...

...

So Oliver Stone is starting to film a new flick, and get this: it's a critical take on our lame duck president, George Bush. How daring! How gutsy! How brave!

What's next for Stone - a movie about the evils of eating children? Seriously, I've read fortune cookies that are less predictable. But let's face it - Stone only makes movies for people who already agree with him. He doesn't just preach to the choir – he gives them a tongue bath.

Stone is like a child who puts on skits for his family in the living room over the holidays. He's playing to a besotted crowd - they won't tell him he sucks. It's worse than saying the gravy's too thin.

The fact is, true controversy requires more guts than Stone has. If he had real balls, he'd do a movie about radical islam- the folks who behead Americans for fun. But maybe he doesn`t want to end up like the dead director Theo Van Gogh. I don't either.

But he doesn't even have to do that. Just once - I'd like to see him or anyone currently working in Hollywood try to make a film that doesn`t paint America as a bully.

But hey - remember that Stone's last flick was a Valentine to Fidel Castro - an endorsement of a criminal that was so bad even HBO wanted to hide it - and they hired Bill Maher...and Tracey Ullman.

In the end though, no one will care. The movie will only be seen by smelly grad students and their tapeworms - who, if they had hands, would give the film two thumbs up.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

At a Shell gas station in Washington, Rocky Twyman and an unusual group of activists were mad as hell about soaring fuel prices.

"Last week, this station was 3.51 dollars. Now it's practically 3.60. So it's gone up nine cents in one week," Twyman said as he pumped five dollars' worth of gas into his thirsty American car.

"Someone's making a lot of money and it's really, really wrong," added Twyman, who founded the Prayer at the Pump movement last week to seek help from a higher power to bring down fuel prices, because the powers in Washington haven't.

The half-dozen activists -- Twyman, a former Miss Washington DC, the owner of a small construction company and two volunteers at a local soup kitchen -- joined hands, bowed their heads and intoned a heartfelt prayer.

"Lord, come down in a mighty way and strengthen us so that we can bring down these high gas prices," Twyman said to a chorus of "amens".

"Prayer is the answer to every problem in life... We call on God to intervene in the lives of the selfish, greedy people who are keeping these prices high," Twyman said on the gas station forecourt in a neighborhood of Washington that, like many of its residents, has seen better days.

"Lord, the prices at this pump have gone up since last week. We know that you are able, that you have all the power in the world," he prayed, before former beauty queen Rashida Jolley led the group in a modified version of the spiritual, "We Shall Overcome".

"We'll have lower gas prices, we'll have lower gas prices..." they sang.

Last weekend, the New York Times suggested that violence is an infection, something you catch like herpes or Two and a Half Men. It made me so sick to my stomach, I wanted to stab a shopkeeper in the neck. The writer focused only on gang crime, as opposed to other types, like shoplifting or houseboy dismemberment - suggesting that if gang murder spreads like an infectious disease, then it should be treated like one.

If there was only a word that describes this idea. Oh yeah. Poopy.

See, I wonder - if the crime were white collar or corporate in nature - would the Times call it a disease? After all, many feel that corporations like Enron are just as evil as the Crips. But the Times would never call that a disease because such a pronouncement would excuse its perpetrators - which are rich white men. And the Times would never do such a thing.

But the Times can't blame gang members for gang crime - for in their eyes, personal responsibility only applies to whites. By implying that gang members are victims of a disease - it's no longer their fault. They are simply helpless patients - like people with AIDS or malaria. Violent behavior is just a virus, that makes you shoot people while wearing really baggy pants.

As much as I hate this kind of thinking - I do believe the paper is onto something. There is a disease, but it afflicts writers at the Times. It renders them incapable of recognizing evil when it presents itself, whether it's terror or street criminals. The disease causes its victims instead to fiddle around for root causes and silly theories. No wonder the paper is on its death bed. Where's Dr. Kevorkian when you need him?

Greg Gutfeld has spent a lifetime in the media industry, and he has the stories to prove it. Beginning his career in magazines, he traversed a career path through various publications from the US to the UK, from Prevention (while smoking heavily) to Stuff (where he hired several little people to cause a commotion and create buzz at the 2003 Magazine Publishers of America conference). He's a published author, with his newest book, Lessons From the Land of Pork Scratchings, detailing his time in England (and now out in paperback). He's a regular blogger at The Daily Gut, his own site, and formerly of The Huffington Post. But the shock jock of the magazine world's current gig may be the most surprising -- host of Red Eye, on Fox News Channel. The program, airing weeknights at 3 a.m., allows Gutfeld and his varied cast of characters to discuss the news in a way unseen in any other arena. It's the counter-est of counter-programming, but 300 shows in, Red Eye's still going strong, providing an outlet for Gutfeld's brand of humor, bar chat atmosphere, and a place for FNC anchors including Julie Banderas, Alan Colmes, and Brian Kilmeade, to show a different side of their personalities.

We caught up with Gutfeld last week in his Fox News office, a spot littered with books and magazines, a 40-ounce bottle of malt liquor and, yes (for fans of the show), some stuffed unicorns.

A notable story of recent months should have been the evidence pouring in from all sides to cast doubts on the idea that the world is inexorably heating up. The proponents of man-made global warming have become so rattled by how the forecasts of their computer models are being contradicted by the data that some are rushing to modify the thesis.

So a German study, published by Nature last week, claimed that, while the world is definitely warming, it may cool down until 2015 "while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions".

A little vignette of the media's one-sided view was given by recent events on Snowdon, the highest mountain in southern Britain. Each year between 2003 and 2007, the retreat of its winter snow cover inspired reports citing this as evidence of global warming.

In 2004 scientists from the University of Bangor made headlines with the prediction that Snowdon might lose its snowcap altogether by 2020. In 2007 a Welsh MP, Lembit Opik, was saying "it is shocking to think that in just 14 years snow on this mountain could be nothing but a distant memory".

Last November, viewing photographs of a snowless Snowdon at an exhibition in Cardiff, the Welsh environment minister, Jane Davidson, said "we must act now to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change".

Yet virtually no coverage has been given to the abnormally deep spring snow which prevented the completion of a new building on Snowdon's summit for more than a month, and nearly made it miss the deadline for £4.2 million of EU funding. (Brussels eventually extended the deadline to next autumn.)

So today we've got two Democratic primaries - Indiana and North Carolina. My prediction: Sanjaya by single digits. But this really isn't a battle between two candidates, but a war over two souls: One that belongs to the Democratic party, and the other, to Bill Clinton.

First, the election will come down to a war between the moonbats (the netroot nutcakes and body-odored bloggers afflicted with matted hair and cystic acne) and mainstream Democrats. While it's true Hilary and Obama are both chronic lefties - both candidates still must move right - because that's the only way you can win an election in America. It's kinda funny and sad that, for a liberal to win, he or she has to run like a conservative. What does that tell you about your party if it can only win when it's pretending to be something else? That it can only win when it's pretending to be something else.

And then there's our man Bill. If Hillary wins, he's in the White House - giving us a minimum of four years of frustrated hilarity. He won't be able to pick up waitresses or co-eds, and that can't be good for his sanity or his right hand. But if Hillary loses, he will simply replace the White House with the Cathouse. And that's what I call a win-win. So what if Bill loses the limelight? That isn't so bad, since he does most of his best work in the dark.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.