How to Make a Traditionally British Seaside Knickerbocker Glory

TV celebrity chefs and other famous cooks have provided recipes for various upmarket versions of this old favourite, originally imported from New York,  with which to amaze and delight guests at dinner parties but the old traditional British seaside treat has a recipe which goes something like the one  given below. Try it one day and you evoke the smells and tastes of 1960s swinging Britain when the Beatles were oh, so fab, and Thunderbirds were Go! As well as FAB!

Oh you’ll  need a tall sundae glass and a long-handled spoon.


    Some made up raspberry jelly    Some vanilla ice cream    Some raspberry sauce    A tin of fruit salad    Some whipped cream    Some hundreds and thousands    A couple of glace cherries


    Put a layer of jelly in the bottom of a tall sundae glass    Add a layer of drained fruit salad    Add a layer of ice cream    Add another layer of jelly    Another layer of fruit salad    Another layer of ice cream    Top with the whipped cream, add a squirt of raspberry sauce, sprinkle with hundreds and thousands and top with the halved glace cherries.

The Glorious British Knickerbocker Glory Ice Cream Sundae - Elaine M. Findlay The Glorious British Knickerbocker Glory Ice Cream Sundae – Elaine M. Findlay


Ben Bradlee on the Cain accusations: “I think he’s got it coming to him, doesn’t he?”

Via the Daily Caller, I watched this early this morning and still can’t figure out why he’d say it. Is he … joking? Mistaking Cain for someone who has a proven track record of harassment? Simply wishing ill upon the Republican demon du jour? Or is there another explanation?

On the one hand, he’s 90. On the other hand, he seems perfectly lucid. On the other hand, he’s 90. Seriously, what’s this supposed to mean?

You must enable JavaScript to log in or leave comments.

You must be logged in and have JavaScript enabled to post a comment.

Up twinkles: Triumph the Insult Comic Dog joins Occupy Wall Street

To cleanse the palate, it’s long but worth the time. Stick with it at least through the scene with the guy who’s meditating. No bizarre fights between deranged protesters here — just peace, lulz, and drums. So many, many drums.

In trying times like these, it’s a comfort to know that we can all laugh together at Geraldo. Content warning.

You must enable JavaScript to log in or leave comments.

You must be logged in and have JavaScript enabled to post a comment.

Video: Occupiers use kids to block DC Convention Center

Isn’t it great when families get together for quality time? Take a break from TV and game consoles and go out together for a fun evening, like strolling through the park, going to the zoo, or … blocking doors at political events? Stephen Gutowski found the toddler shields deployed at Occupy DC, and wondered what idiot would put two small children in harm’s way.

Meet Mom and a few of her friends:

Stephen reports that only one protester even questioned the decision to put children near the door — and she told Stephen that she probably shouldn’t give an interview. Everyone else insisted in loud and nearly incoherent voices that the AFP conference that took place was victimizing the children, and not Mom and the rest of the protesters that put them in the middle of a security scuffle. According to a later e-mail I got from Stephen, one DC street also started victimizing these same children, so our candidate for Mother of the Year put them in the middle of a blockade of the street.

John Hinderaker and Stacy McCain have more video from the AFP “Defending the American Dream” conference that Occupy DC targeted yesterday that shows the scope of the danger in which these toddlers were placed — danger, it must be noted, that came entirely from the Occupiers themselves.  Ed Frank looks at it from a different perspective in an interview he did with a wheelchair-bound woman who could not exit the convention center because Occupiers were blocking the exit:

The protesters are yelling, “This is what democracy looks like!”, but that’s absurd. There is a very big difference between democracy and mob rule, as the interview subject tells Frank. This is an attempt by a small coterie of radicals to silence free speech and free association through intimidation and threats of violence. Occupiers had every right to picket on the sidewalks; they have no right to block ingress or egress to the building.

And one has to wonder where the fire marshal was when this took place. Blocking egress from a building is a fire hazard, and had the DC Convention Center left construction materials in front of that door even for a short period of time, the facility would have faced fines and no small amount of shaming from the FD.  That made this a matter for the city’s police and fire departments, not for security around the facility.  If a fire had started in the building, there would have been a whole lot of people injured at those exits, including the two toddlers that Mommy Dearest apparently hopes to martyr for the cause.

You must enable JavaScript to log in or leave comments.

You must be logged in and have JavaScript enabled to post a comment.

Cain: I’m the Koch brothers’ brother from another mother

Via Mediaite, the perfect ending to a week his campaign spent trying to warn people about resisting media narratives. Even if he were guilty of harassment, I think this soundbite would still annoy the left more.

