Lazy Fair City

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a newscast that I came across about James Ray Houston from "Tom Hawley's Video Vault." 

 

It mostly covers Houston's activities before LFC.

 

(If the video doesn't play, click the pause button on the video player at the left-bottom, then the play button. That should do it.)

 

 

I can't tell if the date given at the site, Nov. 21, 2012, is the date the video was uploaded, curated, or actually filmed and broadcast or what. It also mentioned KSNV Las Vegas, but I am unsure about why.

 

It has interviews with a couple of guys previously involved with Houston--Dave Williams-print shop, Rodney Franklin-security, and even has video footage of Houston himself, both "B roll" and talking.

 

Houston's 1974 book, Countdown to Depression, which was mentioned in the video, is available in ebook format if you jump through the Open Library hoops given at the link.

 

Also, here is an interview by a guy named Dennis Emmett (I think that's how it's spelled) on a preview of an episode of a TV show (or DVD) called Lotto Scams: Scammed. You have to click the "Play Preview" button after going to the site and you get the first 4:48 free of the 21 minute show, which is expensive. It deals directly with James Ray Houston,

 

It seems like there are actors depicting Houston and his son, and even law enforcement agents and victims, but Emmett seems real enough when interviewed (maybe it's the handcuffs ). He said his role was to generate leads, mail out postcards, and handle things through the first two promotions. Because the show uses a lot of stock footage and actors dramatizing things, it's hard to tell what's real and what's fictional.

 

I'm not making any judgment one way or another by presenting this.

 

If these videos were referenced earlier in this thread, sorry about that. I missed it. If not, people can see for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

 

As for what I think at this point (about Houston or the media), I doubt anyone can be accused of bearing a certificate of sainthood.

 

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

But the Enron people were convicted by the same system which convicted your boyfriend Rex, a system which you hate and claim is filled with psychopaths, abuse and corruption. In fact, your view is that its very nature and existence is evil. So it's very likely, no, that the Enron people were actually heroes, just like darling Rex, and were victims of evil statists scratching an old grudge? You're just falling for statist propaganda and lies about sweet, innocent, harmless Enron snuggle bunnies. The Enron people were victims of unjust power, and would have gotten off if they had had a genius philosopher of law and constitution writer in their corner shouting, "Hey, look over there! Look at how large those other people's crimes are!"

For a time, I allowed that you might be brighter than I am. Now I doubt it.

Ken Lay was a key player in George W. Bush's political career, both as governor of Texas and U.S. president. He did nothing to promote liberty. Enron was a NYSE-listed corporation that employed 20,000 people. They operated 38 power plants, pipelines from coast to coast, and traded wholesale electric power. False accounting and insider trading allowed Enron bosses to "earn" $1 billion in personal capital gains, taxed at 15%, in a three-year period before the company collapsed. It was not merely fraud. Enron was created and sustained by government favors. Ken Lay was a frequent White House visitor. "To the many people who know and admire Kenneth Lay, the former chairman and chief executive of Enron Corp., he's a brilliant, hard-working, decent, God-fearing man who couldn't possibly have been responsible for one of the biggest corporate collapses in history... Investigators are still trying to determine what Mr. Lay knew and when. Mr. Lay himself has said he knew little of what was going on and believed the dealings were legal because they had the approval of Enron's accountants and attorneys." [Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2002]

What Rex did was totally outside the law. He hated government and operated as an elusive offshore pirate. If you think that Enron and LFC were somehow similar, you're nuts. The only reason to make such a claim is to paint me as a fool and a patsy, because it bugs you that I did something you couldn't, no one else could have, and in your universe must be stupid and laughable. I created a constitutional legal system unlike anything else, past or present. It's important to insult me, without touching the intellectual content of my work, because you can't win.

The purposes and limitations of a first principle are: (1) to establish the context and scope of discussion; (2) to affirm the existence of a fundamental truth pertaining to the topic generally; and (3) to define that truth, employing the least ambiguous and most cognitively fruitful concepts that are logically germane to the definition. Men and women have reasoned about law for centuries. Familiar terms, the relations of which are obvious in the structure of a predicate, compel any adversary to concede or to contradict squarely, because a first principle necessarily addresses a fundamental question.

The only way Jonathan can win is to attack my character, laugh at my folly, without thinking.

[moralist]

Wolf writes:

I created a constitutional legal system unlike anything else, past or present.

Have you been able to make it a reality in your own life?

You don't need to answer this question to me.

It's just something for you to consider.

Even though I live by a pre existing moral system which I didn't create, I work to make it real in my own life by being mindful of what I plant to insure a bountiful harvest that's independent of what anyone else chooses to sow.

