Your Customer Is Not Your Problem

Two very different experiences this past week have taught me a lot about the value of positive customer service -- and the need to create a workplace environment that encourages and sustains it.

When Good Road Signs Go Bad

A week ago, I noticed that the five-way stoplight at the Forward and Murray Avenues intersection of Pittsburgh's Squirrel Hill neighborhood was broken. One of the light's cycles -- the side that faces traffic coming off the I-376 exit -- was lasting at least 2-3 times longer than it normally does. This is odd because that's usually NOT a high-traffic approach; it also extends the wait time for those on Murray Avenue, which results in 8-block traffic jams during rush hour.

So I contacted PennDOT, informed them of the problem (via email form), and someone wrote me back within a day to explain that traffic lights are the concern of the municipality, rather than the state. They also said they'd forward my email to the Pittsburgh traffic office -- which, I'll admit, is where I thought this story would end.

Today, I received the following email from Amanda Broadwater, P.E., Municipal Traffic Engineer for the City of Pittsburgh's Department of Public Works - Bureau of Transportation and Engineering:

Dear Mr. Kownacki,

Within the State of Pennsylvania, traffic signals are the jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation forwarded your comment to us regarding the intersection of Forward and Murray in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood.

The City of Pittsburgh has identified [that] loop detectors are malfunctioning at the intersection. This type of problem happens often during wet weather. When this occurs, the maximum time allotted to the approach with the bad loop is displayed during each cycle, rather than the green time being traffic responsive. Obviously this creates greater delays on the other approaches of the intersection.

The electricians will be back on site today to try and remedy the problem. However, it may be necessary to completely replace the loop detectors. If this is the case, a timing change will be needed to ease congestion during preparation of the work. If a timing change is needed, it should be in place by mid week.

I wanted to highlight Amanda's response for two reasons:

* What speedy turnaround time from a pair of agencies that probably receives dozens (if not hundreds) of similar reports every day.

* What a thorough and understandable explanation! I would have expected a form letter saying "thanks, we'll get to it." Instead, Amanda went to the trouble of explaining the issue to me in layman's terms and then suggested a date by which the work should be completed.

On the Other Hand...

Last week, I stopped at a Wendy's just off the Hazleton, PA, exit on I-80. I've been to this Wendy's half a dozen times over the past year, because that exit is a regular pit stop on my business trips between Pittsburgh and Connecticut.

This time, I was one of the only customers in the place, and the staff of 5 or 6 seemed frustrated. Maybe it was because I was disrupting their side work, or because of something their manager may have said moments earlier. Maybe they were just having a bad day.

But when the kid gave me my order and I said "Thanks," and he just grunted at me with the body language that let me know I was his problem, not his customer, it clarified two things for me:

* There's a reason front-end workers in fast food and retail only get paid a minimum wage, and

* I need to stop eating at the Wendy's in Hazleton.

Conversely, although I disagree with their politics, I enjoy the experience of ordering food at Chick-fil-a. Why? Because their employees (at least in Pittsburgh's Waterfront location) are perpetually in good moods. Not the kind of fake smile most employee handbooks insist their cashiers sport, but the kind of jovial attitude that lets me know they enjoy working there -- and that they're happy I'm spending my money with them.

Like PennDOT and Pittsburgh's Department of Public Works, I'm not Chick-fil-a's problem. I'm their customer - and they'd like me to stay that way.

Photo by lawgeek.

What I Do: The Floodgates of Self-Promotion

Sometimes this blog goes quiet for awhile, and people might suspect I'm slacking off. While that's often true, sometimes I actually have legitimate(-ish) work to do.

This week, three different videos (that I had varying amounts of involvement with) have hit the web simultaneously. As much as I'd love to promote each of them independently, I happen to be leaving for vacation in Seattle + Portland shortly, so I've decided to group them all together and minimize my own horn-tooting.

