Wah Wah Wah, I'm sure it's everyones fault but David's, right?

I agree with you Jack (for what might be the 4th time :P).

He is an addict which is his own fault. He is a liar. He is a thief. Jail might help him. By filling his head full of this "illness that has no cure" garbage his friends are only making it worse, not much of a friend if you ask me.

jack-

i kind of agree with her. before i am labeled a bleeding-heart by some readers on this blog , i say don't kick a man who is already down. i don't think he is out there conning people because he wants to. it has proven to be the easiest way to support his habit.

i think the reason some people are so intent on exposing this man for the fraud he is is because they feel stupid for not being able to see through his line of BS. fair enough. we all want to give people the benefit of the doubt.

and i, myself, am not perfect. i have eaten a grape while putting some in a bag at the store, not paid the meeter when i was only picking up my dry cleaning and once i didn't buy a ticket when my light rail stop was only one stop past the fareless zone.

did i steal from people? technically. did i take advantage of someone's trust? probably. i still think i'm a pretty good citizen though.

just my two cents.

"He’s got a problem that he is trying to deal with, unfortunately, it’s being dealt with this way, he is in a lot of pain right now. Now, are you trying to tell me that no one else in the city of Portland has ever been dishonest??? No cheating on your spouse? No cheating on taxes? No taking stick it pads home from work? No fudging on your expense account? Before you bring in the morality hit squad, I think that everyone out there should cleanup their own side of street first."

I take it that Darcy Cameron has no opinion on the Gulf War, either, and neither should we.

Since we've all botched a thing or two in our lives, obviously we have no room to criticize (aka "draw sensible conclusions") about anything else in the world.

When enabling and sympathy have run their course, incarceration may prove the best therapy for those unwilling, whether consciencely or wrapped in addiction, to obtain the assistance they need to better their lives and keep from hurting others.

Everyone eats the grapes in the produce aisle, but I think what is important is that this man has made a profession out of being dishonest. He preys on people's good intentions and contributes to people becoming more cynical in the future. I mean who does he think he is? The President?

With many years behind me as a health care provider in addiction treatment, self help groups and a "sufferer" I must say Darcy is one of many enablers that keep poor David in his cycle of pain. His self medication keeps him from feeling and hearing until the most "tough love" cuts through his self imposed sedation and anesthesia. "Clever"? Don't make me puke. Every "stupid" and "silly" person he scams is helping him tighten his rack of pain and self destruction. People that no longer actively feed their addiction talk about "bottoming out" when they finally give up shoveling the deep hole they are in. Every bologna sandwich, blanket,and cab fare to Welches is just throwing dirt in his hole and giving more to dig out until he finds the bottom to his own hole.
Every ride in the back of a squad car, night in a cell for crimes he is committing would be a big favor. Many recovering addict / alcoholic praises the day they were arrested!
"supporting the city council who want to fund the programs that are needed to help get these people the help they really need" Well Darcy, the best help is free.

Gimme a break already. Everybody needs help from time to time...isn't that why we gave David money in the first place? To help him get home? That shows a bit of compassion to give a stranger money because they asked for help, don'tcha think?

Darcy, quit being an enabler. It doesn't help anyone, certainly not an addict.

I don't know David. I don't much care for the con as a way of making a living.

But as crooks go, he's pretty mild. I've never seen any story in which the fellow is said to be at all violent or even aggressive. He only fleeces any person once, and his per-mark take is pretty small.

Compare to any number of shady public figures mentioned elsewhere on this blog and he looks like truly small potatoes. Yet his story seems to evoke as much vitriol as people who have pulled in tens of thousands of dishonest dollars.

It's good to raise awareness, it's good to tell your friends not to be taken in, but the virulent comments about him I've seen here and there seem well beyond the pale.

Pity seems more appropriate than scorn, and real help more appropriate than punishment.

Maybe someone at the PDC can give him a PR job?

