SoCS — looking Back

I suppose, in the end, looking back at it, it wasn’t all bad. Oh sure, it was pretty contentious at times. Most of the time, actually.

We fought a lot. And when we fought, we really fought. I mean knock down, drag out fights. Not physically, of course. We never hit or kicked or bit one another. Yeah, I do remember putting my fist through the wall that one time. And then there was the night you threw your wine glass at me. Fortunately I ducked just in time.

But the mind games we played were emotionally bruising. You said I was gaslighting you. I said you had me walking on eggshells. We threw verbal jabs at each other, each like the sting of a bee. And the resentment we each felt toward one another settled upon us like a thick fog that cast a pall over most of our marriage.

Face it, we are both very passionate people and it was our passion for life that brought us together, our passion for love that kept us together, and our passion in bed that had us soaring. For a while, anyway.

So that’s why I say it wasn’t all bad. At least in the beginning.

This post was written for Linda G. Hill’s Stream of Consciousness Saturday prompt. Linda has commanded us to write about the beginning of something and the end of something. Bonus points if our first sentence contains “the end” and our last sentence contains “the beginning.”

Time To Write — Trial and Error

1018822723Look at that!” William said. “I can’t believe how full the courtroom is.”

“I know,” Jason, who was sitting in the first row of seats directly behind William, acknowledged. There’s a real flurry of activity here.”

“That’s good news,” William’s lawyer said. “We’ll have plenty of character witness to testify on your behalf in this lawsuit.”

The judge asked the attorneys if they were ready to proceed with their opening remarks. The defense attorney started first. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,” he said. “This case may be an emotional one for you to hear, but your job is weigh the evidence in a cool, dispassionate manner. You will see that the accident that injured the plaintiff was caused by his own willful negligence and irrational behavior.”

The lawyer pointed to a police officer in the courtroom. “You’ll also hear from the officer who attempted to collar the plaintiff, only to have the plaintiff, despite having just broken his leg, attempt to flee the scene. There is simply no way anyone in his or her right mind could condone what the plaintiff did or that it was in any way the fault of my client, the defendant.”

Then it was the William’s attorney with the opportunity to address the jury. “My client, this poor, now crippled young man, was simply doing his laundry at the laundromat. He put his clothing in a basket and brought it to the establishment, where he loaded it into the washing machine. As he was waiting for his wash to complete, he climbed into the industrial-sized dryer and asked his friend, Jason, to turn it on. It was at that point that my client sustained the severe fracture to his right femur, rendering him unable to walk without crutches.”

The lawyer moved closer to the jury box, used his finger and thumb to sarcastically mimic playing a tiny violin, and in a stage whisper, said, “The opposing side would have you believe that my client’s actions were reckless and that the owner of the laundromat should not be responsible for my client’s medical expenses plus compensation for pain and suffering. But let me inform that there are no signs or warning labels anywhere in the establishment indicating that patrons should not climb into the machines. So how was poor William to know that doing so would result in personal injury. Thank you.”

The judge shook his head and said, “I’m sorry, but this case is an insult to my court.” He looked directly at William and said, “Son, you’re a jackass and the injuries you sustained were due to your own stupidity. Case dismissed.”

Written for Rachel Poli’s Time To Write Sentence Starter prompt, where the starter is “Look at that!” Also for Paula Light’s Three Things Challenge, where the three things are basket, violin, and lawsuit. And for Teresa’s Opposites Attract prompt, where the opposites are emotional, cool, and dispassionate. And finally, for these daily prompts: Your Daily Word Prompt (flurry, plenty), Word of the Day Challenge (collar), Fandango’s One-Word Challenge (condone), and Ragtag Daily Prompt (laundry).

After Further Consideration

DE80DA90-10E4-4EF2-AE81-66089046DF5DEarlier this morning, in response to Linda G. Hill’s Stream of Consciousness Saturday prompt, I referenced my very first post on this blog. In that post, I referred to myself as “a logical, rational, and reasonable person. I am not ruled by emotions but by facts, observations, and evidence.”

But now, after reading the headlines in my newsfeed, articles in the newspaper, and seeing highlights of Trump’s latest toilet tweets, I realized that what I wrote about how I’m not ruled by emotions is aspirational, not factual. Because when it comes to Donald Trump, my prized rationality is supplanted by unbridled, raw emotions.

I get so angry when I read about his tweets and his behavior that I want to toss my iPhone into the toilet. It takes every bit of self control I can muster to not throw the remote control at the TV each time I see his visage or hear his voice.

And so, for the sake of my own mental and emotional wellbeing, and using every ounce of logic, rationality, and reason I can generate, I have decided to abstain from writing any more posts about Donald Trump.

For the rest of the day, anyway.

Written for today’s Fandango’s One-Word Challenge, “abstain.”