Talking Tea with Joe Torre, Phil Simms & Terry Francona



This is a promotional video that the Creative Concepts agency filmed for Bigelow Tea. I happen to record and edit nearly every video that Creative Concepts produces -- including another Bigelow Tea video we filmed this same day, which generated a little buzz over on Chris Brogan's blog.

Something to Be Desired: Episode 6.7 "The Red Scare"



In addition to my corporate media work, I also produce the web's longest-running sitcom, Something to Be Desired (STBD). We've been on hiatus since mid-December, but I finally found the time to edit a new episode for April Fool's Day. (Fun fact: this episode was filmed on Sunday night, then edited and posted on Wednesday. Meanwhile, the Torre video above was filmed before Christmas.)

Pittsburgh City Councilman Bill Peduto Answers Questions from Lady Elaine



Pittsburgh city councilman (and occasional STBD guest star) Bill Peduto asked me if I could do him a favor: a local blogger named Lady Elaine asked a series of questions to all local electoral candidates, and instead of responding in text, Bill wanted to work the questions into a video. The results are above -- and yes, there are puppets. (And in case you're wondering: no, the puppets were not purchased with city money... but at least one came from eBay...)

Side note: after posting these videos side by side, I realized my camera work and editing style remain fairly consistent from project to project, regardless of who I'm filming or why. Evidently, I've developed a personal method that works (for me, at least).

So, for everyone who follows me on Twitter and occasionally wonders what the hell I actually do, now you know (some of it, at least).

All Politicians Are Marketers

All politicians lie. Some lie more than others, but none of them tell the truth all the time.

Neither do marketers.

The difference is, the rhetoric of politicians is designed to motivate the people who already agree with them, while the rhetoric of marketers is designed to create awareness of a product in the minds of people who may not be consciously aware that the product even exists.

Thus, the content of the words is largely useless, but the way those words are delivered says a lot about what the speaker thinks of us, and what we think of ourselves. So if we can momentarily agree to ignore the content of political speeches (and marketing campaigns) themselves, what we're left with is our emotional response to the rhetoric.

Are we inspired and energized by the words we hear, or do they talk down to us and insult our sensibilities? Do we want to be uplifted, or would we prefer to be reassured that someone else knows best?

Politicians and marketers are each betting that their words can make you do something you wouldn't do otherwise -- cast a vote, buy a product, take an action. You almost never need to do what they're asking you to do, but their words make you think that you should. The trick is to figure out whether you want to do what they're asking of you, or whether you feel you ought to.

The most successful marketers are the ones who can sell us back to ourselves.

Image by r. e. wolf.

Obama Won't Get You Laid

Now that the afterglow of an Obama election victory has worn off (because in these days of 24-hour news cycles, no emotion lasts for long), the question is this:

"Now what?"

While most of the world waits breathlessly to see whom Obama appoints to his cabinet, what kind of dog his kids will choose for a new pet and which brand of toilet paper he prefers in his executive suite, I'd like to turn your gaze away from the nonstop media roar and toward your nearest reflective surface and ask, again:

"Now what?"

Barack Obama will do some great things while he's in office. He'll also do some incredibly stupid things. He'll make choices that will endear him to some and piss off others, and he'll be involved in matters and actions both great and small.

But one thing he won't do is get you laid.

Because electing Barack Obama is no longer anyone's passion -- he's already elected. Now what do you do with all of the energy and effort that was catalyzed to help this moment occur? What do you do with all of your passion, your newfound interest in politics and your increased awareness of the needs and wants of the world?

What do YOU do?

Because Barack Obama's a busy man. Sure, he's appreciative of all the work you did on his behalf, and he'll do his best to reward you by governing as fairly as his conscience dictates. But he doesn't have much time to return the favor directly, by helping YOU achieve YOUR next goal -- you know, that one on your to-do list, right below the now-scratched-out entry that says "Get My Free Starbucks."

So...

What do you WANT to do?

What do you NEED to do?

Go do it.

Because history will judge Barack Obama, but history's a long way off. In the meantime, you have bills to pay, relationships to tend to, and your own goals to achieve.

