The new album from Torres has finally landed, and in a surprise twist, The Connells show up in this week’s Release Radar.

“Hug From A Dinosaur” is still my favorite track from Thirstier, but “Don’t Go Putting Wishes In My Head” is a close second. Hearing all of the songs together introduces us to several new sides of Torres. This is an album that melds many different sides of rock together, into one unique ball of rock. Grab it now on red and yellow splattered vinyl, and listen to the warmth engulf you.

[embedded content]

As I mentioned, The Connells, of 80s/90s alt-rock fame, have released two new songs this week, “Really Great” and “Steadman’s Wake.” This is an incredible surprise, and a fantastic return to form. The album, titled Steadman’s Wake, is the band’s 9th record and their first in more than 20 years. This is something to look forward to.

[embedded content]

[embedded content]

Coast Modern has just released their sophomore album, Going Mainstream. “Waterfalls” is the second single, and in keeping with those cool vibes, they deliver lively jams that border reggae and island music. Throw in a few rap verses and you have a refreshing take on pop music.

[embedded content]

Man, when I heard the latest song from Grizfolk I had to check to make sure it wasn’t Houndmouth? They might have released their best song yet in “Now That I Know.” As their identity continues to take shape, they are full of surprises, and not afraid to wear their influences on their sleeves.

[embedded content]

Those who read my blog know of my affinity for Murs, and his knack for putting intelligent rap verses together. Marley B. is an artist not previously on my radar, but this combo is a welcome addition. “Love” is a cool tune, playlist-worthy.

[embedded content]

A Jazz Cut Of The Week, you ask? Yes, yes, here it is. A slice of upbeat, swinging fun from Englewood, called “Pineapple.” Hailing from Madison, Wisconsin, Matt Engels, who calls himself a “D-List Internet Music Maker” has been making incredibly catchy “beach music,” as some call it, for years. With each and every release, the beats get tighter and the music gets brighter. Take along some Pineapple on your next road trip!

Subscribe to my blog below.

I certainly won’t say no to a drink when offered. So I took up the offer from Canteen Spirits to try their line of vodka sodas.

Unlike yer White Claw, and other malt beverages, this gets its kick from actual vodka, mixed to 5% abv with sparkling water, then natural fruit flavors. CEO Brandon Cason, got started in marketing for Deep Eddy Vodka, which ran a line of natural fruit-flavored vodkas. He and his partner began making fruit-flavored mixers, according to an interview in Forbes, and the concept took off with the “hard soda” craze. Their product is labeled as having no sugars, carbs or sodium, 99 calories, and gluten free.

[embedded content]

Canteen Spirits Black Cherry

One of the flagships of the line. I’m guessing because that was one of the flavor for which they sent two cans. The first impression I got under the tab was of a Grape Nehi. Okay, a general fruit-flavored soda. It’s a clear, fizzy water pour. Once I got it into the glass, it was more of a black cherry soda smell.

The mouthfeel is a little extra fizzy, like a club soda. It definitely has not much sweetness to it.

Canteen Spirits Watermelon

I have been smushing up watermelon chunks and pouring vodka over them to refreshing effect. So how does it taste pre-made?

Pous clear and fizzy. Watermelon smell is pretty light. Taste is also light watermelon, likely kept modest by the lack of added sugar. I found a splash of Angostura bitters gave it a little more character.

---

More flavors will be discussed here as I get through them. Stay tuned!

Introduction

In the last post, I gave an example of how listening to my gut saved my child’s life. The following is another example of the benefits of trusting my gut. My child may have had speech delays or been labeled had I just followed the first two opinions I received and did not continue to advocate on her behalf.

My Experiences Continued

Her Language

After adopting our daughter in China and bringing her home, several months pass and we could not possibly be more in love. At this point, my daughter is almost two. She is walking, running, playing, giggling, drinking from a cup, loves books, gets excited when we go to the playground where she enjoys the equipment, and developing normally. In other words, our daughter is developing beautifully. BUT, she is not saying any words.

Back to the pediatrician I go. I ask if this could it be due to her hearing or her tonsils (places to start) and could you recommend someone to test her. “Mom, you don’t know Chinese children,” he said, dismissing my concerns. I will never forget that statement.

Basically, he is suggesting I just let her ”grow out of it.” Maybe that would have worked, maybe not. I was NOT willing to take the chance.

So, I ask around and find a center that is highly recommended for testing for language issues. After a day of testing my child (who is a feisty young girl) we were taken into a conference room for the results. To make a long story short, after seeing my little girl their conclusion was that she is mute, and we are too busy to help you.

I remember going home and, after my daughter was settled in an activity, going to a private place to cry. My next reaction was to realize their information was ridiculous. They spent one day with my daughter, how dare they label her with something so conclusive. They did not even give me ideas of where to go next for help. (Maybe she was distracted…. maybe she had a cold…You know, sometimes children do NOT perform with new people).

I decided there was no way I was going to take the word of this center as definitive. I wanted another evaluation and good services. She was going to have services that supported her and were NOT going to be punitive in any way.

