"I Got Like 8 People REALLY In My Life Now", I tell HR as I pass her the #palomitasAF, "half of them are psychopaths and the other half are #weirdAF. But, they are known commodities, Yo." #homeostasisAF (2.9k) - You've Got Hate Mail
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-7221,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode_grid_1300,qode_popup_menu_push_text_top,footer_responsive_adv,qode-theme-ver-10.1.1,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.4.2,vc_responsive

“I Got Like 8 People REALLY In My Life Now”, I tell HR as I pass her the #palomitasAF, “half of them are psychopaths and the other half are #weirdAF. But, they are known commodities, Yo.” #homeostasisAF (2.9k)

“I Got Like 8 People REALLY In My Life Now”, I tell HR as I pass her the #palomitasAF, “half of them are psychopaths and the other half are #weirdAF. But, they are known commodities, Yo.” #homeostasisAF (2.9k)

“So, I can’t invite my friend with the blue pants?”, HR asks as she looks at me with those pleading big brown eyes.

“I don’t know if I want to invite a new person into our lives?”, I reply to HR as I turn my head to look out the window (I look out the window a lot, right??).

I continue, “right now everything is known. I know how each person responds and, overall, we have stability in our lives, in my life, and, from this, I am able to really write a lot for Sexo & Muerto 5, right?”

Continuing, “adding another person, a foreigner entity, into the mix and we may experience turbulence in the entire system–destructive interference of the homeostatic equilibrium achieved by patiently letting the pieces, the people in our lives, to fall into place, right?”



noun: homeostasis; plural noun: homeostases; noun: homoeostasis; plural noun: homoeostases

1. the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes.


1920s: modern Latin, from Greek homoios ‘like’ + -stasis.

You are a little soul carrying around a corpse.


How to File a Harrassment Restraining Order

{Link Bit.ly/2vcmLsr}

A Harassment Restraining Order is an order issued by the court in order to keep the offender, or any person acting on his behalf, from contacting the victim in any way. The restraining order also keeps the offender from making physical contact with the victim. The offender is technically prohibited to go near the victim or remain at a prescribed distance away from the victim.

Who may apply for the issuance of a Restraining Order?

Any person who is a victim of harassment may seek for the issuance of a restraining order from the Court. In case of a minor victim, the parent or guardian of the minor may request for the issuance of the same. Once the restraining order is issued, it may prohibit any form of harassment from happening. A Harassment Restraining Order is issued  against any individual or group of individual or even against organizations which promoted or sponsored any form of harassment.

How to apply for the issuance of a Harassment Restraining Order?

The petitioner may fill out the Petitioner’s Affidavit and Petition for Restraining Order. The affidavit must be complete and specific and must include the date, time, places, actions and conversations that lead the petitioner to feel harassed. Said facts must be included in a narrative or affidavit stating the ultimate facts of the case.

The Petitioner’s Affidavit and Petition for Restraining Order must be filed before the court administrator in the county where either party resides or in the county where the act of harassment occurred. Filing fees will be charged therefor. If the petitioner is an indigent, he may file an “IFP form” which shall entitle him to waive the filing fee.

Once the filing fee is paid, the court administrator will forward the petition to the judge for review.

What Happens at Restraining Order Hearings?

{Link Bit.ly/2uHEODV}

A restraining order, sometimes referred to as a protection from abuse order, is designed to protect a person who suffered from abuse at the hands of another person, according to the American Bar Association Section of Family Law. A common situation in which this type of order is issued is in a domestic relationship, including between a wife and husband. After a temporary restraining order issues, a hearing is scheduled.


The primary function of a restraining order hearing is to allow a judge the chance to hear both sides of the story regarding the facts and circumstances giving rise to the temporary order, according to HG.org. Both the person who seeks the restraining order, and the individual who is the subject of the decree, present evidence and argument supporting their respective positions on the appropriateness of the decree.

Time Frame

A restraining order hearing typically is conducted between one to four weeks after the temporary order issues, according to FindLaw. Each state maintains individual laws on the timing of a restraining order hearing. The key element to scheduling the hearing is service of the temporary restraining order by the sheriff on the defendant as well as notifying that individual of the date and time of the hearing.


Three possible consequences arise out of a restraining order hearing. First, the parties mutually agree to the restraining order and the judge accepts the agreement. Second, the judge concludes that insufficient evidence exists to support a restraining order and dismisses the case. Finally, the court agrees that sufficient evidence exists and issues a permanent restraining order.


A restraining order hearing has some of the trappings of a trial, without a jury.

Miami drug wars

{Link Bit.ly/2h7rKo8}

The deadly 1979 shootout at Dadeland Mall in broad daylight between Colombian traffickers– quickly dubbed ”the Cocaine Cowboys” by a police officer on the scene — heralded the beginning of South Florida’s bloody and violent drug wars in which drug dealers competed for Miami’s wholesale markets. The mob-style execution and growing violence in the streets of Miami was linked to the nascent Medellin Cartel consolidating its control of the drug business. Smuggling rings grew to corporate size in the 1980’s. A 1982 seizure of $100 million worth of cocaine from a Miami International Airport hangar permanently altered U.S. law enforcement’s approach towards the drug trade. As a response, President Reagan created the South Florida Drug Task Force and assigned George Bush to lead a coordinated federal offensive in 1982.


