Great Portland Interview Experiment

Started here, I participated with Adron Hall. I'll publish the results of my interview with Liz Grover when that's done. This has been really fun to do- great idea!

A: How goes the efforts for the animation festival?

R: Firstly, I'd like to have coffee with Steve Gehlen, because he has more experience putting such a thing together than I do, and I'll need some guidance. I really need a fiscal agent, and he's got one. Secondly, I'd like to put together a brainstorming meeting with people who are interested and see what we'd like the event to look like and what it should include. From there, Marten and I can create a tentative plan, and start working on logistics.


A: So Twitter, the speed at which news is relayed and information spread, how or do you ever feel a bit overwhelmed?

R: This is probably a bad week to ask me that question- I usually try to balance my life so that there is plenty of time for activity, but then also plenty of time for introspection/reflection. I've got a lot going on lately, and haven't had much time for mental processing, which can lead me to feel overwhelmed. I've also just crossed the line in Twitter where I follow so many people that I can't read all their tweets.

I am trying to have a relationship with information/communication where I consume it mindfully and with attention. Unlike, say, the TV, which once it's on just stays on for hours in the background, or a radio station. Video watched on-demand gets watched deliberately and with my attention. I do the same thing with social media- I only participate in a few sites, and try to do it well. And subscribe to podcasts, and then listen to them mindfully. So as I mentioned, I feel like I have all these things- books, movies, shows, podcasts, clamoring for my attention, and I don't have enough time to mindfully consume all this stuff. I feel like I should only follow enough people on Twitter as I can read and correspond with and give attention to- I don't like feeling like I'm "behind" all the time.

I think there is a tipping point- as I mentioned, I love how fast things happen on Twitter, and it is really fun for news and events. However, I'm bordering on either having to use it very differently than I have been, or trimming back the number of people I follow.


A: The value of Twitter, at least in my humble opinion, is the people that tweet & twit all day long. Have you ever thought about how the connections are made, and what draws people to follow each other on Twitter?

R: This dovetails nicely into the above question, because the issue really is the paradigm of using Twitter. I like following people who tweet real content- good blog posts or news articles, tweetups, events, knowledge. And I try to respond with thanks or commentary on that content, and not clog up the bandwidth with my own chatter.

I do think that Twitter is evolving into a whole unique thing- people tweet as themselves (rather than creating handles and the personalities that go with them). People who interact on Twitter also generally interact in real life- again, this isn't some persona that is being created, and that prevents some common online drama, where, say, "WizardKing_027" is the most powerful poster on a game forum, which has it's own private set of memes and social hierarchy, etc. If I can't make a good impression on real people, I can't make a good impression on Twitter. What's also weird is that people go around at events with their Twitter IDs on their nametags, and the two are sort of interchangeable. Anyway, Twitter for me bridges the online social experience and the real world social experience in a totally unique way, and I think everyone is still figuring out how that's going to develop over time. Very soon, the community will be overrun with spammers and scammers and people's usage habits will change accordingly, and they'll either migrate to a different thing (like Shizzow, maybe), or the technology will evolve to somehow exclude those users/that type of content. It’s still changing, we’re still changing it.


A: Steampunk Fan? What's characteristics do you like about these story themes? What do you like about the ideology?

R: The easy answer is that in Steampunk, technology is beautiful and valuable, unique, and invented by the person who uses it. Currently, technology has really streamlined visuals, is mass-produced in plastic and aluminum, and is developed by someone else- you have to learn how to use it. Victorian technology belonged to everyone (of a certain social class); anyone could get a chemistry set or a telescope and proceed to make discoveries or do experiments- it wasn't the realm of specialists. Today, knowledge belongs to specialists who study something extensively, and they are viewed as being the only people who can make meaningful contributions to the body of knowledge on that subject.

Incidentally, I do think that's changing, and it's one thing I just freakin' love about open source software, and other... let's call it the democratization of the sciences.

Also, I generally like alternate histories. It isn't always done well, but that's true of every genre of literature. :-)


A: You appear per your blog to have read the Declaration of Independence. What is your opinion of the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and Constitution? Any particular thoughts that stand out?

R: I'm going to be elitist here and say that I think the Constitution is the crowning achievement of the Enlightenment. It's an absolutely amazing document, written by brilliant men, emerging from an untested, unstructured, collaborative process. I could go on and on about the tremendous challenges of inventing a system of government that is cogent enough to work logically, and yet flexible enough to evolve over time, to meet the needs of the people over the course of centuries. It’s so difficult to think long-term, and the founding fathers could have just been reactionary- could have just invented something that redressed their grievances with the monarchy, but instead they invented something that went far beyond that.