I was fortunate, I knew the system. I had her tested and we received an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) that include a speech pathologist who did play therapy at our home. I would have gotten a new doctor, but we were moving.

When we arrived in the new state. The new pediatrician thought it was her tonsils and adenoids. We went to a specialist who concurred it was her tonsils and adenoids.  Once they were out, language developed rapidly.

FYI, my daughter is a young adult now, who speaks beautifully. In fact, no language issues, at all.

By the way, if you are interested in getting an IFSP for your child, the process varies by state. To find out information for your state, do the following search:

I want an IFSP in __________ (Enter your state where the line is.)

Conclusion

My child benefited from my intuition. Parents/ guardians, I suggest you stick to the rule of AT LEAST THREE. If you feel there is something off for your child and you are not getting help, get at least three opinions.

Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs features Steve Boulton,  Chair of the Chicago GOP, who has decades of expertise as a trial lawyer who also handles electoral disputes involving both the courts and Administrative hearings.

The focus of our show with Boulton is on ballot integrity– in terms of the vast difference between the ability of partisan observers to act as watchdogs to prevent fraud in the current, more challenging mail-in and early voting– as opposed to the more traditional one day, in-person voting, which was the dominant custom in America for centuries until the last two decades.

The show airs tonight in Chicago at 8:30 pm and midnight on Cable Ch 21 (CAN TV).

You can also watch the show 24/7 by clicking here.

The show also airs:

— in Aurora this Wednesday & Saturday at 6 pm on Cable Ch 10 and

— in Rockford this Thursday night at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 19

Additionally, the extremely close Presidential elections of 2016 and 2020, documented in detail during our show, has brought into question the legitimacy of the last President and the current one- and the potential impact of election fraud on those and other elections

How much corruption and fraud has there been and is still present in our elections? Is it likely there was a sharp uptick in voter fraud due to the big surge in mail in ballots in 2020?

People who claim there is no evidence of impactful fraud in the last two presidential elections must deal with the facts that there are virtually no state or federal agencies assigned to detect, investigate and prosecute fraud in national elections and that both elections were decided by very narrow margins in three or four battleground states.  

Our show with Boulton was very timely in terms of the U. S. Supreme Court’s July 1, 2021 ruling (Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee) in the very important Arizona voting rights case (filed in 2016) and the DOJ voting rights lawsuit filed on June 25, 2021 against Georgia.    

The Berkowitz- Boulton discussion was taped two days before the Brnovich Supreme Court ruling was issued- rejecting the DNC’s claims that the Arizona election law that significantly curtails ballot harvesting and requires votes cast outside of a voter’s precinct to be discarded was unconstitutional and violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act. 

Attorney Boulton discusses in detail the major differences in fraud detection and prevention between an election as we had in America for centuries where most of the voting occurred on a single day and usually with no voting site alternatives and the current system where the great majority of the voting occurs over an “Election season,” of more than ten days (and some as many as 55 days), includes massive mail in voting and often offers voters multiple voting location choices, with opportunities to vote at drop boxes and curbside in addition to voting at the usual precinct polling facility.   

Because our show discussion anticipated much of the Brnovich decision, it should help viewers understand the Supreme Court’s opinion in that key voting rights case. That includes the implications for how the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to decide similar lawsuits challenging election laws that have been passed in Georgia, Florida and are likely to be passed within the next twelve months in Texas and other states.   

Most Dem Party officials and operatives argue the Georgia and Florida laws are designed to discourage minority voting, are discriminatory against minorities and violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

Others, including the majorities in the Georgia and Florida legislatures and most other Republican Party officials disagree and argue the new election laws are designed to prevent fraud and insure ballot integrity and security. 

The Biden Administration’s DOJ,  in an apparent attempt to beat the release of the Supreme Court opinion in Brnovich and avoid the ackwardness of filing a lawsuit that it knew the basis of which was contradicted by a very recent Supreme Court opinion, filed its lawsuit on June 25, 2021 against Georgia arguing on similar grounds to those argued by the DNC in its 2016 lawsuit involving Arizona that the new Georgia election law violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

DOJ knew the ruling in the Arizona case was imminent and it also knew the Supreme Court would likely rule in a manner contrary to the DOJ’s legal position in the lawsuit it filed against Georgia in Federal Court about a week before the Court’s ruling. 

Georgia will of course argue its law was constitutional and not illegal, in part because Georgia has a compelling need to prohibit voter fraud and moreover, the law had neither a racially discriminatory intent nor effect, all of which the Supreme Court found in its decision on July 1 holding the Arizona law (similar to that of Georgia on voting) constitutional.  

We explore the above and other related issues with Boulton, an expert in voting laws, voting regulations and voting practices, and we provide a foundation for understanding some of the likely benign motivations of the Georgia legislators- as the Arizona law was found by the Supremes to be benign, i.e., not motivated by a racially discriminatory intent and it also did not have an illegal racially discriminatory impact.