In my opinion, this is American freedom...which can only be enjoyed by doing what's right.

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

Wolf writes:

I created a constitutional legal system unlike anything else, past or present.

Have you been able to make it a reality in your own life?

You don't need to answer this question to me.

It's just something for you to consider.

Even though I live by a pre existing moral system which I didn't create, I work to make it real in my own life by being mindful of what I plant to insure a bountiful harvest that's independent of what anyone else chooses to sow.

In my opinion, this is American freedom...which can only be enjoyed by doing what's right.

Doing what's right is a moral choice. The profession of justice and enforcement of law is something else.

The philosophy of law is a separate branch of science, independent of ethics. Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?" Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs.

[Brant Gaede]

Scoundrel Time.

Is the title in the public domain?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I do like drama more than ideas. That is ideas without drama--the dynamic human element--are lifeless things. Is roasting Wolf the intellectual equivalent of CPR?

--Brant

rare, medium or well done?

[Brant Gaede]

I once heard of a rather famous pilot, Wolfgang Langewiesche. He actually gave flying lessons to my electrician friend. He had no toleration for any mistakes and instantly corrected you. One result, according to my friend, was he had never had to make a forced "go-around" when landing. (I think he lied for I was with him once when he had to do just that, but I digress--just note many people like to shave off facts for the sake of a good story [like Ayn Rand about herself].)

The point is that about flying the instructor was an expert, not only a haranguer. Jonathan, in regard to the ideas as presented, you are only an expert one-note haranguer. Is the object to get Wolf down in one piece or crash and burn with you walking away, alone, from the fiery wreckage? That's always the last scene in these little dramas with you. I'm not saying this is wrong. In terms of what OL is about you're more valuable here than Wolf. Those engaged in creative endeavor--as opposed to presenting what they think is a finished product unless they want feedback into the creative process--should wait until they got one before coming here for the woodchippers--not just yours--are always ready to chip. [i'm having severe computer problems.]

To make the long short: If Ayn Rand had been subject to this place while trying to get up and running as a novelist no one would have ever heard of her. As for Wolf--likely the same. But he did all this stuff and you are utterly incapable of ascertaining any value in the substance from your lack of interest in constitutional structuring. That's my impression, anyway.

No one could have made a better Ayn Rand and nobody is going to make a better Wolf Voon. (See, is his name any better now it's been "fixed"?)

Real bad problems. The pic ain't supposed to be here. The computer can't be fixed. It must be replaced.

I don't want anybody to stop what they are doing here. Not Wolf, not Jonathan, not me. My only message to Wolf is don't be a victim, just keep chugging along as long as there is any value here for you in that. Ideas and people are intimately connected which is why nothing comes into this place that's not subject to slicing and dicing, even ad hominem. You are your ideas and your ideas are you.

[Jonathan]

But the Enron people were convicted by the same system which convicted your boyfriend Rex, a system which you hate and claim is filled with psychopaths, abuse and corruption. In fact, your view is that its very nature and existence is evil. So it's very likely, no, that the Enron people were actually heroes, just like darling Rex, and were victims of evil statists scratching an old grudge? You're just falling for statist propaganda and lies about sweet, innocent, harmless Enron snuggle bunnies. The Enron people were victims of unjust power, and would have gotten off if they had had a genius philosopher of law and constitution writer in their corner shouting, "Hey, look over there! Look at how large those other people's crimes are!"

For a time, I allowed that you might be brighter than I am. Now I doubt it.

Ken Lay was a key player in George W. Bush's political career, both as governor of Texas and U.S. president. He did nothing to promote liberty. Enron was a NYSE-listed corporation that employed 20,000 people. They operated 38 power plants, pipelines from coast to coast, and traded wholesale electric power. False accounting and insider trading allowed Enron bosses to "earn" $1 billion in personal capital gains, taxed at 15%, in a three-year period before the company collapsed. It was not merely fraud. Enron was created and sustained by government favors. Ken Lay was a frequent White House visitor. "To the many people who know and admire Kenneth Lay, the former chairman and chief executive of Enron Corp., he's a brilliant, hard-working, decent, God-fearing man who couldn't possibly have been responsible for one of the biggest corporate collapses in history... Investigators are still trying to determine what Mr. Lay knew and when. Mr. Lay himself has said he knew little of what was going on and believed the dealings were legal because they had the approval of Enron's accountants and attorneys." [Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2002]

What Rex did was totally outside the law. He hated government and operated as an elusive offshore pirate. If you think that Enron and LFC were somehow similar, you're nuts. The only reason to make such a claim is to paint me as a fool and a patsy, because it bugs you that I did something you couldn't, no one else could have, and in your universe must be stupid and laughable. I created a constitutional legal system unlike anything else, past or present. It's important to insult me, without touching the intellectual content of my work, because you can't win.

