I recently purchased a great tasting Chai drink from a local store but didn't like the aftertaste it left, (made with soy milk), or the cost, ($5.00 a bottle), so I decided to create my own and do it using a raw cashew milk since I am trying to convert to raw recipes, (no, not raw meat and I don't recommend it).

Cashews make a wonderful creamy milk.  I started by filling my blender with 20 ounces of water.  Next I added 1/2 cup of raw cashews.  Next I added one chai tea bag, (cut the end open and pour out the tea ingredients of the bag into the blender and discard the paper). I used "Celestial Seasonings Teahouse Chai," but you can use any you prefer. Add 1/2 to 3/4 cup of agave nectar, ( or equivalent honey, cane sugar, or regular table sugar, depending on your tastes and how sweet you want it).  I used agave nectar because it has a lower glycemic index than sugar or honey. After initial blending, add water to bring the volume in the blender to 32 ounces.

Other options are using other types of milk; almond milk, sesame milk, etc.  I do not know how these would taste but cashews do great as a milk.  Also, you can use 3/4- 1 cup of cashews if you really want it creamy.  It cost me aproximately  $.75 per 32 ounce jar.  Since I prefer to mix the milk out of the jar with fifty-percent water I get 64 ounces out of a batch,  but you could drink it straight as blended for a creamier mix.  I also use a commercial blender so you may have to filter the final product if you do not have a commercial blender.

be forwarned, raw cashew milk doesn't last long, even refrigerated, (about 2-3 days at the most), so drink it up!  Here's a summary of what you need.

1 decent blender
1 32 ounce jar or container
1 chai teabag, cut at the end and poured into the blender
1/2 to 3/4 cup raw cashews
1/2 to 3/4 cup agave nectar, (or equivalent in honey or sugar to taste).
20 ounces of water for the initial blend, (and remainder to bring volume to 32 ounces once blended).

One of the things I like is music I grew up with.  My dad had a couple of albums by "Mercury" that he listened to when I as a kid.  They were some of the earliest "stereo" recordings at the time, and of course, listening to them on cheap record players I never really appreciated their sound with all the "pops" and scratches.

I've always liked classical music, I picked that up from my dad who also loved it.  He went to a music conservatory for a year and could have been a concert pianist and was recommended to do so.  I believe it was WWII that changed that for him.  In any case, he loved music in general, and I can remember him listening, sometimes for hours to music.

With the advent of CD I moved away from record albums to some extent.  I have found a few over the years in mint condition and have committed to copying them from my turntable to a digital format to listen to.  I still have a few of my dad's records but don't play them because they wore out a long time ago.  Some I have replaced with newer copies on CD and some with mint recordings I have found along the way.

I believe it was five years ago when I saw my first cd copy of the old Mercury Records recordings they had begun committing to cd.  They had been out for a couple of years unknown to me. It was a copy in our library that I checked out.  I had remembered them sounding pretty good but was really amazed at hearing them in the digital format.  It sounded more full and rich with clearer highs, full bodied bass, and cleaner sound than many of my cd's with recordings made completely digital from original recording to finished cd.  I could hear distinct separations of instrments in the listening field and their placements in the orchestra.



Mercury Records began making stereo recordings in the early fifties using a state of the art process for them.  They used only three microphones and recorded it to a three channel recorder built just for this purpose.  Many of the recordings were practiced but recorded in just one take.  They began using 1/2 inch magnetic tape, (1/4inch magnetic tape was used for the old 8 track, reel to reel, and 1/8 inch for cassettes).  Later, they advance to 35mm film stock because of it's lower noise and more consistant recording.  The use of the three strategically placed microphones produced a more realistic sound but unlike today's recordings, once the sound was committed to tape it couldn't be mixed and altered as thoroughly as today's recordings with their sixteen, twenty-four, and thirty-two track recording consoles.  But their straight forward clarity and warmth keeps me listening to them.  I hope to increase my library of them.  On the same note, the RCA "Living Stereo" Recordings from around the same time period were done in a similar fashion and have a larger library available, (60 recordings), that have been given the same sort of quality treatment if you want to try some of those too.  I particularly like the Mario Lanza recording and the Boston Pops recordings.






If you want to listen to some great timeless recordings from a by-gone day, these are the ones to listen to.

• Better detail in images
• No dust
• More pictures “turn out” and those that don't you just delete.
• No waiting to see your pictures. Just view them at the store kiosk, on your computer, online, or in a photo frame.
• No negatives to store. Store hundreds on cd or thousands on dvd and blu-ray discs.
• No need to take them to store for printing at all if you keep a quality printer and don't mind the higher cost of printing yourself
• Send them for printing over the internet from where ever you are. No need to drive to the store twice.
• Reduced cost for the printing industry. No need to keep a film developing machine or film scanner. Now you can make money just printing the photos.
• Don't have to worry about keeping film chemistry fresh of risk ruining someones negatives.
  
  
  Let's face it, even the cheapest digital camera pictures look better that the old 110, 127, and 35mm prints from the cheap consumer camera of the past.