{Link Bit.ly/2tQhmHC}

“Singer Stevie Nicks has publicized the dangers of Klonopin by describing her own detox from the prescription drug as “hellish” and worse than withdrawing from cocaine or heroin. In fact, Nicks was introduced to Klonopin at the Betty Ford clinic, with the intention of assisting her with new-found sobriety! Recovering addicts and alcoholics have all too often been helped off of one drug addiction by being introduced to a new one, all with the best of intentions, of course.” – Benzos: more dangerous than the conditions they treat? Occasional Planet, September 14, 2011.

“Seventies-era rock star Stevie Nicks is the poster girl for the perils of Klonopin addiction. In almost every interview, the former lead singer of Fleetwood Mac makes a point of mentioning the toll her abuse of the drug has taken on her life. This month, while promoting her new solo album, In Your Dreams, she told Fox that she blamed Klonopin for the fact that she never had children. “The only thing I’d change [in my life] is walking into the office of that psychiatrist who prescribed me Klonopin. That ruined my life for eight years,” she said. “God knows, maybe I would have met someone, maybe I would have had a baby.”

Nicks checked herself into the Betty Ford Clinic in 1986 to overcome a cocaine addiction. After her release, the psychiatrist in question prescribed a series of benzos – first Valium, then Xanax, and finally Klonopin – supposedly to support her sobriety. “[Klonopin] turned me into a zombie,” she told US Weekly in 2001, according to the website benzo.org.uk, one of many patient-run sites on the Internet offering information about benzodiazepine addiction, withdrawal and recovery. Nicks has described the drug as a “horrible, dangerous drug,” and said that her eventual 45-day hospital detox and rehab from the drug felt like “somebody opened up a door and pushed me into hell.” Others have described Klonopin’s effects as beginning with an energized sense of euphoria but ending up with horrifying sense of anxiety and paralysis, akin to sticking your tongue into an electric outlet, or suddenly feeling that your brain is on fire.” – America’s Most Dangerous Pill? AlterNet, June 1, 2011.

“Klonopin is a horrible, dangerous drug,” says Stevie Nicks

Stevie Nicks talks about her addiction to Klonopin, a tranquilizer prescribed to help her get over her raging cocaine habit.

“I was really sick,” she says. Even though her years of cocaine abuse left a hole in her head the size of a Sacajawea gold dollar, she claims that the Klonopin did far more damage. “It was not my drug of choice,” she says. “I’m not a downer person. I was looking for things that made me want to clean the house and shop, write songs and stay up for four days. I was sad and I was sick. I didn’t really understand right up until the end that it was the Klonopin that was making me crazy. I really didn’t realize it was that drug because I was taking it from a doctor and it was prescribed. It just hit me really hard that that was the foundation for why I was completely falling apart.”

Nicks says the last time she used cocaine on stage was during a concert at Red Rocks in 1986. It was a turning point for her. Afterwards, she went straight to the Betty Ford Clinic. But in attempting to help herself, she encountered a problem far worse than her cocaine problem – a new addiction to prescription drugs. Fresh out a rehab, a psychiatrist put Stevie on a tranquilizer called Klonopin. Generally prescribed for seizures and panic attacks, experts say it should not be taken for more than nine weeks. Stevie says she took it for eight years, learning way too late that Klonopin is highly addictive and can have side effects like depression and weight gain. “My woman’s vanity could not deal with that at all. After being a rock ‘n’ roll sex symbol for all that time, and then all of a sudden to be ‘little fat girl’ was just so unacceptable to me. I could see the disappointment in people’s faces when they’d see me walk in.” It took 47 days for the singer to detox from the prescription drug, “…and it was horrible,” she says. “My hair turned gray. My skin molted. I couldn’t sleep, I was in so much pain. Legs aching, muscle cramps… The rock star in me wanted to get in a limousine and go to Cedar’s Sinai and say, ‘Give me some Demerol because I am in pain.’ And the other side of me said, ‘You will fight out this 47 days.'”

After the photos were over, the event was winding down and people began to disperse. I caught Stevie’s attention and told her that I wanted to thank her for coming out and talking about Klonopin. Someone close to me has been struggling with depression and was medicated with Klonopin, and as soon as I put it together that this was the medication that had wrecked Stevie so badly, I talked to my friend about it. She went to another doctor who confirmed that it wasn’t right for her, and she’s now gradually scaling down on it. I told Stevie that her courage in discussing that dark part of her life had made a direct, positive impact on someone else’s. She said, “Well, I’m on a mission! Tell your friend my heart is with her, and that she should spread the word!”

“Klonopin is a horrible, dangerous drug,” says Nicks, an addict for eight years.

