The narrative portrayed is selective and polarizing in nature. It is perfectly reasonable to characterized the "Tea Party" movement as libertarian in nature, objecting to excessive growth in government. Yet, we hear the replacement name “tea baggers” and the focus on racism in the partisian blogosphere trumped the core discussion.
And that’s the problem – a discussion of a core issue is avoided by a discussion of perceived motives.
Looking back at this thread (including the original one with the slanderous title) and despite frustrations over all too familiar partisian polarization overshadowing discussion of a single matter, we find ourselves back to that same pointless place.
There were a number of highlights through the tread. Discussions of gun control and the duty of retreat popped up throughout. There was good analysis of facts introduced into evidence, along with speculative analysis with changes in fact. A good deal of frustration was exhibited in the parallel discussions of the reality of perceived racial bias and the lack of direct evidence of racial bias in this case. And, on occasion, there was the in-depth analysis of statistics which produced a conclusion contrary to the assertion purportedly supported by the statistics.
I hope we can collectively elevate our game here.