Let's rewind a bit to 1990, when homosexuality was also a hot news topic.  At the center of the controversy was a small book called "Heather Has Two Mommies", and the debate was sparked when a group of parents tried to have it removed from their children's elementary school library, on the grounds that it was "inappropriate" for children.  Immediately, the country was up in arms: the book advocated homosexuality and was therefore bad, homosexuals should be treated like everyone else and therefore the book was good.  I can't honestly recall what the end result was, at least as far as that particular school was concerned; I suspect the newspapers covering the story eventually got bored and wandered off to find a new sensation to write about (which says something about the quality of our country's news reporting, but I'll save that for another post). 

A few months ago, I happened to come across a copy of the book, and began to leaf through it.  It quickly became apparent to me that few people involved in that long-ago controversy had ever bothered to read the book.  The book advocates tolerance, true; it would also not be out of place in the waiting room of a Planned Parenthood office.  I'm all for tolerance, but I have to question the validity of giving 4-8-year-olds graphic descriptions of artificial insemination.  
 

So why am I talking about a sixteen-year-old book?  Because it strikes me that the current controversy over the NSA's interception of emails is breaking down on similar political divides, with hysteria running rampant and few people taking the time to step back and examine the entire issue.

"If such impersonal surveillance on the orders of the president for genuine national security purposes without court or other explicit authorization does violate some constitutional norm, then we are faced with a genuine dilemma and not an occasion for finger-pointing and political posturing." (Boston Globe)

The problem is that because the system has to rely on secrecy in order to work, and because a "war on terror" is a vague concept, such eavesdropping can easily be manipulated into persecuting ordinary Americans to satisfy some private political agenda.
 

My concern is that the country is wallowing in political extremes to such an extent that it's bordering on the dangerous -- we're too busy announcing ourselves as "liberal" or "conservative" to step back and take a look at the real problem.  The underlying issues get buried under waves of name-calling and back-biting, and that makes us vulnerable to manipulation.
 

How much safety do we require, and how much do we trust those in charge to provide it?  Perhaps more to the point, how much do we trust those in charge to keep us safe while not violating our civil rights as Americans?

These are not easy questions, and I don't pretend to have answers.  There's not an obvious line between national security and civil liberties, and each generation has to decide for itself where that line should be drawn; it's a never-ending discussion, as each generation has different needs in an ever-changing world.  Most importantly, this discussion should be open and transparent, where all sides can be heard, not made for us in secret behind closed doors.