And now, after 2 years of wondering, waiting, hoping and working your ass off to help your candidate get elected, it's time to turn that energy back on your own life and solve your own problems. Overcome your own challenges. Move your own mountains.

Because America's first black president is an amazing story, but you've got a story of your own.

Start living it.

Notes from the FCC Hearing on the Future of the Internet

If you couldn't be at yesterday's FCC hearing at Carnegie Mellon University, here's what you missed:

* Over 45 minutes of keynotes to open the hearing, in which all 5 commissioners + Representative Mike Doyle thanked each other for being there (repeatedly), then told the audience what we were all about to hear (also repeatedly). We spent so much time talking about what we were about to hear, I barely had time to hear anything at all.

* Internet pioneer and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban read from his laptop and told us that the future of the internet will be... 3-D?

* John Peha, a CMU professor, read from a Power Point presentation in which he raised numerous (legitimate) questions about fair competition, fair use and copyright infringement -- i.e., what happens when an ad for one cable company is embedded in a video streamed over a competing cable company's broadband? What's the difference between protecting one's brand and restricting user access to information?

* Mark Cavicchia (CEO of WhereverTV) spoke about the need to expand bandwidth limitations to allow for decreased restrictions on "capped limits" for broadband users. For example, under some proposed broadband service plans, you could expend your entire allotment of Gigabytes for the month just by downloading one (legal) movie file. That doesn't help anyone -- least of all the markets the film and internet industries are trying to establish.

* Nathan Martin from DeepLocal spoke at rapid speed about the regulatory issues constraining his company. Lots of good points, summed up with, "Why could we do "TASK X" 3 years ago, for free, and in a matter of days, whereas now it would cost us tens of thousands of dollars and take up to 6 months to be approved by regulatory commissions? You have the pipes; let me compete."

* David Eun from Google talked up the existence of YouTube as a repository for the most amazing educational content on the planet -- some valid points, but delivered in that kind of slow, belabored way that made me think he'd rather not be speaking on a panel.

And then it was 5:30 and I had to leave, even though the hearing would be stretching on until 8 o'clock. (Peripheral lesson learned? If the FCC can't even stick to a schedule when moderating a hearing, what else is the government unable to manage?) However, I was impressed with the rhetoric of the FCC commissioners themselves -- especially Commissioner Michael J. Copps, who (along with Rep. Doyle) gave me the best impression that the government is very aware of what's at stake in the internet's battle between private intellectual property, corporate interests and the public good.

Let's just hope they can solve these thorny problems in less time than it took to introduce these panels...

Why the Democrats Fear Kucinich

Given today's news that Dennis Kucinich has been barred from this week's Iowa presidential debate, you might be asking yourself: what could someone do to get barred from a debate?

The answer: not being a "serious" candidate.

... which, according to the Des Moines Register, is proven because Kucinich doesn't rent office space in Iowa. Instead, his campaign organizers there work out of a home office.

Evidently, NOT wasting money on needless office space and transportation costs makes a person a false presidential candidate. Really? Sounds like good fiscal and environmental judgment to me...

The larger problem is that Kucinich receives no mainstream media support, precisely because his entire progressive platform goes against the regressive / centrist politics of the existing Democratic party. Kucinich must realize he can't actually win the party's nomination, but he DOES realize his true value is to ask the hard questions of his fellow candidates, forcing them to explain their questionable choices.

Funny thing: he can't do that if he's not on the same stage they are.

Say what you will about choosing between "the lesser of two evils" in the "two-party system" next November, but America's best chance for political and environmental progress is getting shut out of the race by those whose interests would be disrupted if he were granted a louder voice.

Democracy in action?

Chris Dodd Internal Campaign Email "Snafu"?

*UPDATES AT BOTTOM OF POST*

I don't know how I got on the Chris Dodd email list, but here I am, getting weekly updates from his campaign. Most of those updates are (understandably) requests for donations from his supporters -- sometimes blandly and obviously so.