The Hidden Danger of Being Risk-Averse

{Link Bit.ly/2v482Pp}

People are generally not all that happy about risk. As Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman has written, “For most people, the fear of losing $100 is more intense than the hope of gaining $150. [Amos Tversky and I] concluded from many such observations that ‘losses loom larger than gains’ and that people are loss averse.”

While the phenomenon of loss aversion has been well-documented, it’s worth noting that Kahneman himself refers to “most people” — not all — when describing its prevalence. According to 20 years of research conducted by Columbia University’s Tory Higgins, it might be more accurate to say that some of us are particularly risk-averse, not because we are neurotic, paranoid, or even lacking in self-confidence, but because we tend to see our goals as opportunities to maintain the status quo and keep things running smoothly. Higgins calls this a prevention focus, associated with a robust aversion to being wide-eyed and optimistic, making mistakes, and taking chances. The rest of us are promotion-focused, see our goals as opportunities to make progress and end up better off, and are not particularly averse to risky choices when they hold the potential for rich gains.

Studies from Columbia’s Motivation Science Center have shown that prevention-focused people work more slowly and deliberately, seek reliability over “coolness” or luxury in products, and prefer conservative investments to higher-yielding but less certain ones. Further research conducted by Harvard’s Francesca Gino and Joshua Margolis, indicates that prevention-focused people are more likely than the promotion-focused to behave ethically and honestly — not because they are more ethical per se, but because they fear that rule-breaking will land them in hot water.

They even drive differently. In one study, researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands equipped customers of a Dutch insurance company with a GPS that was used to monitor their driving habits. The prevention-focused were, not surprisingly, less likely to speed than their promotion-focused fellow drivers. A second study showed that they also needed larger gaps between cars in order to feel comfortable merging.

So when people talk about the factors leading to the recent recession, and you hear a lot about excessive risk-taking (what Alan Greenspan famously called “irrational exuberance”), the prevention-focused would probably be last on your list of potential culprits. But you would be wrong.

That’s because everything I just told you about prevention-focused people is true when everything is running smoothly — when the status quo is acceptable. When the Devil you know is better than the one you don’t (a prevention-focused bit of wisdom if ever there was one.)

When the prevention-focused feel they are actually in danger of loss — and when they believe that a risky option is the only way to eliminate that loss — it’s a very different story.

For instance, in one study conducted by Abigail Scholer and her colleagues at Columbia, participants invested $5 in a particular stock. Half were subsequently told that the stock had lost value — not only the initial investment, but an additional $4. The other half were told that the stock had gained $4 in value. (These values were determined — they were told — by a computer simulation of real-world conditions). Then participants were given the option to invest again, this time with a choice: a 75% chance of gaining $6 and a 25% chance of losing $10 (the conservative option), or a 25% chance of gaining $20 and a 75% chance of losing $4 (the risker option). Note that while the odds were longer, only the riskier option could eliminate the loss of $9 for those currently at -$4. Note also that these were undergraduate students to whom the dollar amounts at stake were significant.

The promotion-focused chose the risky option roughly 50% of the time, regardless of whether their stock had gained or lost value. But the prevention-focused preferred the risky option only 38% of the time under gain and 75% of the time under loss. In other words, prevention-focused people generally prefer the conservative option when everything is going according to plan, but they will embrace risk when it’s their only shot at returning to status quo.

This suggests that “excessive exuberance” may be something of a misnomer. Certainly there are risk-loving traders on Wall Street, and some of the blame for the events that led to the recession lies with them. But much of it seems to lie with investment bankers — people who rarely strike anyone as “exuberant.” If anything, they appear to despise risk — so much so that they lobbied hard to create a system (i.e., “Too Big To Fail”) in which comparatively little risk (for them) existed.

These are the people who, counter-intuitively, will take the most dangerous risks under the right circumstances. One of the most famous risk-takers in recent memory is JP Morgan’s “London Whale,” Bruno Iksil, who doubled down on a losing bet rather than admit his losses, ultimately costing the bank over six billion. Evidence from the Senate hearings on the matter, in the form of recorded phone calls and emails, paints a picture of desperation rather than over-confidence. (Incidentally, Iksil was head of the Chief Investment Office, the purpose of which is to protect the bank by hedging some of its other riskier bets. This is no longer ironic, when understood from the vantage of prevention focus.)

This is why the only deterrent to reckless risk-taking is to make sure that reckless risks have real consequences for those who take them — to make sure, as Nassim Taleb has put it, that the players have “skin in the game.”

“So what are we going to do here on the roof while we wait for mom?”, HR asks me as she hands me the bag of #palomitasAF.

“Looks like a clear night to see the stars”, I reply as I look up, “that’s Polaris, the North Star over there, and, that constellation

The glass of the window breaks as Jacobate sticks his dismembered arm through the window pane; blood mixed with pus spew out of the fresh wound; I put the bag of popcorn into the stream to add some flavor to the snack; I put in another handful into my mouth; it’s good seasoning, I think.

“And, over there is Leo and that constellation is Taurus”, I continue as I point out the stars and patterns above us on Dorinto; below us the blood continues to spew as Jacobate and Heatherate try to get through the window.