I haven't seen "Fahrenheit 9/11," and I don't intend to. A friend of mine tried to convince me that I needed to watch it even if I don't approve of the message. "You can't complain about it if you haven't watched it," he said.

I've got news for him. I can and will complain about it and I don't intend to let that bewhiskered buffoon Michael Moore get one penny from me in the process. I don't need to go into details about what I think is wrong with the movie to point out faults with Moore's techniques. Many others have done that in great detail about this particular movie.

I've seen other Moore films and I even read part of his creed. "Stupid White Men," and as far as I'm concerned, Moore gets nuttier every day. That doesn't seem to faze his liberal fans and to tell you the truth I have to question either the intelligence or the integrity of anyone who claims to believe the malarkey Moore spews out.

Moore came to America's attention with a little film called Roger and Me, a small budget, mildly amusing, mildly annoying little film that lambasted General Motors and the auto industry in general over downsizing while making record profits.

Moore attempts to make himself out to be an everyman in the film, but alas, it is but a pose. A pose, moreover, that is thin and unbelievable. His treatment of the poor is especially questionable given his supposed soulful connection to them, each one seems to be handpicked to represent the sorriest excuses for humanity he could find.

Then we have Bowling for Columbine, a film that again defines itself as a documentary but falls short of that by an order of magnitude. The problems with this film would take several columns to adequately address but one thing for sure it isn't cinema verité, since it lacks that most necessary quality of that genre, truth.

In that film Moore uses editing to create events that never happened, the biggest perhaps a speech by Charlton Heston that was so diced and spliced that no one who heard the original would have recognized the amalgamation that Moore created. For one thing the film version of speech is actually two speeches a year apart, for another thing he edited out whole paragraphs in the speeches and spliced in comments that had entirely different meanings than Moore's edited version.

Some people have called Michael Moore films mocumentaries, films that spoof documentaries, but that definition simply doesn't work for them. This is "Spinal Tap" and "A Mighty Wind" are mocumentaries and good ones, they bring a skewed and clearly satirical point of view to punk rock and folk music respectively. They are deft, on target and believable, something that Michael Moore films are not.

A better term for a Michael Moore film probably is schlockumentary. I thought I might have come up with a new word but it turns out a lot of other people thought of it first. I did a Google search on the term schlockumentary and lo and behold, I got 583 hits for the term and each and every one I checked out dealt with Michael Moore, not that I claim to have checked all of them.

Liberals can't understand why true moderates and conservatives look down on them. The fact is that liberals will take up a cause, such as Moore does, and twist facts and even outright lie to score points and then get huffy when their deceit is pointed out to them.

Moore is despicable, his films are worse than propaganda and those he supports should be the first in line to disown him and cast him out. Since that won't happen I'll make a prediction. Moore's little Bush-bashing screed will come back to haunt the Democrats. American's don't like people who don't play fair and Moore is at the top of that list.

I hear that there may be a challenge aimed at preventing any ads for "Fahrenheit 9/11" from being shown during the month before the Republican convention and the general election. I think the campaign finance law that prevents the ads from running is unconstitutional and shouldn't be enforced but I'll wait until after the election to complain. After all why should I do Michael Moore a favor?