However, none of them were accidentally transmitted internal emails from Campaign Manager Sheryl Cohen to fellow strategist Tim Tagaris.

Until today.

(Evidently, Ms. Cohen figured out how to email the WHOLE mailing list after all -- see below.)

Transcript of Email from Chris Dodd Campaign to ENTIRE Mailing List:

From: Sheryl Cohen [EMAIL ADDRESS@chrisdodd.com]
Reply-to: EMAIL ADDRESS@chrisdodd.com,
To: JUSTIN'S EMAIL ADDRESS,
Date: Nov 30, 2007 12:36 PM

Tim,

I made a few small changes to your email draft -- you'll see them below.

Would have sent to the entire list myself, but I could only figure out how to send this test.

I know you're concerned about sending another fundraising email, but we're only $40,000 short of hitting our November goal, and that money will help keep us on the air and talking about ending the war in Iraq and the Constitution. And honestly, our supporters online are so terrific and have come through for us every time.

Plus, with votes on the war and retroactive immunity coming up, our leadership will help keep the pressure on other presidentials to keep their word.

Ask people to give at this link so we can track the goal publicly.

http://chrisdodd.com/goal

Thanks,

Sheryl Cohen
Campaign Manager, Chris Dodd for President

On Nov 30, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Tim Tagaris wrote:

>
Chris Dodd for President


Dear Friend,

Think about it for a second. Do you truly know what you'll get from the other candidates if they win the nomination?

If you really want the answer to that question, don't ask a person where they are going -- ask them where they have been.

Why do some candidates spend as much time apologizing for a career full of bad votes as they do talking about how they'll remedy the fallout if elected?

Why can't we get the simplest of answers to the straight questions from others?

And why do some just flat out skip the tough votes?

From authoring the Family and Medical Leave Act to his often single-handed efforts to restore the Constitution, you know what to expect from a Dodd Administration.

We set a goal about a week and a half ago to raise $100,000 online and we'll need your help right now if we're going to meet it.

Please get us there by contributing $25 right now.

http://chrisdodd.com/goal

Thirty-four days.

If you feel strongly about our fight to end the war in Iraq, prevent war with Iran, and restore the Constitution, we need your support right now.

Our field operation is humming along and our current "Restoring the Constitution and Rule of Law tour" is drawing larger crowds than we've seen at any point in the campaign.

But we need your help to keep it going.

Thirty-four days.

Your contribution right now will ensure we have the resources necessary to continue the fight through January 3rd.

http://chrisdodd.com/goal

You've come through for us every time.

Not much time left.

Let's get it done.

Tim Tagaris
Chris Dodd for President

********

The Lesson Here?

Actually, two very important lessons can be learned from this conundrum:

1) If you're going to accidentally email thousands of people regarding internal political communications for a presidential candidate, make sure you don't say ANYTHING that could be used against you if it fell into the wrong hands. (Good job, Ms. Cohen!)

2) Please, please teach everyone on your staff how to use the email system.

Please.

*UPDATE* Immediately after posting this blog, it occurred to me that the Dodd campaign may have purposely "leaked" this email, knowing that the blogosphere would swarm to it.

At least, if they DIDN'T do it on purpose, that's how I'd spin it, anyway. (Notice how the email is actually entirely positive, and meant to draw attention to a campaign that's obviously not among the "major names" in the news these days?)

*UPDATE* All of which brings up a valid question: What's worse: gaming the social media system to make $40,000, or being legitimately incompetent?

Looking Toward Pittsburgh's Political Future

The best comment I've read (thus far) about the future of Pittsburgh's political situation came from a comment on The Burgh Report, from a commenter named "hatesyinzers":

I don't see any potential Democrat knocking off Ravenstahl in 2009 despite his "weak" showing yesterday. The Yinzers love Ravenstahl's anti-intellectualism, brazen arrogance and sense of entitlement, meaningless boosterism and lack of ethics. He will grow stronger over the next two years... the Yinzers will love him more and more for every scandal and ethics violation he is involved in... he has the mayor's office as long as he wants it...

