#jiggery-pokery

[th3rsher]

my aziraphale fanart (+close ups)

[scriptmedic]

Hi! First, I want you to know I absolutely love this blog. It's super helpful! Anyway, I wrote an ask in November, but I'm assuming tumblr ate it. So here is it: I have a character who has burning hot pokers/nails purposely thrust into his eyes to blind him. I was wondering what this would entail. Would the skin around the eyes be burned? What would his eyes look like afterwards (is it possible any of the eye is left)? Could this cause brain/nerve damage other than rendering him blind?

Content warnings: Burns, eyeball injuries, infections, precious bodily fluids

Oh my gods. I’m so, so sorry for your delay! And I feel even guiltier because Oscar the Grouch is my absolute favorite character and I let him down. Seriously, I love your avatar.

Okay, enough fangirling! THE BUSINESS BEGINS NOW!

I’m EXTREMELY GRATEFUL for the fact that my image search came up with 0 actual images of eyes burned with hot pokers (the things we do for love!) and my PubMed search came up with no case reports or publications of any kind, so we’re in kind of open territory: do what feels right and what feels real.

The skin around the eyes would definitely be burned, because I don’t know of anyone cruel enough to poke someone’s eyes out with a hot poker and yet “kind” enough to try to spare the surrounding tissue, so as the victim struggles, the poker will likely sear the surrounding flesh.

I don’t exactly have a data set on “individuals with eyes burned out by a hot iron”, but I would imagine that the eye itself is mostly gone. They can melt and rupture, and whether that’s “true” or not, it’s believable. Also understand that the rest of the orbital cavity (eye socket) will likely sear from the heat, so at first there may be swollen tissue that almost... fills the void where the eye used to be?

Also, this person is going to have either no, or severely damaged, eyelids, because of the obvious NO DON’T ENUCLEATE ME WITH A HOT POKER PLEASE reaction is to clamp your eyes shut like there are monsters in the bedroom.

As for nerve or brain damage... my gut instinct says that it’s possible but not probable. But again... no case reports. If you need your character to be brain damaged it’s not impossible that some of the brain cooked a bit, but otherwise, from a storytelling perspective, I’d leave it.

Oh, one other thing... infection. We need to talk about infection, and pus, and eyeballs weeping pus, because infections after burns are very very common (was it a clean and sterile hot poker, we ask ourselves?). Likely not. So the tissue that remains in either eyesocket is massively inflamed, and it will probably get infected. And that infection will likely involve pus, and it will hurt, and they will likely try to rub their eye or do SOMETHING for the pain, and then we have a sad panda day where they rupture an abscess, and there’s just.... all the pus running down their cheeks. They’re crying pus, is what I’m saying. Pustulent tears.

I think that about wraps it all up on the negative eyeball/poker interaction -slas- thermal enucleation front. I’m sorry that you waited so long for this jiggery-pokery.

Yeah, I went there. You knew I had to go there.

Anyway, I hope the wait was worth it.

xoxo, Aunt Scripty

disclaimer    

Becoming a Patron lets you see the freaking future. Have youconsidered becoming a clairvoyant?

FreeeBook: 10 BS “Medical” Tropes that Need to Die TODAY!  

[oselatra]

Jiggery-pokery

I call jiggery-pokery on the latest column from Sen. John Boozman to constituents entitled "Combating Zika."

Jiggery-pokery

I call jiggery-pokery on the latest column from Sen. John Boozman to constituents entitled "Combating Zika." This term was famously used by the late Justice Antonin Scalia to express his frustrations with the Affordable Care Act, and I believe that it more aptly describes the Republican's explanation for the failure of Congress to pass the Zika Spending Bill. Just what is jiggery-pokery? Jiggery-pokery is deceitful or dishonest behavior. In his latest bit of crafted propaganda aimed at the Arkansas voter, Sen. Boozman denies any culpability for the failure of this bill to pass. He excuses himself and his beloved Republican Party from any of the devastating effects that a lack of government action in the form of much need federal funding will have on potentially countless unborn American babies. According to the senator, "Senate Democrats played politics with this bill, putting Americans at risk." Who is really playing politics, though, and why was the Zika Spending Bill blocked by Senate Democrats? Could it be that Senate Republicans insisted on excluding funding for women's health providers such as Planned Parenthood Federation of America? If Republicans really wanted to stop the Zika threat in its tracks, wouldn't they want to provide access to Zika prevention to as many women in as many venues as possible? If politics weren't involved, that would surely be the case.