Here’s the Times article he mentions, which is boring yet useful as a preview of Democratic messaging in case Cain does somehow win the nomination. He, Mark Block, and a few other campaign advisors have been affiliated with Americans for Prosperity over the years (this clip comes from today’s AFP American Dream Summit), so Obama and the DNC have at least three talking points right off the bat. In order from dumbest/laziest to least dumb and lazy: (1) Cain knows and likes two prominent members of the one percent and, well, that’s just ain’t right; (2) if he’s tapped into AFP, Cain’s not nearly as much of an “outsider” as he’d have you believe (the NYT helpfully includes this point overtly in its article lest the reader miss it); and (3) Cain’s inexperience will lead him to be dominated by special interests like “the Kochtopus” (but unlike labor!) if he’s elected president. Frankly, if all they want to do is energize liberals, they don’t even need to bother with talking points. All they have to do is mention “the Koch brothers” in the same sentence as Cain and let the Pavlovian fear and loathing work its magic on the progressive base. We all need an evil billionaire Soros-ian supervillain to fuel our political narratives, my friends. Here’s Cain having fun by embracing the left’s Lex Luthor.

You must enable JavaScript to log in or leave comments.

You must be logged in and have JavaScript enabled to post a comment.

Pelosi: Unemployment would be 15 percent were it not for us

She cites no study, provides no evidence, but baldly makes the claim: If President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats had not passed the $825 billion stimulus bill in February of 2009, unemployment today would be 15 percent.

“I think it’s really important to know that President Obama was a job creator from day one,” [Nancy] Pelosi said at her Thursday briefing. ”Now, was the ditch that we were in so deep that when you’re talking to people and they still don’t have a job, that that’s any consolation to them?  No.

“But I’ll tell you this,” said Pelosi, “if President Obama and the House congressional Democrats had not acted, we would be at 15 percent unemployment. Again, no consolation to those without a job, but an important point to make.”

Here’s an equally important point to make, Ms. Pelosi: The official unemployment rate might stand at 9.0 percent — but that doesn’t mean actual unemployment isn’t even greater than that. In fact, factor in underemployment and marginal attachment and the figure is 16.2 percent.

Beyond that, a CBO report belies Pelosi’s generous assessment of the effects of the stimulus.

A report published by the Congressional Budget Office in August estimated that in the fourth quarter of 2011, the stimulus signed by President Obama in 2009 would have the impact of reducing the national unemployment rate between 0.3 points to 1.1 points from what it otherwise would have been.

If Pelosi thinks (9.0 + 0.3 = 15) or (9.0 + 1.1 = 15), she must have as much trouble with math as Obama does. According to that report, the best Pelosi could claim is that, without the stimulus, unemployment might have been somewhere in the range of 9.3 percent or 10.1 percent.

Today’s jobless numbers are “not good news” for the Obama administration, no matter how he and his supporters exaggerate his impact. The unemployment rate might not be a surefire predictor for the success or failure of a reelection effort, but high unemployment doesn’t exactly make voters happy with the administration. Furthermore, unemployment acts as a drag on the economy — and economic growth as measured by GDP is a reasonable predictor of reelection. Twelve months of stagnation won’t serve Obama (or really any incumbent) well. And as Ed has pointed out repeatedly this morning, the number of jobs added barely keeps pace with population growth — and makes no dent in the backlog of the 14 million unemployed.

You must enable JavaScript to log in or leave comments.

You must be logged in and have JavaScript enabled to post a comment.

Great news: Pakistani intel driving around in lightly defended vehicles in traffic with nuclear weapons

Something light from Jeffrey Goldberg and Marc Ambinder to start the weekend on an upbeat note.

One method the SPD uses to ensure the safety of its nuclear weapons is to move them among the 15 or more facilities that handle them. Nuclear weapons must go to the shop for occasional maintenance, and so they must be moved to suitably equipped facilities, but Pakistan is also said to move them about the country in an attempt to keep American and Indian intelligence agencies guessing about their locations.

Nuclear-weapons components are sometimes moved by helicopter and sometimes moved over roads. And instead of moving nuclear material in armored, well-defended convoys, the SPD prefers to move material by subterfuge, in civilian-style vehicles without noticeable defenses, in the regular flow of traffic. According to both Pakistani and American sources, vans with a modest security profile are sometimes the preferred conveyance. And according to a senior U.S. intelligence official, the Pakistanis have begun using this low-security method to transfer not merely the “de-mated” component nuclear parts but “mated” nuclear weapons. Western nuclear experts have feared that Pakistan is building small, “tactical” nuclear weapons for quick deployment on the battlefield. In fact, not only is Pakistan building these devices, it is also now moving them over roads.

What this means, in essence, is this: In a country that is home to the harshest variants of Muslim fundamentalism, and to the headquarters of the organizations that espouse these extremist ideologies, including al-Qaeda, the Haqqani network, and Lashkar-e-Taiba (which conducted the devastating terror attacks on Mumbai three years ago that killed nearly 200 civilians), nuclear bombs capable of destroying entire cities are transported in delivery vans on congested and dangerous roads. And Pakistani and American sources say that since the raid on Abbottabad, the Pakistanis have provoked anxiety inside the Pentagon by increasing the pace of these movements. In other words, the Pakistani government is willing to make its nuclear weapons more vulnerable to theft by jihadists simply to hide them from the United States, the country that funds much of its military budget.