I'd like to say I disagree, but the sad truth (as near as I can see it) is:

* Pittsburgh is in the throes of the ineffectual, old boy-network Democratic machine

* Ravenstahl is a very young cog in that machine, with years and years of political rewards ahead of him as long as he supports traditional cronyism

* The average voter is chronically unable to understand the issues and therefore votes based upon preconceived notions of party or personality

* A Republican (or any non-Democratic) mayor in Pittsburgh will probably never happen in my lifetime

In short, the Pittsburgh mayoral election is a snapshot of the pointlessness of the current political system in America. Shall we explode the two-party system and force people to run on their own merit (and individual fundraising ability -- or in a fundraising-free system)? I'd love to; wake me up when that's a possibility.

Meanwhile... did anyone else write in Mathis 4 Mayor?

Electronic Voting Problems in a Nutshell

Agent Ska, the tireless champion of all that's progressive in Pittsburgh, was on-hand when an electronic voting machine in Pittsburgh's (primarily black and far from affluent) Hill District simply stopped working during yesterday's elections.

Nice.

Between issues like this, the lack of a paper trail and the foreboding warning the election volunteer gave me ("Make sure you press the big green square at the end of your voting or else, not only will your votes not be counted, it'll crash our machines"), I'd say the modern election system needs more than a bit of work.

So -- who's up for dissolving the Electoral College before 2008?

(PS The second video in the link above is the best -- it shows the machine blinking in all its futility.)

Why 9/11 Doesn't Matter

It was 2003, I think. I was sitting at Eat 'n Park (a Pittsburgh family restaurant chain, like Denny's but cleaner), writing and drinking coffee.

Two booths away, a college-aged girl and her mom were having dinner. Somehow, 9/11 had popped up in conversation, and the girl recounted her experience that day:

"I remember I was in bed, and I heard the answering machine come on, and it was you saying 'Turn on the news, the World Trade Center is collapsing.' And I'm laying there like, 'I don't know those people? Why should I get up?'"

Then she laughed, and went back to eating dinner.

If you lived through 9/11, I'm sure it affected you. It changed the way you look at the world, at skyscrapers, at cities and countries and governments.

If you didn't, it probably didn't change much of anything.

The world won't grind to a halt today in memory of 9/11. It will grind to less of a halt in 2008, and 2009. And, in another generation, 9/11 will be Pearl Harbor, or D-Day, or (at best) the Grassy Knoll. It will be a story we tell our kids and grandkids, but not something they have a conscious connection to. It may even be a cultural oddity, depending upon how the winds of policy and history blow.

But it won't matter to them. Not like it does to the New Yorkers who were there. And not like it does to anyone who watched, awestruck, and wondered how different the world would be after that.

Soon, the people who don't have an attachment to 9/11 -- the people who weren't there, weren't born yet, weren't paying attention -- will outnumber the ones who do.

But the people who slept through it will always outnumber the people who didn't.

5 Good Things About the Death of Net Neutrality

According the the BBC, the Department of Justice has decided that Net Neutrality is bad for America.

If you don't know, the basic concept of Net Neutrality is that ANYONE, ANYWHERE, should have the EXACT SAME ACCESS TO ALL INFORMATION as EVERYONE else. That means a poor inner-city student using her library's computer and a corporate CEO in his penthouse apartment should be able to surf the EXACT SAME INTERNET at the EXACT SAME SPEED.

The Department of Justice (perhaps momentarily forgetting the name of their office) disagrees. They believe Net Neutrality -- aka the internet as we've always known it -- hinders business growth.

Instead, the DOJ sides with the ISPs in suggesting that ISPs should be able to charge more for priority traffic -- or, in other words, if you want the web to work the way it always has, you should have to pay more.

Normally, I'd be livid about this argument. But, because September is No Woe Month here at Cafe Witness, I'd like to look at things from a different point of view. So, without further ado (and no irony), let's take a look at:

5 Good Things About the Death of Net Neutrality

1. Creative Competition -- Allowing the ISPs to pick and choose what services are available through their systems gives them a cable-like power over what their subscribers can see. If that seems bad, consider this: The Sporanos would never have been allowed on network TV. What other great content can't survive in an open internet, but could flourish in a walled garden?