A reader yesterday described his conduct over by the Doug Fir as "aggressive."

Anyone who knows anything about addiction will tell you that it is completely counter-productive when you enable the addict in the continuance of their self destructive behavior by giving them money. In my opinion calling David on his perpetual lying/stealing is perhaps the most compassionate thing we can do for him as a community. A stint in the lockup would most definately result in a foced detoxification and perhaps aid in breaking the cycle of his addiction. In the long haul it's up to David to make the choice to get clean and sober.

Enabler. That's Darcy.

Sure...He has a problem. But to "lighten up" and help him feed his problem by being gulled into giving him money sure as ship ain't the way to address it.

If you're his "friend", you'd be actively involved in helping him break his addiction. It ain't easy, but it can be done. You should be part of that intervention, rather than whining to Dave's critics about his self-induced problem.

I agree that there are far too few resources for those addicted. There are also far too resources available to those who need drugs (and treatment, and security) just to stay sane. I agree that this country, this state, this county and this city have done far too little to ameliorate such circumstances. Of course, the insistence upon squeezing all revenues out of all levels of government means that those without influence at any level of government (like addicts and mentally ill) will be denied access to public funds which will instead be paid out as subsidies to developers and other friends and family of our elected officials.

You get what your elite will pay for....they don't seem to be very compassionate when it comes to society's marginals.

given that i've seen reports putting this fellow at 3-4 locations simultaneously on multiple occasions, i'm beginning to wonder if his reputation doesn't exceed him.

Codependancy.

Couple that with the power to tax?

"too few resources" -- do you mean money left in the hands of friends and family to help or the shortage of will to compel payment by force to deliver to those who pimp the poor for their own gain?

I have compassion for the guy. But enabling his addiction won't help him. He needs to pay consequences for his actions. He gets high right now, but there are no consequences for his behavior. Every sucker that gives him money is paying his consequences for him.

The best way to show compassion for an addict is to allow them to suffer the consequences of their actions. When the pain of the consequence (loss of job, family, jail, name your consequence) exceeds the pain of giving up the drug of choice (drugs, booze, workaholic, name your poison), only then will an addict try to turn things around.

I do agree with con man's friend in the judgment department. Take the log out of your own eye before you harshly judge the sliver in your neighbor's eye. Words to live by.

After all, if it's so difficult to change ourselves, what makes us think we're able to change others?

There are PLENTY of resources out there, low cost to free, that can help this individual. If he really wanted help he could get it.

There is a difference in the degree to which laws are broken. It's why we have infractions, misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, and several levels of felonies. This individual has broken the law for so long, and so frequently, that it is FAR beyond the level of taking a sticky pad home from the office, or not paying a MAX fare, or padding an expense account by a few bucks.

The big picture is that this individual WANTS to be where he is because he has proven successful at doing it. Being surrounded by enablers and suckers has allowed him to perpetuate his crimes.

The only solution is:

a) he gets swept off the street by the law or humanitarian organization, put in a safe and sober environment, and works to get his life back on track

b) he decides he wants to change and gets himself in to said safe and sober environment and gets his life back on track

This is not rocket science. There is help available already. He can change if he wants to.

I think attitudes like Darcy's do more harm to society than David does--the idea that lying to people to take advantage of their humane instincts is OK is terribly corrosive and will, if widespread, result in a shattered society of complete distrust for everyone.

I'd far rather give five bucks to the guy with the sign that says "For Beer (why lie?)" than give a penny to someone who has preyed on peoples' instincts to help others and, in essence, shits on them.

Because the con victim starts out thinking they've helped the yeoman carpenter; eventually they realize that they've not only been lied to, but by acting humanely, they've helped drag down the quality of life for themselves and their city by helping encourage more people like David to prey on others.

Screw that. Darcy needs to visit a morgue and get a serious reality check on where David is heading.

By the way, where is this person's family and friends?

Why aren't they taking a more active interest in his welfare, and helping him get the assistance he needs?