But, no, the Republican Party is so blinded by its hatred of Planned Parenthood that it decided to put this cut-throat animosity above the well-being of American women and babies. Senator Boozman also seems to miss the fact that he and his Republican colleagues are so blinded by right-wing dogma that they can no longer effectively work with their congressional counterparts to do something useful for the American people. They play an all-or-nothing game where no one but a select few seems to come out ahead. It is extremely clear to me that it is not Democrats but rather Republicans who are playing a dangerous political game.

Sen. Boozman, you need to grow up, get serious about doing your job and quit blaming others for your failure and your party's failure to make effective compromises and sponsor realistic and substantive legislation that will help Americans. Enough is enough. Senator, you are the one playing politics along with your Republican colleagues. It needs to stop. How about taking the lead?

Lynn Calhoun

Morrilton

From the web

In response to the Aug. 25 article, 'This is not your grandfather's America': a Q&A with Little Rock Police Chief Kenton Buckner: 

Let's see: Two officers are working off-duty on private property. Something goes wrong, very wrong. The two officers, working off-duty, have no liability coverage, and therefore have no money for legal counsel in the subsequent federal lawsuit. So the city attorney represents both officers "on his own time," and negotiates a $900,000 payment from the city to clear these off-duty officers in the matter. The city is operating a private security company, taking all the legal liability risks, and collecting not one cent in fees. That's one hell of a business — for the off-duty officers.

Tom Honeycutt

Well Chief, let me attempt an intelligent answer for why you and your officers are wrongheaded about the LRSD.

You say, "The underlying issues that are driving the crime in our city are poverty, low academic achievement, single-parent homes, absentee fathers, substance abuse, mental illness, high unemployment. Now, you tell me, of those things that I just gave you, an officer living in Little Rock, how would it impact that?"

I would respond with only a slight paraphrase: "The underlying issues that are driving the education gap in our city are poverty, high crime home-life, single-parent homes, absentee fathers, substance abuse, mental illness, high unemployment. Now, you tell me, of those things that I just gave you, a different school, how would it impact that?"

He offers a few false-equivalences here. You can say we have a crime problem, but no one is blaming the police for the crime. We have an educational attainment problem, and no one will blame anything BUT the school.

Also, to say, "I support the Second Amendment" to a question about military-style weapons is laughable. That's actually the example one of our textbooks uses to describe the "straw-man" fallacy. I wish you had asked him about civilians having flame-throwers, hand-grenades, etc., and see if there were any lines he would cross on that issue. I don't mean to be unkind, but this is also from a man who couldn't secure his weapons — even with all of his professional training.

Morris

An AR-15 will cut through a bulletproof vest and slice a car like Swiss cheese? Forrest Gump your father? Ignorant Democrat. Typical.

Fred Sanders

Do we have a mass-incarceration problem in this state?

Well, there is a woman's family in Chicago and family of the two nuns in Mississippi who might want more violent criminals locked up, instead on the street.

Runner55k

Jiggery-pokery

[grimbeau]

Hand in...

Hand in…

Sibling rivals, Cupid and Mustard, one thought squid, the other said mustard, after squabbling they made up, image this: frightful flurry rents shark in fetid custard (you get the picture?), all of this in a scarcely rippled paper cup poised precarious on cusp of a toothless Hapsburg jaw. Feeling understandably gimpy thinkings about blood sugar and obese backing sniggers, yet shy and pimply, put…

View On WordPress

[lexiconjure]

jiggery-pokery

n. [mass noun] a form of children consisting of different points in the form of computer synthesis.

@oznogon

[tort-umn]

[thelesbianwidowmaker]

It gives me such pleasure to watch Antonin Scalia throw temper tantrums when he's in the dissenting minority of a SCOTUS ruling, because then he just goes full senile nutbar and starts railing about "legalistic argle-blargle," "interpretive jiggery-pokery," and seems to think "Pure applesauce." constitutes not only a complete thought but a complete sentence.

No, really-- he does.

Basically, what I get out of all this is, “THERE ARE KIDS ON MY LAWN AND I WOULD LIKE FOR THAT NOT TO BE THE CASE.”

[tuttifruttikates]

Coheed and Cambria Sing Justice Scalia's Dissenting Opinions from Funny Or Die?_cc=__dbbb&_ccid=ji8p8i.nqqm8n