The Naked Rib Smokehouse - Manvel, TX




Bobby Flay promoted Thelma's in downtown Houston on a recent FoodTv broadcast. Reading the customer reviews at B4-U-EAT.COM revealed that unless you want to wait at least 30 minutes for your meal and have it served by "persons with attitude," don't go to Thelma's. One review emphatically suggested The Naked Rib in Manvel for not only great BBQ, but also polite service.

PajamaGal & I were GeoCaching (unsuccessfully) when lunchtime came so I punched "The Naked Rib" into the GPS and 20 miles (and a lot of cross-lots turns) later, we arrived.

One of the Mary's (not Hart) was behind the counter and most helpfully explained the choices. I had the 2-meat platter (sausage & brisket), while PajamaGal opted for ½ pound of pork ribs and a side of coleslaw. Two sides came with the platter so I chose the slaw and the pinto beans. Adding a lite beer, a diet coke, and two bucks tip totally ruined a $20 bill. From the time we pulled into the parking lot to the first bite took all of 12 minutes.

It was all great! Mary came over to our table 5 minutes after we sat down and advised me not to eat the beans - she'd tasted them and found them a bit too salty and had a fresh batch heating up which were delivered them a few minutes later.

Yes we'll go back; yes we'll recommend it. And on the 1st Saturday of each month, they host a car show and have a live band (6:00 pm).

PajamaGal is a "GeoCacher"

Our first foray into the hobby of GeoCaching!

Mutton Bustin'

Mud Volleyball

"The court shall consist of a net and genuine Pasadena mud, 60’ x 30’."

It was 94° - and PajamaGal begged me to let her play. I would have, but this wasn't open-play, these teams had spent $145 each to enter - this was a real competition!

Strawberry Shortcake .......... NOT!

.
I should have taken a picture but my $2.00 purchase hit the garbage can faster than I could say "Click!"

Right inside the Crafts building they were selling samples of Strawberry Shortcake for 2 bucks each. Looking through the clear plastic snap-top tubs, I thought the color of the strawberry topping was just a tad too pink - not the deep red of a ripe strawberry. I bought it anyway - I mean this WAS the official 32nd Annual Pasadena Strawberry Festival!

Once we got the temperature inside the car below 100° (it was 94° on the midway), PajamaGal couldn't wait any longer. We're doing the South Beach/Atkins thing and don't eat any cake, cookies, etc.

She almost threw-up. It was the candy-like goo that could be classified only as something for the under-10 age group. And it wasn't shortcake - it was store-bought pound cake. YUK!

...when even Garfield is on to them

Poor Saddam

If the American military is found to have any part in the Sun obtaining and printing the Saddam pictures, the MSM will be all over it! MSM is going to be outraged more to a few snapshots of poor Saddam in his Jockey shorts than they were to the videos he made of his friends raping, torturing, and murdering innocent civilians.

And that’s a sad thing.

Filibuster – or – “It’s my baseball and I’m taking it home!”

The word "filibuster" comes from the Dutch word meaning "pirate.” Members of the U.S. Senate have pirated debate for as long as the institution has existed. Initially, House members were permitted to filibuster as well, but their growing numbers soon made the practice inadvisable. In 1872, Vice President Schuyler Colfax struck a blow against the expeditious handling of Senate business with his ruling that “under the practice of the Senate the presiding officer could not restrain a Senator in remarks which the Senator considers pertinent to the pending issue.”

In the Senate, unlimited debate was permitted until 1917, when President Woodrow Wilson suggested the Senate adopt a new rule: a two-thirds vote (67 members) would close down ("cloture") a filibuster. In 1975, the required vote count was reduced to three-fifths (or 60 members).

Republicans also have threatened to request a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian that Senate rules make filibusters on judicial nominations illegal. A parliamentarian's ruling can be upheld by a simple majority of senators.

Their reasoning will be that the federal constitution requires that the president makes such nominations "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" and that that means an up or down majority vote by the full senate.

That plan is referred to by both parties as a "nuclear option.” Democrats say it would blow up the Senate's collegiality and force them to bring all action to a halt. They also say that reasoning is bullshit and no one believes it, including Vice President Cheney.

“Collegiality” - A term used to represent a situation in which colleagues share equally in power and authority. Colleagues are those explicitly united in a common purpose and respecting each other's abilities to work toward that purpose. Thus, the word collegiality can connote respect for another's commitment to the common purpose and ability to work toward it.

O.k., the filibuster was started so that each colleague would have his chance to voice his thoughts, pertinent to the pending issue. Both sides are guilty of not following the intent of the action. But will anyone deny that stalling an action indefinitely by talking about any subject ad infinitum was not the intent Vice President Colfax had in 1872. (During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers.")

All senators have an equal vote when there’s a floor vote and the majority tally of the votes cast decides the issue. There are exactly 100 senators for a reason. In the Senate, each state gets equal representation. The system was designed to reflect the will of the majority of the senators; not the states, not the population, and not the political parties. MAJORITY – one more than 50% of the votes cast. And it was intended there be 3 “classes,” one-third of the population to be elected to 6-year terms every 2 years.

Although I’d employ every legal means available to me to win my point, I’d just not feel right about reading Shakespeare for hours on end so I could prevent 99 other colleagues from doing their job. Their job is to decide issues by voting isn’t it? So, I really wouldn’t feel too bad if there was a time limit placed upon my orations, or if 1-more-than-50% of my colleagues in attendance told me to sit down and shut up after I’d been given a reasonable amount of time to say my piece.

The guys who wrote our Constitution were a pretty smart group; we haven’t had to make too many changes. I accept that the rules say our President appoints folks to different jobs and the Senate is supposed to agree or disagree. They’re not supposed to hide behind a rule that was created for an altogether different, and legitimate purpose and using it as a loophole, refuse to do their jobs. And I really bristle when the minority throws a tantrum and threatens to “bring all action to a halt” if they don’t get their way. Kind of like the brat who takes home the only baseball because his team is losing.

The public has a right to know! Sez who?

I have to ask a question ...

Suppose:

1. It was/is true, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that some American military personnel did, in fact, flush a copy of the Koran down a toilet.
   
   - and -
   
2. It was also known for sure that if that fact was to come out, in a public light, that there would be anti-American rioting and that 16 people would die.
   

Knowing the above, would Newsweek publish the story? Should they publish? What would the American people say?