Darcy, what have you done for David lately?

A reader yesterday described his conduct over by the Doug Fir as "aggressive."

Ah. Didn't see that one.

Couple that with the power to tax?

"too few resources" -- do you mean money left in the hands of friends and family to help or the shortage of will to compel payment by force to deliver to those who pimp the poor for their own gain?

Well, that's a false dichotomy. "Too few resources" in that those in greatest need have no ability to access resources to address their problems. "Money left in the hands of friends and family to help" doesn't always get used to "help"...after all, most murders in this country are done by family and friends, I don't see why we should expect that those suffering addiction, or mental illness, should necessarily expect family assistance. These conditions tend to be exceedingly stimagtized by the wider population, including family members with control of the resources.

The other end of your false dichotomy presumes a lot of negative effects. Not that it's not possible, but in the absence of effective private (family or benevolent organizations like churches) resources, I'd see public agencies as at least a means of intake and triage. It needn't be a source for those who "pimp the poor for their own gain".

There are other options, but if we refuse to consider them because you don't want to earmark public funds to do so, I'd say that that was less compassion than those who "pimp the poor for their own gain". Speaking of "pimping the poor for their own gain", I'd say that a lot of those who hire illegal immigrants because they will work for less money and no benefits (including health care) are by far the bigger pimps than those working in public agencies at subnormal wages in order to help addicts and the mentally ill cope with their situations and improve their lot...maybe even becoming contributing members of our society.

So what you do is, you plan and execute a family intervention. Then you take your loved one to the treatment center. Next, you write a check for 4-6 weeks residence treatment.
If you are as fortunate as I was, your son emerges detoxed and begins life as a clean and sober person. If you are as fortunate as I was, he stays clean and sober. If it works right, you save your loved one's life and get to enjoy having him around.
If you are less fortunate, perhaps you repeat the process. Or perhaps he dies, and you grieve that you could not save him. I feel so good that my son survived nearly twenty years of addiction and has been sober for seventeen years. There is hope.

A reader sends along a couple of interesting links: this one and this one.

The City of Portland is a haven for the drug addicted and disaffected simply because they can live a better life here than most other cities on the West Coast.

That's why you see so many "homeless" teens and other seemingly healthy able bodied adults with backpacks, dogs, and cardboard signs asking for your support.

Portlanders (and civic leaders) continue to facilitate and feed their addictions and their panhandling, only asking that they please don't scare the tourists away.

David is a victim of his own making. If he weren't scamming people in the light of day, he'd be breaking into their cars and stores at night. After feeding a habit for so long, it's hard for me to imagine there is much left to be saved.

And the twenty-something drug addicts and spangers (who are clearly old enough for the novelty factor to have worn off) I have more compassion for the puppies or kittens tugging on their makeshift leashes.

Oh, man. While it's obiously a public record, publishing something that happened four years ago is kind of a low blow, don't ya think?

Especially the link to Darcy's past record. She's not accused of doing anything wrong here, except being an enabler. There's no reason to think she hasn't been clean since then. What good did that link do?

Is someone gonna try to find my criminal history next just because I think this has gone too far? (Give ya a hint: traffic tickets.) Is posting under one's own name here going to become a liability?

This blog community is showing its ugly face over this, and it's just not worth it. Please don't let this turn into more of a witch hunt than it already is. Y'all need to let this go. Seriously.

Please.

You can trace the origin of calls for aid for the mentally ill to families that cared to the point of exhaustion and financial ruin before seeking a public solution in their own interest and that of the person(s) they cared for. On the first group home in Oregon, following deinstitutionalization of folks because drugs made people almost-functional, you should see the bill submitted by the Architect that was required as part of the required upgrade to the building that was already OK.

The stigma is best displayed by refusal to allow siting of a group home in the community. That too took time to fight. It was, of course, the families that were fighting the community.

