There's something inherent to anything related to blogging or any opinions section. Complaining. Glorified whining about why things and wrong and how they should be. Intellectual children elaborately clamoring for more chocolate chips in their cookies, or for the cookies to be baked in the first place. Every piece seems to have been born from a disagreement, and a want to be the loudest voice so as to influence folks to agree and therefore bring about change.
This isn't a bad thing by any means, every piece is a valuable contribution to its respective argument. Complaining, provided it's backed by legitimate information, is vital in any society that wishes to improve upon itself.
It leads to an interesting conundrum though, as it shifts about the mentality of those mired in opinions writing. One would have thought there would be a post on Madeleine Albright's excellent speech during Spring Convocation Tuesday, but there was only empty html. I thought about it, but I found myself sitting in front of my computer, pretentious music blaring, without anything to write. I didn't disagree with anything she said, I had no snide remarks to throw her way, no elaborate metaphors to create to serve my argument.
One could argue that reporting on such a matter is the role of the news section, but everything should fall into the domain of opinions, so long as it sparks thought and breeds discussion. And Alright's speech did spur thought, but it was all positive thought floating atop wispy, buoyant clouds with smiles painted on with day-glo. It's curious to think that I didn't feel like there was anything to write about in regard to my agreement ... has natural pessimism turned into an artificial reluctance to agree with anything?