E-commerce vs. a personal connection: Both can provide disintermediation

After reading an article about "the best on-line florists" (or somesuch) in Smart Money a few years ago, I wrote a letter to the editor about the value of having a personal business relationship with a local florist - not just using some faceless, on-line service. My point was that you get greater value and greater service through a personal connection & disintermediation.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to put my theory into action again. I needed to order flowers for delivery in a different city, so rather than just logging on to some giant floral service, I used Google to find a florist near where I needed the flowers sent. Without paying any additional delivery fee, without paying (any number of) middlepersons in the transaction, I called the local florist directly, spoke to the lady who would be the one making the arrangement, and she could tell me exactly when the flowers would be delivered this morning and what they would look like. She asked me to stop by so we could meet in person the next time I'm up there. You don't get that level of service - or assurance - from a toll-free number or a website.

I'm ALL FOR e-commerce. I think it's a great idea for many products, and I buy clothes, books, music, etc. from online merchants with a great degree of regularity. But I'm still old-fashioned enough to know that some products & services warrant a personal connection: I think flowers are one of them. While e-commerce provides disintermediation for some kinds of transactions, it doesn't do that for all transactions.

My unsolicited advice: know a florist in your mom's & your in-laws' hometown. Meet them in person when you're up there for a visit.

Hello, world

Entering the world of the bloggers.

Redefining the Debate on Marriage

We need to get off our back foot on this, and put those who are in *opposition* to fairness and equality in the position of having to qualify and defend *their* stances.

There are some statements we should embrace - make our mantra, if you will - in increasing levels of complexity. I'll include a description of why each works. In any of these, "I" can be replaced by "we" when one is speaking on behalf of an organization.

"I'M FOR MARRIAGE.": This is short, sweet, and puts anyone in the position of disagreeing with this having to qualify, explain, and defend. 
("I disagree." "Why are you against marriage?" "I'm against your definition of marriage." "I define marriage as couples in love uniting to form a strong family. Which part of that are you against?")

"I'M FOR COUPLES IN LOVE BEING FREE TO GET MARRIED.": This restricts the definition to couples (so no one throws polygamy at us), and adds "being free" - something that it's hard to be against. ("So, you disagree. Do you disagree with 'couples being in love', 'freedom', or 'marriage'?" "You're redefining marriage." "Interracial couples can now get married, and you don't have to marry your rapist. It's been redefined over the years.")

"I'M FOR COUPLES IN LOVE BEING FREE TO ENJOY THE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF MARRIAGE, CREATING STRONGER FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES.": This adds the idea that we not only want the rights, but we also gladly accept the responsibilities that come along with those rights. We want to make our families and communities stronger. ("Which part of this are you against? Couples in love, stronger families or stronger communities?")

I support churches doing whatever churches want to do; I am free to (or not to) affiliate with them.