Rebuttal #1 or Ben attacks the specifics of Zach's post without addressing the substance

First off let me say Zach that I appreciate your love of parentheticals. It may be a fairly played out literary device but nonetheless it does inspire a certain level of authenticity in regard to the blog being conversational.

Off the top let me address a handful of things that you did not mention. Since you did not address the structural aspects of the blog in your post I'd like to introduce a couple of those points into the public record. I think we can all agree that the best blogs are the blogs you return to, ideally, several times a day in the hopes of seeing a new post. Thus I think the idea of a larger topic on Monday, followed by rebuttal responses on Tuesday is an excellent idea.

I do think that it is remarkable that, we, being true to our braincell depleted procrastinary impulses have already messed up the proposed structure before it started, but that can be left aside for the time being.

On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday it will be free-for-all time with the three of us posting as often as we have something to say. I would put in the qualifier "interesting" to say but I think its possible I'm getting ahead of myself there. Since it is likely that we will OFTEN have something to say this should keep the conversation moving fairly rapidly. Now, Zach, I know you are busy educating the masses, and while I respect that your job may put limitations on your ability to engage in the middle of the day, and, theoretically, this should be true for me as well, I think you need to take a hard look at your priorities. Is it more important to participate in a self-serving conversation in which we presume that the rest of the world is interested in the things we have to say, or that you spend your time teaching the youth of New York City? In other words I'm saying I'd rather receive a fish from you every day then you teach the youth of America HOW to fish.

I have no idea how we'll do closing thoughts on Saturday I suspect that will take care of itself.

Now a few specific responses to your post.

First: I'm impressed you read Andrew Sullivan. The fact you quoted anyone who wrote a book called The Conservative Soul shows a level open-mindedness I hadn't expected from you.

Second: Bonbons? I feel we need more specificity in blog-posts. For instance if I had written that sentence it would read "... I take it back. I went to copy-paste that sentence but it was too damn-long. But instead of bon-bons I think I would have said "almond-encrusted foie-gras", or "shark-fin wrapped in swallows nest".

Third: You wrote, "All ideas have their purpose, and sometimes that purpose is making more genuine ideas seem less outlandish." This is among the most interesting an insightful things I have ever heard you say. Well, I guess I didn't hear you say it, but.... shit blogging is difficult. ANYWAY, my question is which one of us plays the role of introducing the more realistic less outlandish idea. I'm not sure that is a part of our DNA. I guess though, that if this blog causes people to say "I thought "X" idea was crazy and wouldn't work, but if those guys over at 'The Culture Counter' can live with making that ludicrous "X\/Y<->Z" argument then maybe I've been looking at this the wrong way", then it will be considered a success.

I'll let kyle address the "everything has a purpose" line as my philosophy muscles haven't been flexed in while.

Last but not least, I think it is incredibly arrogant of you to presuppose that this blog is not going to devolve in to celebrity gossip. The Obama girls were wearing J-Crew! AND I think there is a real debate to be had over whether Michelle Obama's fashion sense is WAY overrated! Come on Zach, this is where the money is.

All in all I think your post represents the kind of broad insight that we're aiming for and I'm looking forward to getting down to the nitty-gritty this week to see how it all plays out.