On immigration see 56states.us (56) (it is my little placeholder). The reasoning is like that of banning child labor at the federal level so as to halt the race to the bottom. Pimping immigrants is an odd public policy pretzel all on its own.

mom, (moms?). . . they never give up!

The charges against both individuals indicate Delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance.

Not particularly nice stuff to be delivering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

If his deportment is getting more "aggressive", the increased public awareness about his scam must be making him more desperate.

liberalism is a mental dissorder

If David's apologist has remained clean and sober, then bully for her. Everybody deserves to have a friend on their side. That said, IF she is still using, then I would suggest her current view is biased.

Having been burgularized by drug addicts on two occassions (most recently aggravated by identify theft and check fraud), their addictions are most certainly A VALID TOPIC FOR SOCIETAL CONCERN. And my bleeding heart quit bleeding after the first burglary.

"I wrote her back and told her that the best thing that could happen to David right now is a nice long stretch in jail. I hope he gets it."

Jack is right (not always, but this time, big time!).

Tough love!
Intervention!!
Just saying "No!" when your heart wants to say "Okay, cab fair to Welches, seems reasonable."

This guy will keep pushing until he gets some serious resistance.

Jail would provide just the right medicine. Better that than the morgue.

Addiction: the only "illness" a person goes out looking for.

Dead horse, folks.

That email from Darcy makes me sick. Trying to blame everyone else for someones problems, and trying to turn the tables but not doing it well at all. David needs jail time now and some law enforcement official in the area needs to start enforcing the law!

I don't know what's worse, David cheating people out of their hard earned money to provide one's sustenance, or Darcy jumping in and defending their friend's actions.

Addiction is all about a personal decision. The one to take that first hit. Everyone has that first choice. If you decide to take that hit, you chose your path, and I have no sympathy for you. And dont freakin blame anyone but yourself.

Is posting under one's own name here going to become a liability?

Only if you have something to hide.

Ms. Cameron didn't post a comment on the blog. She sent me an e-mail message from her personal e-mail account which was sub-addressed to "Dear Portland Readers."

"Only if you have something to hide."

Oh Jon. Listen to yourself here. This is the same argument that underlies warrantless wiretapping and all manner of other injustices. It's just as specious when you say it.

David's bad behavior is well-known. He needs to seek help, and that's his responsibility.

But what about us? What about the bad behavior people are displaying right here? That's our responsibility.

The scam is exposed, the information is public and available to all honest folk, the mission is accomplished. It's over. We won. Job well done.

But now that the guy is down, let's stop kicking him already... and especially let's stop kicking his well-meaning (but possibly ineffective) friend.

Only thing gonna happen if we keep pouring vitriol on these people is we'll prove it really is contagious.

the mission is accomplished. It's over. We won. Job well done.

We had this discussion last week. To the extent that there ever was a "job," it's not done. The guy's still on the streets, doing the same things that have earned him his notoriety. Granted, now there are more people who know about him and won't fall victim to his con, but obviously he's still doing well enough at it to support his agenda.

On a larger scale, a continuing discussion of the nature of the social problems that he represents is a healthy one. I have no doubt that he is one of many people with similar issues. Our society, for all its aerial trams, can't or won't help him or stop him. It's a sad statement on what we've become.

But now that the guy is down, let's stop kicking him already

He's not down, he just moved to another corner.

Jon,
I hate to say it, but you're an idiot (sorry, Jack, if I broke a rule). "Only if you have something to hide" is one of the worst rationalizations in the history of the world. There's a big difference between someone "not hiding" a fact, and having it actively broadcast all over the world.
For example, I don't hide the fact that I used to pee my pants as a kid, but that doesn't mean I want it hotlinked in Jack's comments. Especially since it's not a reflection on my current character, and character assassination is the only reason those links were provided to Jack.

I don't think we're beating a dead horse here or picking on the downtrodden, this is large and complex social issue that goes far beyond David and Darcy. Perhaps we are using them as a vehicle to express our frustration or confusion of addictions and those on the margins of society.

