enjoyed a spike in radio requests and album sales, Boobygate has blown up in her face and, freakishly, looks to have put an end to Howard Stern's show on the Clear Channel radio network.

It also has morphed into a bizarre new campaign by Congress and the FCC to stamp out indecency wherever it exists. Boobygate has touched off a disgusting display by grandstanding politicos hell bent on making radio and television "decent" again.

3N certainly is no fan of Stern or Clear Channel for that matter, but to be hassling him now, at this late, late stage in his career is pathetic. And so is Boobygate and so is the continued media coverage of this uber non-news story. Only when everyone stops writing about it, covering it, etc., when we stop giving politicians face time and print time, only then will this go away. Janet Jackson certainly has.

The News
So let's instead talk about ethics and decency in the FCC itself. This same federal agency that's determined to save the public from indecent acts sure has committed some of its own recently.

Who can forget last year's debacle where Chairman Michael Powell tried to ram a bill down our throats that would have further consolidated media ownership, loosening the present rules and allowing large media conglomerates to get even bigger and own even more newspapers, radio and television stations in a given market?

Though it was ultimately defeated, Powell was stunned at the public outcry against his plan. He shouldn't have been so surprised when Americans balked at his bizarre mathematical equation of fewer companies + bigger market share = more competition. Even the most feeble-minded citizen figured out that equation didn't add up.

Add that to the story given to us by Molly Ivins and courtesy of the AlterNet, where she describes the gross conflict of interest wherein FCC employees traveled, ate, drank and lived large all at the expense of telecommunications and broadcast interests--the very same people the FCC is supposed to "regulate."

According to Ivins and a study by The Center for Public Integrity, FCC employees accepted nearly $3 million in trips to conventions and conferences over the past eight years to places like Paris, Las Vegas and Rio de Janeiro. There employees were wined and dined by media representatives all under the auspices of open dialog and free communication between the two entities.

This unholy alliance was only recently dissolved, much to the FCC's credit. That story can be found at the CPI website.

A simple search of the AlterNet, Z Mag, Mother Jones, The Progressive or any number of other muckraking publications will turn up more dirt on the FCC.

So how are we to take the FCC seriously when it tries to clean up the airwaves when it can't even keep it's own house in order?

The Story
In non-news today we find the same item that's been making the rounds again and again recently, that of Ralph Nader's entrance into the 2004 presidential race.

Today's story is brought to you by syndicated columnist Charlie Cook who's cry that the sky is indeed falling comes courtesy of today's New York Times. Cook claims the usual dire consequences--Nader costing Sen. John Kerry the election, Nader handing Bush a second term, etc. We've heard it all before and it likely won't die down until the election is in the books.

Nader's presidential bid, and Cook's column, is non-news because it is utterly inconsequential. Don't get us wrong, 3N is a great supporter of Nader and voted for him in 2000. We won't do that again, however, and neither will most of Nader's supporters from the last go-round. Which is why the media outcry amounts to nothing more than the Boys Who Cried Wolf.

No one is going to vote Nader again. The Green Party didn't even endorse him this time. We who voted Nader last time did it because we believed in his rhetoric, we believed in the Greens getting their 5 percent and federal matching funds, we believed there was no way Bush could win and we just plain didn't like Gore. This time around, none of us are willing to risk another four years of Bush.

Cook throws around some numbers--6 percent say they'll vote Nader, 47 percent would have voted Gore, etc. Wrong and wrong. Nader didn't even get 6 percent last time around and with far less at stake. As for the 47 percent who would have voted for Gore, well, the exit polls 3N saw in the hours after the polls closed showed the majority of Nader supporters would not have even shown up to the polls had he not been running.

For the last time, Nader did not cost Gore the election in 2000 and he won't ruin it for Kerry in '04. Only Kerry can do that.

Read Instead
What the media should be talking about is how U.S. citizens once again get to choose between the lesser of two evils. Kerry is not the anti-Bush, Kerry is not the answer to our problems and Kerry is a weak candidate thrust upon us by a weak Democratic Party searching for leadership and direction.

Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, has routinely voted in the interest of big business throughout his time in Congress, has supported NAFTA, has denounced Affirmative Action--the list goes on and on.

This is no savior folks, this is Bush-lite.

Look to this excellent article from Slate for more.

Welcome to The Non-News Network!

Tired of celebrity trials, glowing press releases straight from politicians' desks and endless coverage of the "jobless economic recovery?" Us, too.

At 3N we'll give you the straight dope on crooked stories, the ones that are making big news but really aren't news at all. What's more, we'll tell you who's behind the story and what their real intent may be. Best of all, we'll then show you a similar story that you probably hadn't heard before--one that's gone unreported or been underreported or suppressed.

So sit back, settle in and get ready to be enlightened. Then get ready to get pissed.

Welcome.