Black, white and all that grey in between.

On a regular basis, we Lefties are accused of having no moral "compass," no moral, black and white absolutes, so that everything for us is shades of grey. This is a moderately amusing accusation, coming from those who have taken waffling to entirely new heights in defending the shrieking lunatic sociopath Ann Coulter.

As exhibit A, we have the aforementioned weekly dumbass Adam Daifallah, whose title says it all: "This isn't intended to be a defense of Ann Coulter, but ..." Ah, yes. "But." There's the magic word right there. See, it's not like Adam supports Coulter's savage attacks on widows who lost their husbands in the terror attacks of 9/11, oh, no, he would never stoop that low. And yet ... and yet ... there he is, stooping exactly that low. He doesn't want to defend Coulter but, well, fuck it, that's precisely what he's doing anyway.

Daifallah's title has become an absolute catchphrase in Wankerville these days. Note one of Adam's own commenters, Scott, who faithfully chimes in, "... and not that I am defending Coulter, but ...". Oh, yes, who's a good little attack poodle? Yes, you are, Scott, that's a good boy. And there is, of course, that previous Media Matters piece, whose first few words read, "Kurtz and Tapper criticized Coulter's invective, but ...". Yes, everyone's publicly appalled by Coulter's hateful screeching, even as they rush to her aid.

The main point here seems to be that, even if Coulter was -- how shall we say this? -- indelicate in her phrasing, she still had some valid point underneath the shrieking. What a fascinating suggestion. One might think that, using the same logic, those people might also take the position that, despite Howard Dean's one enthusiastic yell, he might still have some ideas worth listening to. But, sadly, it doesn't work that way, does it? Dean screamed, therefore, he can be utterly and totally dismissed for time immemorial. But Ann? Hey, she still has some good points, after you claw your way through the unrelenting, sociopathic howling.

In any event, I find it amusing that all of those insufferable wanks leaping to Coulter's defense are doing it only in the context of her political attacks on liberals. I note that none of them are actually taking up her lead in attacking biological evolution. Certainly, Daifallah doesn't go anywhere near the topic in his brief bit of stupidity. And Mark Steyn's asinine piece in Maclean's defending Coulter doesn't contain so much as a passing reference to the topic.

Come on, guys, suck it up. If you're going to defend Coulter, then defend all of her, including the outrageous scientific illiteracy. Political attacks are easy, since they're all just opinion. But science? Ah, that's where you actually have to know something. So come on, Adam, be a sport and defend Coulter's science. I'm sure I have at least a handful of readers who'd love to see you try.

However, as I said, that requires actually knowing some science, so we'll all understand if it takes you a while. Just feel free to check in every so often and let us know how it's going. And don't be afraid to ask for help. That's what we liberals are here for.