As Americans, we are given a right to express ourselves. We can voice any number of opinions under our First Amendment, including disapproval for our government — a luxury many citizens of the world lack. Before we liberated Iraq, someone who dissented would have most likely had his tongue cut out or suffered an even worse fate.

With our freedom comes a great responsibility, and sometimes I wonder if those who participate in activities that stretch our freedoms realize what a huge privilege and responsibility it is to be able to speak and behave as freely as they do.

Exploitation of our First Amendment freedoms comes with a price — and even if we don’t realize it now, we just may some time in the future.

Several groups were planning major protests — all peaceful of course — in honor of President Bush’s second inaugural celebration. One night prior to the inauguration, I was watching a public affairs show as the two guests battling it out brought to my attention the biggest difference between how the right and the left conduct their dissension.

The rabble-rouser from the leftist “let’s ruin the inaugural celebration for everyone!” group could only focus on how there would be barricades preventing them from getting close enough to try to ruin the event. Groups like this often claim to participate in “civil disobedience” and peaceful protests, but their missions are clearly stated as “to rise up” and to “stop the empire.” Call me naïve, but I don’t really think you can rise up and stop the empire while you’re holding hands in a circle singing “Kumbaya.” Even though there’s nothing stopping them because of our First Amendment freedoms, there are better ways of getting a point across than carrying around cardboard coffins at the President’s inaugural celebration and yelling things like, “No more wars” at soldiers in dress uniforms. Protesters also tore down American flags and inaugural decorations — once again, peaceful and respectful activities. Yet they wonder why they’re not allowed closer.

Also on the public affairs show, however, the conservative guest said that if it were John Kerry uttering the 39 magic words that week, Democrats and liberals would have stifled their disappointment and let Kerry and his supporters have their day in the sun.

A theme I reiterate in my life and in my politics (which are becoming increasingly more intertwined) is that every stance, every position has to have a reason. What good is a supposed passion or opinion if you have no clue why you feel the way you do about it? I get the feeling sometimes that people just say things without even knowing the facts, merely protesting without knowing what they’re protesting.

For instance, I’ve seen pictures of people holding signs that say, “Bush Not President” — which is just the ridiculous materialization of a political agenda. There is no legitimate way to back up the argument, considering he won the election in terms of both the popular vote and the electoral vote counts. Another classic is the “Bush should be impeached” argument, sometimes with a “…for war crimes” attached to the end. You ask these people why President Bush should be impeached and they tell you, “Because he lied.” Just about every answer to any question posed to a liberal protester is lacking facts or is emotionally based.

Protests have not changed much since the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, when anti-war protesters from the left rioted about the Vietnam War and other social tensions. Even at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, the vast majority of the protesters were from the radical left of the spectrum, not the “opposition” as one would expect.

All of this was just practice for the leftists’ promised attempt to completely disrupt the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City. When protesters were jailed for their out-of-control behavior, they screamed and carried on. I guess they didn’t think it was a big deal to overturn bicycle rack barricades, throw urine balloons at officers, and attempt to dismount police officers on horses using ball bearings they managed to sneak in through metal detectors.

After John Kerry graciously stepped down from his soapbox from which he relayed a hope that there would be fair elections for everyone, there were still protesters claiming the election wasn’t over and George W. Bush had unfairly been claimed the victor. Once again, flimsy reasons were given, such as not enough voter machines in select precincts or that the lines were too long.

Although protesters are supposed to challenge society, one has to wonder — in maintaining relatively shallow ideals and methods, have they become merely a photo op?

E-mail comments to Danielle at [email protected].