The dream of America (all men are created equally, life liberty pursuit of happiness, government of the people by the people for the people) is never, of course, the reality of America. The reality of America is, just like everyone everywhere, the wealthy have tremendous political advantages, and a small number of people have control over the actual living conditions of everyone else... but the dream of America is real and tangible and worth living and fighting for. It’s such a compelling dream that we keep dreaming it, that we keep on striving, generation after generation, to make it true, to make it true for all of us, and then to make it true not just for us, but for everyone all over the world. It keeps speaking to us, calling to us, forcing us to take action.

And, of course, it makes me sick that we have political leaders who don’t believe in this dream, who undermine it and sabotage it, or say that this is a dream that only citizens get to have, who don’t GET it, what we’re doing here, what the experiment actually is that the Constitution set in motion and then entrusted to us.


A: You wrote "I've spent a lot of my life trying to get to this moment, to reach these goals, to be sitting here. And the past year or so I've been asking myself what comes next, what's the next goal?" Have you come up with some new goals, plans, or ideas of accomplishments you'd like to achieve?

R: Actually, I haven't. And I'm getting busy with Drinking and Drawing and all the various camps and this potential animation festival... I get mentally stimulated by these things, and that stimulation is part of what I am looking for. I need a certain level of challenge in my life, and so I like to feel like I'm working toward something. But I'm not sure right now what that "something" is.


A: You also wrote "Instead, I keep finding that when I'm ready, I become the master." What are your thoughts when you reach this level; alone, accomplished, scared, brave, brash?

R: Now I'm embarrassed to read that post- it sounds really narcissistic. What I meant is that when I go out there somewhere and struggle along, I'm fearful and unsure of myself. I wish there was support or guidance, and there never is- I just have to stumble along alone, feeling my way as I go. And invariably, after the fact, people ask me how I did that or learned that. That's what I mean by "becoming the master"- now people look to me for guidance and support.

I guess what I first feel after I've accomplished something major is relief- I was bluffing along the whole time, and can't believe that it actually came true/worked out. I kept expecting someone to come along and stop me, and I'm always surprised when no one has. So I gather my breath for a while and take in the new view, and in that period there is a sense of being proud of myself. Then, of course, I get bored and set myself the next challenge.


A: So what are your ideas for a reorganization for a new superstruct?

R: Well, the superstruct was a device that the people running the game thought would be the thing that saves the world- collections of people with the same goals who bring their disparate experience to the table and work together. I suppose it's a legitimate theory- how else are we going to save the world? But I myself didn't start a superstruct, and barely participated in any. I wanted, like I always want, to bridge them together. I saw so many superstructs that were similar in goals or processes, and wanted them to connect and work together. I know that was part of the intent of the game, but I didn't see it happening much while I was playing.


A: I find you are one of the few people in the country who understands short selling, naked short selling, and even credit default swaps. Does it leave you ok with the idea of these moves in the market or do you believe they should be banned? If they are banned, how could they do so effectively? If they aren't banned, what would the reason be?

R: That's an interesting question. I think that if bankers remembered what their actual business was, then none of this would have happened. Bankers are supposed to make prudent, low risk investments, and protect their solvency at all costs. What happens, bizarrely enough, is that people look at a stock portfolio and think "I'm a millionaire!" rather than thinking "I own stocks that are worth a million dollars today, but might be valued differently tomorrow". Then, the next level of bizarre behavior, they don't start selling stocks to buy things, they start borrowing against the value of their stocks. I mean, they don't sell some stocks and buy a new car- they finance a new car against the value of the portfolio. Eventually they are sleeping in the car.

Do I think there's a legislative solution? Yes and no- firstly, there is a reason we have anti-monopoly laws designed to prevent a given company from dominating a market. People think that legislation is designed to protect the consumer from collusion and price fixing, and that's part of it. but the other reason (and the more important reason) is that in a free market economy, there is no such thing as a company that is "too big to fail". To have too much capital concentrated in too few companies means, literally, that if those companies fail, our economy fails. So, yes, we should much more stringently enforce anti-monopoly laws and encourage a business environment with a lot more real competition. Good lord, if people don't want to finance the auto companies by buying their products, we shouldn't have to finance them with taxpayer money. That's ridiculous. And there are a ton of tiny car companies out there, making alternative vehicles, that would gladly step in and sell cars in a competitive marketplace, and, given the opportunity, would probably be able to absorb a number of employees laid off by the Big 3.

As for banning credit default swaps, I don't think it's necessary. Bankers are learning that if they want insurance, they should buy insurance, not spread their bad debt around. They'll forget in another 50 or 70 years and need to be reminded, but... you know, it's like Enron (another company the government allowed to get too big, with a paper value that could evaporate overnight). If someone is out to find a sneaky loophole that allows them to rip off people, the rules and laws are convoluted enough that they will find a way. Making something illegal after the fact doesn't really solve anything, and just adds more complex legislation to an already insane business. Banning naked shortselling (which they did a few weeks ago) doesn't get rid of the people who want to make money unethically.