That’s the tastiest morsel from a long, horrifying piece chronicling 20 years of Pakistani paranoia, treachery, and jihadism. The big takeaways aren’t surprising: It isn’t “rogue” elements of ISI that support terrorism, it’s the whole establishment; our “alliance” is a complete fraud held together by mutual fear of what would happen if it collapsed; as Pakistani society slowly crumbles, their nuclear deterrent becomes more important to them as a matter of national pride and as a sword/shield against India, etc. If you follow news about Pakistan, you learned those lessons long ago and re-learn them every week. Case in point: If you missed it last month, enjoy this NYT report on rockets being fired at U.S. troops in Afghanistan from across the border in Pakistan over the past six months — coincidentally, ever since the Bin Laden raid that embarrassed our “ally” so much. Ten days later after it was published, a U.S. general accused Pakistani foot soldiers in the area of either looking the other way at jihadis firing the rockets or outright collaborating with them in the attacks. If that story’s not to your taste, try this one from a few days ago about leaders of the Haqqani network — the single most dangerous jihadist outfit in Afghanistan — moving freely about Pakistan with ISI’s blessing, even to the point of visiting military facilities in Rawalpindi. (And yet they’d have you believe they didn’t know where Bin Laden was.) Pakistani hostility isn’t an open secret anymore; it’s simply not secret at all in any meaningful sense.

Why read the Goldberg/Ambinder piece, then, when you already know all this stuff? Well, for details like this. What happens if there’s a coup or the army fractures and suddenly Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is in play? Quote:

JSOC [U.S. Special Operations Command] would take the lead, however, accompanied by civilian experts, and has been training for such an operation for years. JSOC forces are trained to breach the inner perimeters of nuclear installations, and then to find, secure, evacuate—or, if that’s not possible, to “render safe”—any live weapons. At the Nevada National Security Site, northwest of Las Vegas, Delta Force and SEAL Team Six squadrons practice “Deep Underground Shelter” penetrations, using extremely sensitive radiological detection devices that can pick up trace amounts of nuclear material and help Special Operations locate the precise spot where the fissile material is stored. JSOC has also built mock Pashtun villages, complete with hidden mock nuclear-storage depots, at a training facility on the East Coast, so SEALs and Delta Force operatives can practice there.

At the same time American military and intelligence forces have been training in the U.S for such a disablement campaign, they have also been quietly pre-positioning the necessary equipment in the region. In the event of a coup, U.S. forces would rush into the country, crossing borders, rappelling down from helicopters, and parachuting out of airplanes, so they could begin securing known or suspected nuclear-storage sites. According to the former senior Special Operations planner, JSOC units’ first tasks might be to disable tactical nuclear weapons—because those are more easily mated, and easier to move around, than long-range missiles.

In a larger disablement campaign, the U.S. would likely mobilize the Army’s 20th Support Command, whose Nuclear Disablement Teams would accompany Special Operations detachments or Marine companies into the country. These teams are trained to engage in what the military delicately calls “sensitive site exploitation operations on nuclear sites”—meaning that they can destroy a nuclear weapon without setting it off. Generally, a mated nuclear warhead can be deactivated when its trigger mechanism is disabled—and so both the Army teams and JSOC units train extensively on the types of trigger mechanisms that Pakistani weapons are thought to use. According to some scenarios developed by American war planners, after as many weapons as possible were disabled and as much fissile material as possible was secured, U.S. troops would evacuate quickly—because the final stage of the plan involves precision missile strikes on nuclear bunkers, using special “hard and deeply buried target” munitions.

Just one minor problem with this strategy: Pakistan knows we have standby plans to seize their arsenal if things turn desperate, which is why they’ve resorted to insane tactics like driving operational nukes around in civilian vehicles and, of course, why they’ve been ramping up production of their nuclear trump card for the past two years. They’d rather risk a catastrophic accident or the atomic version of the great train robbery by Al Qaeda than lose face by letting the U.S. know where its nukes are — which, ironically, only increases the odds of an emergency that’ll require American intervention. (The fact that this cat-and-mouse game is already being played explains why, I assume, Goldberg and Ambinder felt free to delve into detail. They’re not telling either side here anything it doesn’t already know; in fact, I wonder if U.S. intel deliberately outed Pakistan’s reckless transport of “mated” nukes to force them to take greater precautions.)

So what’s our next move in dealing with a paranoiac armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons? Why, there is no next move: Goldberg and Ambinder conclude, correctly, that the only option is to maintain the “alliance” and keep U.S. military aid flowing since that gives us marginally more leverage in averting disaster than we’d otherwise have. Imagine a lunatic wired with a bomb who’s holding a bunch of people hostage. You’ve got only two options — either shoot him or, if you can’t do that, keep talking talking talking and hope that eventually his attitude changes. That’s the only way to understand our surreal new strategy of inviting ISI to join peace talks in Afghanistan while simultaneously accusing them of sponsoring terrorists. Exit question: It seems taken as a given on our side that a nuclear Iran would be the most dangerous country in the world. But why? Pakistan is filthy with jihadists too, they’ve already got a huge stockpile of weapons, and their command and control seems much dicier than the Revolutionary Guard’s. And needless to say, if Iran’s regime crumbles, we won’t have to worry as much about what replaces it the way we do with Pakistan.

You must enable JavaScript to log in or leave comments.

You must be logged in and have JavaScript enabled to post a comment.