Then again, maybe I'm just pissed that I gave him money under false pretenses.

"The guy's still on the streets [...]"

He's been doing this for years and we expect him to become a respectable citizen in a month?! Just because of some dude's outraged blog postings? Get real.

We can talk about many evils here - foolhardy wars, intrusions on personal liberties, greedy developers gorging on public funds, venal public officials, petty con artists - but ultimately it's all just talk. When it comes to political matters, decisions of public policy, or raising awareness then talk is good and valuable and helpful. Bring on the talk!

But when it comes to changing things out in the Big Blue Room, talk is cheap. The only thing we can do here about David is raise awareness of his con. (Again, job well done.) We can't stop his con just by yakking about it. If stopping his con is victory, you'll never win by just typing.

Want David off the streets? Go talk to him. Can you imagine the effect on the guy if every week twenty strangers walk up to him and say: "David, I'm concerned about you. Please choose to get some help for whatever is keeping you out here running your con. How can I help you do that?"

Want him off the streets? Offer him a room with a strict curfew for a couple nights. Want him off dope? Offer to help pay for inpatient drug treatment. Want him off his con? Offer him a job mowing your lawn for God's sake.

David has to want help for help to work, of course, but if he does want help - and no one here seems to know - the readership here is collectively in a position to help him. Not enable, but help. There's dozens (scores? hundreds?) of readers here, some of whom have access to substantial resources.

I've called for various sorts of direct action here before, and so far as I know the readership has never yet put its bodies where its mouths are. Not for the tram, not for James Chasse, not for that 'roid-rage fireman. Well, here's another chance, where putting yourselves out there could to some actual, measureable good. We can really make a difference, on the ground, for David, for Portland, and for ourselves.

Do you people want to help your city, or just bitch about it? It's put-up or shut-up time.

A neighbor kid recently asked: "Did you know there was a guy sleeping in your back yard?"

"Yep."

More was communicated in the inflection and context than the words.

David has to want help for help to work, of course, but if he does want help...

What if David doesn't want help?

What do we do then?

Do we assume it's his "illness" talking, and force help on him - because we (society) still want him "off the streets"?

Do we redirect our private/public help to those who actively seek it; effectively writing David off?

Your comment raises interesting questions about individual responsibility for the "Davids" of the world - the people for whom jail probably benefits neither them nor society.

Who makes the call if they don't want help? What are the guidelines? How much respect should society have for the right of these folks to make that "choice" in light of their rejection of "normal" values?

I wish I had the answers, but I think a discussion of the questions is a first step. The present "system" of "no system at all" doesn't seem to benefit anyone.

Want David off the streets? Go talk to him. Can you imagine the effect on the guy if every week twenty strangers walk up to him and say: "David, I'm concerned about you. Please choose to get some help for whatever is keeping you out here running your con. How can I help you do that?"

Want him off the streets? Offer him a room with a strict curfew for a couple nights. Want him off dope? Offer to help pay for inpatient drug treatment. Want him off his con? Offer him a job mowing your lawn for God's sake.

Please be sure to let us know how you make out with that.

"Please be sure to let us know how you make out with that."

Well, that was predictable. :-)

George, I have a very modest income. I live with the wife and kids in a moderately bad neighborhood rife with halfway houses and homeless camps and their attendant population of ex-cons and addicts. Bringing him to my house might not be doing him any favors.

That said I'm full willing to consider putting him up myself for a night or two - have to clear it with the missus first, of course - but there's two major hitches.

I've never met David, and I live in Salem. First I'd need to talk to him and make my guess as to whether he's really willing to clean up or not. (That in itself is unlikely - I rarely get to PDX these days.) After that, he'd have to get here and back.

I'm willing to put my home where my mouth is, but I'm not going to go it alone - especially to help fix Portland's problem - if you guys won't step up to the plate yourselves. There's plenty of transient con-men living right here in my town, even without counting the legislature.

