You probably all know where I stand on Michael Moore. I think the guy's a genius and I'm thankful for his voice in a time of madness.

I loved Bowling For Columbine , and I'm glad it won the Oscar.

But I have to admit, there were a couple of things in the movie that made me uneasy - like the fact that the graph showing numbers of gun-related homicides globally wasn't identified as being all from the same year - in the sort of way that you cringe when someone is making your own case a little too strenuously.

Now - perhaps expectedly given Moore's Oscar acceptance speech, but also beforehand - there seems to be a campaign to discredit the film and its creator.

Problem is, though, beneath the rightwing rhetoric, a lot of the criticisms are based on his use of the medium, specifically relating to judicious editing and scene fabrication; and if proven, could do a hell of a lot of damage to his reputation as a documentary film maker.

I hope he can rebut them and stop this in its tracks.

We all from time to time feel strongly enough about something not to let the facts get in the way of our argument. But, dammit, this argument is important. And his ability to stand up and make it on behalf of those of us who are less eloquent is important too. That's why everything we do in pursuit of that argument absolutely has to be above reproach.

Comment?