The purposes and limitations of a first principle are: (1) to establish the context and scope of discussion; (2) to affirm the existence of a fundamental truth pertaining to the topic generally; and (3) to define that truth, employing the least ambiguous and most cognitively fruitful concepts that are logically germane to the definition. Men and women have reasoned about law for centuries. Familiar terms, the relations of which are obvious in the structure of a predicate, compel any adversary to concede or to contradict squarely, because a first principle necessarily addresses a fundamental question.

The only way Jonathan can win is to attack my character, laugh at my folly, without thinking.

You're just repeating the story that the statist sociopaths and their lapdog media have told you to repeat. The Enron people were only dealing with government officials to get them out of their way. They were hero pirate con men! They practiced "false accounting" just like darling Rex, as well as the anarchist-supported notion that insider trading should not be illegal. You're just mad because the Enron people didn't charm you and bribe you like your darling Rex did.

Besides, look over there! There are people who have done much worse things than the Enron people did! There are villains who have killed thousands of people, and Ken Lay is a little baby ducky or kitten in comparison!

J

[Jonathan]

I once heard of a rather famous pilot, Wolfgang Langewiesche. He actually gave flying lessons to my electrician friend. He had no toleration for any mistakes and instantly corrected you. One result, according to my friend, was he had never had to make a forced "go-around" when landing. (I think he lied for I was with him once when he had to do just that, but I digress--just note many people like to shave off facts for the sake of a good story [like Ayn Rand about herself].)

The point is that about flying the instructor was an expert, not only a haranguer. Jonathan, in regard to the ideas as presented, you are only an expert one-note haranguer. Is the object to get Wolf down in one piece or crash and burn with you walking away, alone, from the fiery wreckage? That's always the last scene in these little dramas with you. I'm not saying this is wrong. In terms of what OL is about you're more valuable here than Wolf. Those engaged in creative endeavor--as opposed to presenting what they think is a finished product unless they want feedback into the creative process--should wait until they got one before coming here for the woodchippers--not just yours--are always ready to chip. [i'm having severe computer problems.]

The goal is to see if I can defuse the zombie zealot module implanted in certain skulls. Preferably without harm to the patient. It can go quite gently on rare occasions, but usually the patients insist on crashing and burning.

J

[Jonathan]

"Wolf's" concept of "justice" is becoming curiouser and curiouser. Apparently, if one simply states his opposition to statism, or anything else that "Wolf" hates with a passion, then one is free to do as one pleases to one's fellow human beings, and to be applauded for his crimes. Just claim to agree with "Wolf's" ideas on government, and praise them, and maybe pay him to play at his fantasy of being a writer and celebrity, and he'll look the other way when you're fucking people over and violating their innocence.

J

[Brant Gaede]

J, my trouble posting means I'm working on text you are replying too, not that that seems to matter in this case.

Now that you've told us Wolf is a fucker who fucked over people it's our job to fuck over him?

--Brant

is he still doing it?

[Peter]

Exactly Jonathan. He is violating their innocence under the cover of they deserved it and we weren't so bad compared to . . .

[Peter]

This is Woof's latest scam, for gratification, publicity or more victims. Who knows? Woof knows. Once again I ask anyone reading a statement from Woof, what do you think he is feeling when he writes here and then reads your response? Because he is a dissembler and because you have some facts but not the whole truth, go with your gut feeling about this latest effort on his part. That's not proof but if you saw a dark shape in the shadows . . .

[Brant Gaede]

This is Woof's latest scam, for gratification, publicity or more victims. Who knows? Woof knows. Once again I ask anyone reading a statement from Woof, what do you think he is feeling when he writes here and then reads your response? Because he is a dissembler and because you have some facts but not the whole truth, go with your gut feeling about this latest effort on his part. That's not proof but if you saw a dark shape in the shadows . . .

The "victims"--real or imaginary--will have to look out for themselves. Please stop playing the role of a trite knight.

--Brant

[moralist]

Wolf writes:

Doing what's right is a moral choice. The profession of justice and enforcement of law is something else.

Spoken like a lawyer, Wolf.

The latter are ethics which rightly serve higher moral law. Now it makes sense why you were attracted to LFC. For it offered the potential of ethics freed from the constraints of moral law.

This is the fatal Achilles heel of Utopias.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Feeding frenzy.

[moralist]

My interest is in describing why Utopias fail... which is larger than any individual.

This is what makes Wolf's generously sharing his story of value.

He's offering to everyone here a tale full of good lessons.