But if ten people pledge to put him up for a night in their own homes while he seeks honest work - assuming he really wants help - I'll ask my wife if we can donate two nights of room and board at our place over some weekend. (If she says no I'll donate fifty bucks towards inpatient rehab or honest work or something else that's helpful and not enabling.)

Good enough?

Alan, you can do as much or as little as you like for David (actually, I suspect that it would all have the same effect).

But a retroactive, conditional offer to pitch in doesn't change the fact that you have launched a big lecture excoriating people for wanting David's scam to stop; from reading your posts, you'd think that the people posting here had scammed David rather than the other way around.

And I don't live in Portland either.

Oh, George,

excoriating is such a strong word.
This isn't about Alan or David - it's about all of us.

Did Alan touch a nerve?

Indeed, as did Darcy; I have seen what addiction does to people I've cared about up close and personal. One thing I know is that they want "it" to be about anything but them and their addiction, and they are absolute MASTERS at getting others to help them. They are especially fond of the LYAHF ("Lets you and him fight") game.

and so...

Good lord, rr. Do we actually agree on something again? I think I may faint. :-)

"I have seen what addiction does to people I've cared about up close and personal."

You're not the only one.

Actually, Alan, we probably agree more often than not. (although that there quote you cite ain't mine). Sometimes style is confused with substance. Not that I have, (or claim) either... (well, I try for style - someone has to...)

Addiction is a disease/affliction/choice/who cares - it affects us in both a small and large sense.

We need to make a few value judgements - pretty unpopular, these days. Nevertheless, they loom large in this discussion. You obviously understand the need for involvement - as do I... the problem is when and how (and who).
Ignoring reality seems to have no good result - I think we agree on that.

The sense that "they got/get what they deserve' would be (sort of) OK if the desserts (is that right?) didn't affect US - but they do.

Maybe this thread has quieted to where you can consider this thought, Jack, IMHO.

Overall, it has been curious, sort of disproportionate, how much you carried this for how incidental the damage was. But it got good traction. And it succeeded in identifying and curtailing him, somewhat. Maybe it's symptomatic of an 'updated' or 'modernity' Justice, what I think of as 'O.J. Justice,' where the guilty are quarantined in ostracization. Not quite as satisfying as iron bars slammed on them, and costing each community member time and brain cells to be aware to identify the outcasts, instead of costing taxes to build prisons.

And I think it helped sort together, or coalesce, coalition your readers here, which is good, IMHO. And it did offer entre to discussion of manifest "social problems," as you said, and I was glad you noted that component of it. It's all good; I was just quite curious in watching the development unfold, ( ... and it ain't over yet. Wait, in addition to the ginsu knife, you get the cutting board and the holster, for only three small payments of ...).

But the focus where my thoughts keep coming back to is at your original post. Something like, you 'must attract these con guys,' and/or 'have sucker written on your forehead.'

Yeah, you do. Mostly we all do. Because you smile, and you've got all your teeth, white and straight, and brushed clean recently. You're clean shaven. Your clothes don't have holes, and your garments are freshly laundered, not too stinky. You had enough to eat in the last 24 hours. You own a car. You own at least one pair of shoes.

These appurtenances and appearances, and more, mark you as royally endowed, rich, walking along ninety-five percent of the sidewalks in the world.

Take the wealth of the world -- in a word: land -- and divide by the number of Earthlings, and on that per capita basis, Cubans are the only ones living sustainably, within their means, just, righteous, and true. [ Ecological Footprint, Energy Consumption, and the Looming Collapse, see graphic at: theoildrum.com/files/EcologicalFootprint.png . ]

What seems to be coming in the years ahead, must be coming, is that the US lifestyle is humbled, made modest, and is convived, complied, within reasonable ways and means. Those who refuse to comply are forced to it, either by social ostracization, being outcast, or incarcerated or impounded, or picked apart by flocks of vulture-beggars -- your 'con man' by the dozens in roving 'packs,' or just ordinarily offed.