2. Fewer Trolls -- If it takes longer to surf the web because the information is bottlenecked, you'll be less likely to waste that precious time leaving trollish messages on blogs, won't you?

3. Media Consolidation -- Let's say Verizon signs an exclusive deal to carry ESPN360 -- which, according to Tilzy TV, it seems has happened. Instead of both companies making concessions to meet each others' needs, the next step is to simply consolidate ESPN (and its parent companies, ABC / Disney) and Verizon. Bigger business = bigger reach = bigger buying power = a win-win situation for company and consumer, who won't be distracted by too many choices. (It worked for AOL-Time-Warner, after all.)

4. Higher CPM Rates -- Let's face it, if only the wealthy will be able to experience an uninterrupted flow of internet information, it stands to reason that the ads on the sites their ISPs allow through should carry a higher CPM rate because their audience will be more affluent, have more expendable cash and is obviously determined to use the internet as a lifestyle tool. Great news for everyone trying to monetize social media -- all we have to do now is craft media that the rich want to see.

5. Fewer People on the Internet, Period -- After all, if I CAN'T get the information I want when and where I want it (or, more precisely, I won't be willing to pay extra to get it), I might be inclined to do something else entirely -- like go outside... or read a book... or have a life...

The internet: it was a fun experiment while it lasted.

The Problem With Sameness

Should you use the same hiring protocols to find your next programmer AND your next plumber? Seth Godin doesn't think so. And yet, how many companies have a multifaceted approach to hiring employees with vastly different functions?

Does your child have ADD or another learning "disability"? Whitney Hoffman outlines the trials involved with expecting her non-standard learner to conform to a standard learning environment.

I don't think it's a coincidence that social media has such a hard time catching on with the mainstream. After all -- where else in modern society are we taught that our individuality is a blessing, not a curse?

Now, the million-dollar question: If society has long been entrenched to encourage sameness (for ease of governing, business, medicine, production, etc.), how do we disrupt that lengthy tradition without becoming the generation that tore down the curtain but had no answers?

How do you teach the world to think individualistically?

America: 84% Hate

I received an interesting email today from Joe Solmonese. He's a citizen who's spearheading the effort to reclassify crimes based upon the victims' sexual orientation as hate crimes.

However, according to the US Senate, the general public is against the idea of labeling these types of crimes as "hate crimes." In fact, as quoted in the email:

“I received nearly five times as many calls, emails and letters from opponents of [the hate crimes bill] as I did from its supporters."

- Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-IN), after voting against the bill.

Personally, I believe ALL violent crime stems from hate, but now we're trafficking in semantics. More to the point: what logical opposition is there to affording additional protection to people suffering outright violent discrimination?

Are we really supposed to believe that 84% of Americans -- or, at least, 84% of Hoosiers (5 out of every 6 who called Joe Donnelly) -- think torturing or killing someone because of their sexual orientation is somehow LESS offensive than committing the same act because of someone's race or gender?

Solmonese and his organization have a video as a call to action on their site. They'd like you to watch it and, if you believe in its message, spread the word to at least 5 people YOU know.

Perhaps we can turn the tide against that 84% who think some crimes are more okay than others.

Graphic of the Day

Yesterday I posted my blogography, and then realized there actually IS a blog called Blogography out there.

Today, it's the source of much amusement for me. Reprinted here: the backbone of an argument made about the inanity of The View.

Image via Blogography

The Sound You Hear Is the Flapping of Pig Wings

It finally happened. I agree with a blog post by Michelle Malkin.

Next thing you know, I'll be pimping Rush Limbaugh in my sidebar...

I guess this proves that no one has a monopoly on common sense.

We Need a Hero

For months now, Chris Brogan has been referring to the new media creators as "super-heroes" and "rockstars."