Greg

[Peter]

Brant the reason I am urging caution is because I started this thread. I did not expect Woof to write here, (seriously. I thought he had some scruples) so I am simply cautioning all gullible people to back away from the rattling snake. I understand the appeal of the siren's song. Dagny crashes into Paradise, meets her dream boat, transacts with actual gold coins, meets the most interesting people in the world, separate from the disintegrating infrastructure of Socialist America, and then you hear about this real place that sounds like Shangri La . . .

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think utopias fail because they start from the premise that all humans are perfectible by a process created by... er... whoever the human is who creates it.

This is based on the premise that an imperfect human can design a perfect one.

Odd premise.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

It's the degenerative progressive liberal elitist premise--it stops with the totalitarian state for there's no further place to go.

--Brant

Rand shared too much in this top-downerism--it was okay for her time; it's dubious for this time--it didn't even work for the Founding Fathers except to get the ball rolling then the ball rolled downhill right into the horror of the war between the states (GLORY!)

[Brant Gaede]

Brant the reason I am urging caution is because I started this thread. I did not expect Woof to write here, (seriously. I thought he had some scruples) so I am simply cautioning all gullible people to back away from the rattling snake. I understand the appeal of the siren's song. Dagny crashes into Paradise, meets her dream boat, transacts with actual gold coins, meets the most interesting people in the world, separate from the disintegrating infrastructure of Socialist America, and then you hear about this real place that sounds like Shangri La . . .

You gotta be kidding. LFC was paradise? All these libertarian escapist fantasies crashed and burned. I think LFC was the last. Those libertarians took the ball and ran to the wrong goal. The ball was theory and it was deflated too boot. James Madison was a properly educated man for his time. Not these folk today. This is even true of Ayn Rand with her Judge N. tweaking the Constitution. She was never properly educated in the Liberal Arts. Thank God, for that would have stopped her cold. Wolf got trapped between Objectivism and libertarianism in the old days and these now new days. That he came up with something new that's now an artifact doesn't mean there's no value in the construct.

--Brant

all the gullible people,

where do they all come from?

all the gullible people,

where do they all belong?

they sure as hell don't come here

[Peter]

Michael wrote: I think utopias fail because they start from the premise that all humans are perfectible by a process created by... er... whoever the human is who creates it.
end quote


Hmmm? There is the pragmatic survivalist, living in their burrow mentality. The ritzier, self sustaining, cabin in the woods types. And then there are the gullible Utopians walking into the furnace fools. Owning your own island is a nice dream. A true success story might be Brigham Young resettling Mormons in Utah. That actually worked, perhaps because of their religion, but also because of their insulation from other societies, and their strong desire to succeed, though I wonder what a woman would find so enthralling about polygamy.

Peter

[Selene]

How are the Amish doing?

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Ah, the Amish.

"We don't have a cow."

--Brant

[Jonathan]

J, my trouble posting means I'm working on text you are replying too, not that that seems to matter in this case.

Now that you've told us Wolf is a fucker who fucked over people it's our job to fuck over him?

--Brant

is he still doing it?

I haven't said that "Wolf" is a fucker who has fucked people over.

I've said that he's a pretender, and not a very good one. (Heh. Apparently it never occurred to him that anyone, after reading his tales of his own alleged accomplishments and his imagined rise from obscurity into celebrity, would bring up the obvious fact that he is not a celebrity and is still obscure, and that it would be nice to see some evidence of some of these grand accomplishments that he has so proudly listed but not backed up with anything -- and about which he gets very upset that anyone would ask for such evidence instead of just taking his pretend celebrity word for it).

I've said that for a self-declared genius "philosopher of law," he's laughably inept at putting together a coherent legal position when excusing or downplaying "Rex's" crimes. He has zero grasp of logic or consistency. Not to mention a very, very short memory of the positions that he has taken.

I'm not trying to "fuck him over." I'm not attempting to hurt him, or deceive/con him, or deprive him of anything that he has earned or that he has been promised.

I'm merely poking and prodding his Zombie Zealot Chip™ to see which model it is, and what it has been programmed to do. So far, it doesn't seem to have any new features that I haven't encountered before. When confronted with its own illogic and self-contradictions, rather than facing them and addressing them, it goes into the standard programmed ploys of alternately making threats of physical violence and playing poor little abused victim, or fighting straw men and inventing ridiculous fantasy distractions. It runs the typical old double standard program of admonishing others for blowing a criminal's crimes way out of proportion, but yet practices hypersensitive lack of proportion itself and squeals "slander," "defamation," etc., at the slightest resistance or questioning of its statements.

It's just good, clean fun short-circuiting the Zombie Zealot Chip™.

J