What is not coming in the years ahead, is that 'third world' people are endowed and 'brought up' to 'our' (US) standard of living, because it is impossible, the numbers don't pencil out. Despite that it is exactly the lie that US propaganda has indoctrinated in all of us for, what?, six or seven generations, now. Saying to the effect that, 'third world can work its way up to be industrialized world.' Ain't gonna happen. 'Industrialized world' is gonna 'work its way down.' This is a fact of life. On Earth. The holistic incomprehension of Earth's size and resource limitations, and humankind's extent and effects -- incomprehension 'by the numbers' because the numbers are 'too big,' 'math is hard, and yucky' -- is why, and how, the global climate crisis has gotten so drastic. Simply, government officials are lying and US people choose to believe the lies ... so they don't have to live without a car.

You have to live without a car. The 'con men' will see to it. What you call your "social problems."

The choice is whether to manage in it, and to it, with sentient understanding, and self-responsibility, OR, let all hell break loose and take your chances. and your posterity's chances. Which are binary: life or death.

Now, the dictator Bush's plan, (in 'supply and demand' terms, its called Demand Destruction), is to murder half the population of humankind. Then the ratio of land -to- people doubles. And Americans get to keep their cars. Well, no, we don't. Not if we only murder 3 billion humans. Half-again more, murdering 4.5 billion humans, then, yes, the numbers pencil out, we get to keep our cars. Only, there are not enough vital living humans to manufacture cars. Just a small detail.

So that basically is the 'lifestyle' choice we each individually and quite personally face, push or be jumped -- and we can't 'punt' the policy decisions to the next generation, because the crux point is so near in the future, before the 'scheduled' actuarial death of baby boomers. The voices (here and everywhere) supporting BU!!SH!!ism sound like parodies of Charleton Heston, 'the only way they'll take my car away is to pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead fingers.' Okay, that's their choice, they choose dead.

Ya' know, Jack, you could have saved yourself all this grief and hassle having to divy-up resources with con-man Dave, there, when he approached you, if you had just fast-drawed your sidearm and shot him dead, cold-blooded, and kept your 'money.' Is that the way you want to live?

Ya' know, there's another little quirk in my thinking, which I could share, in the hopes of making some of it understandable. Well, let's go for two quirks. They're brief, and both by the same author. On the same day.

I was blessed to spend a couple of 1976 days with R. Buckminster Fuller. (Tried to get a date with ... oh, I was hitting on, his granddaughter, Alessandra -- A., wherever you are out there in the world, you are be-you-tee-full.)

Bucky's definition of 'wealth': WEALTH is the number of forward-days a system can be maintained. And he said, "that's why a man with a pile of corn is wealthier than a man with a pile of dollar bills."

The question was asked: "What happens when the oil runs out?" Bucky said, "Humankind on Earth is like a chick in an egg. Petroleum is like the rich nutrient white of the egg. The chick gorges itself on the white of the egg, and looks for more and more of it, until finally it looks in every corner of the egg. And that cracks it open. And the chick steps out. And egg white ceases to be a concern for the chick. It becomes interested in bugs and grubs."

As a former addict (25 years on Meth), I can say that Darcy is an enabler. I am proud of all the comments offered to her, they all say the things I was going to mention.
One thing though, I wonder if Darcy gives Dave money? I bet she does not, but we should, whilst calling it compassion. Compassion starts at home, aimed towards the self. Thats' what Dave needs, is some self-compassion. The end.

Inpatient Drug Treatment??
Those bureaucrats are worse thieves than the con-man! Biochemical addiction is a myth and those who take money to treat it are conning you for more in tax and insurance transfer payments than this 'stolen truck scam artist' could steal in his entire life.

Pay him to mow my lawn??
I've already hired a lawn service company for that thankyou and I sure don't want this con-man creep in MY neighborhood.