Just yesterday, Christopher Penn was musing about WHY, exactly, super-heroes seem to be so popular these days.

And then, today, I see on Technorati that Captain America is dead.

How ironic.

Setting the Stage

As anyone who follows comic books knows, the death of a character is rarely permanent. Whether due to fan appeal or lack of ingenuity on the part of the writers, a character's "death" usually has a life cycle of a few months to a few years. Even long-dead characters in the Marvel universe, like Bucky (dead since the '40s) and Captain Marvel (dead since the '80s) have recently returned, unofficially implying that no character death is irreversible.

But Marvel is going out of its way to proclaim Steve Rogers, at least -- the man who actually wore the costume of Captain America -- to be dead.

Considering the way he's killed -- by a sniper bullet (or, according to some "eyewitness accounts," multiple bullets from multiple sources, signifying a Kennedy-esque conspiracy) -- that may well be the case. Steve Rogers, like Bruce Wayne, is a human being; it's a wonder that Captain America and Batman could have ever survived this long in a world of gods, robots and aliens.

Marvel editor-in-chief Joe Quesada -- himself already responsible for some of the more questionable choices in recent comics history, like the decision to have Peter Parker divulge his secret identity as Spider-Man to the general public, or insisting that perpetual cigar-chomper Nick Fury cease smoking because one of Quesada's own relatives died of lung cancer -- is all too happy to talk about what the fallout of Captain America's death will mean to the Marvel universe. He muses over what implications this action will have for Rogers's family and friends -- and enemies. He also implies that the costume will be passed on to someone else -- because, after all, Marvel won't stop publishing one of its flagship titles just because the title character is dead.

Shameless Shill or Social Commentary?

Because this event occurs during the Civil War storyline, in which Marvel's heroes took ideological sides over whether or not the United States government should force superhumans to be registered with the state -- clearly an allegory for all of the post-9/11 paranoia -- there may be more to the story than a mere attempt to sell more comic books.

Marvel seems to be attempting to make a larger statement about the role of idealists in the modern world. Steve Rogers is an icon of American optimism, the eternal boy scout at war with an evil world. As times have changed, and the world at large has become ever-more cynical, Captain America came to represent an ever-more anachronistic vision of what America itself could be... or once was.

In the Civil War storyline, Cap even surprises the government by refusing to cooperate with the registration act -- a kind of government policing of his civil liberties which he refuses to tolerate.

Choices like this, which continually pit Rogers against the powers-that-be, indicate that Marvel is well-aware of their political stance. By taking action to silence Steve Rogers, one can only presume they're attempting to make a broad social commentary: that a true idealist can no longer survive in this modern world of gods, robots and aliens.

And, hey, if the death of idealism sells a few more comic books...

What Does All of This Mean for New Media?

We're a generation of fairly cynical voices. It starts with the baby boomers and shakes on down to the 14 year-olds who are coming of age in a world of limitless communication.

No one believes in tradition.

No one believes in simplicity.

No one believes in anything that seems to good to be true.

New media is a seismic jolt to the established boundaries of communication, and yet, by and large, it's being created by people who, in their hearts, have great trouble believing in the power of positive change. As far as we can tell, we're all caught in the downward slide of entropy, and the best we can do is comment upon it.

Perhaps that's why the Spider-Man and X-Men films -- as well as Children of Men and The Matrix -- dark and cynical as they may be, are also so popular: the anti-hero, dragged kicking and screaming into a world of action (instead of blissful cynical passivity), somehow finds the courage to do what he or she, in his or her heart, knows must be done to set things right again.

In the end, these imperfect people shake off their fear, doubt and limitations, and they take the actions necessary to ensure that good triumphs over evil for another day.

In the end, the good guys win.

Is that mentality still a fantasy? I don't think so. I think it just depends on how much effort we can muster to take the actions we need to set things right again.

How do we go BEYOND our cynicism? How do we create a dialogue that charts the places we CAN go, rather than the places we CAN'T?

What do YOU want to say?