California Free Press

Do You Hate Radio and TV Advertising as Much as I Do?

In a recent blog I talked about the advertising on progressive talk radio KLSD AM in San Diego and Air America which I get on XM. I don't mean to single out advertising on progressive talk radio. Let me be clear: I hate all radio and TV advertising. I will do almost anything to get rid of it. The advertising on KLSD and Air America I find particularly obnoxious because I listen to it for so many hours of the day, and there's a lot of it. But there is hope after all. It's a little invention called an ipod. The technology is here today for making advertising a thing of the past for those who hate it like I do. Please notice that this blog is ad free!

The talk show hosts I listen to on Air America and KLSD are Thom Hartmann  and Randi Rhodes. I used to also listen to AL Francken and I even enjoyed Jerry Springer when he was on, but I guess after he went on Dancing with the Stars, he was not considered to have the gravitas for progressive talk. The one host I don't like at all is Big Eddie Schultz. I think he is a big blow hard, trying to be the left wing's answer to Rush Limbaugh. He has one of those deep, resonant fat man's radio voices like Limbaugh whom I detest and what's more he doesn't really know his stuff, he treats his callers rudely cutting them off in mid-sentence, touts himself as being the best thing on talk radio and trys to make himself out to be an ordinary average American who "hoists a few cool ones" and throws a football around and does what he thinks are average white guy middle class family activities. On the other hand Thom Hartmann and Randi Rhodes know their stuff, treat their callers reasonably well, and I always learn something from them that I didn't know before. I don't agree with them on everything. Thom Hartmann has a much nobler view of human nature than I do, but then I've been around the planet longer than he has. Randi Rhodes sometimes goes off the deep end or rattles on about inconsequential stuff, but she's always entertaining which says a lot for a political talk junkie but then Bill Maher also pulls it off well. By the way you can also download his show on HBO from itunes for free, and you can cancel your subscription to HBO. This will actually save you money.

But I digress. I mentioned in the recent post about the protest at Clear Channel (regarding taking political talk off the air) that I would gladly pay to get rid of the advertising and guess what? You can download both the Randi Rhodes and Thom Hartmann shows as podcasts from itunes and they are both absolutely free. No ads and free podcasts that I would gladly pay for...wheweee...it's my lucky day. Of course, the free part may not last forever. But there are also a lot of other shows for which I was suffering through the commercials like Meet the Press which can be downloaded sans ads from itunes. This is the wave of the future and one which I wholeheartedly support. I'm learning to love technology especially technology that puts advertisers out of business. No more ads for Lipitor and Restless Leg Syndrome on Meet the Press which advertisers obviously think is only watched by old people. No more ads for "Viva Viagra", Cialis and Levitra which attempt to get men into a psychological state of dependency before they can even think of having sex. No more insults to my intelligence. And with all the money corporations can save when they realize no one is listening to or watching their ads, why they could actually reduce prices or give their employees a raise. Think of that!

Of course, the VCR and TiVo have done wonders for allowing people to fast forward through ads. Most everything I watch on TV I pre-record so I can skip the ads. But there is even better news on the horizon. Eventually, you'll be able to download over the internet only those shows you're interested in watching. For me personally, most of the stuff on cable or satellite isn't worth watching. I don't watch sit-coms, soap operas, spectator sports or violent movies. I do watch the Science Channel, KPBS, the History Channel, the Travel Channel somewhat and Turner Classic Movies (ad free, thank you!). I'm disappointed in the Arts and Entertainment Channel which started out notably enough but has sold out to crime shows. So why do I have to pay for a whole bunch of channels I don't really like or watch? It's all about the money, but Cox Cable and the like will eventually lose because already companies like Vongo let you download movies and over time tons of content will be available for downloading if not streaming. That'll be the day when the internet, not cable, satellite or the phone line will be my delivery vehicle of choice. So downloading - both audio and video - is the wave of the future, and I wouldn't mind even paying in order to rid myself of advertising forever and to get only the content I want.

After all there is no real need for advertising any more. It's one of the most pernicious aspects of the whole American society. Why? Because it seeks to persuade you, not to inform you, and it usually does so by lying to you. For instance, on KLSD Progressive Talk there is an ad for Loral Langemeier. This gal comes on saying she has 16 investment properties, an L Corp, a C Corp and an LLC Corp and it's all due to Loral Langemeier  who is interested in "helping" motivated people escape their 9 to 5 jobs. One guy just made $300,000 in a month thanks to Loral Langemeier and another lady comes on who says "I just had to work with this lady." Now all Loral Langemeier wants to do is to send you a free CD which tells you how you can make all this money too. All you have to do is pay for shipping and handling. OK, let's stop for a reality check. Do you really believe that Loral Langemeier is paying good money for a radio ad in order to give you something for free which is going to tell you how to make fantastic money? Heck, no. Loral wants to sell you something and the free CD is just an enticement. Once she has your information (which you will have to give her in order to get the free CD) her sales staff will go to work on you selling whatever else it is Loral is selling. Of course she probably even makes money on the free CD via the shipping and handling charge. Of course, she never says what that is. Her handlers probably make really good money.

Another guy, Hayes Barnard, would have you believe that all he wants to do is "save his neighbors money" via his mortgage company, Paramount Mortgage. Here's the direct quote from his web site: "Hayes is committed to continually searching for new ways to save our neighbors money." Of course, all Hayes is committed to is making money himself and if he saves his neighbors money, well that's just incidental. All he wants is to get you to call him, then his sales staff can go to work on you. Advertising is deceptive! You have to analyze it to understand what is really going on. Rule Number 1: No one is coming on the radio and paying money for the ad who just wants to help you out in such a way that there is nothing in it for they, themselves. But this is what they would have you believe. Rule Number 2: No one is going to pay good money for a radio ad in order to give you something for free unless there is something in it for them, and it's usually to get you on the hook in order to sell you something. They should be teaching this stuff in school. But that, I suppose, would be unAmerican. Wake up, and smell the coffee!

Secondly, there is no need for advertising because you can find out anything you want to know about any product or service and even get opinions, ratings, reviews and price comparisons via the internet. Such sites as epinions and PriceGrabber.com will educate you as a consumer and get you the best price without any need for advertising. This should be taught in all the schools: How to use the internet to be an intelligent consumer and not fall prey to advertisers. The pharmaceutical companies are going all out to make a nation of hypochondriacs out of us. They want you to "ask your doctor" about this drug and that one until you're entirely dependent on prescription drugs to get you through the day and the night. It's pernicious. Now they're selling political candidates via TV ads. They're even selling the Iraq war through ads. Think of Reagan's "It's Morning Again in America" TV ad campaign. Think of the "Willie Horton" ad campaign for which Lee Atwater apologized but only on his death bed. Not to mention John Kerry windsurfing, flip flopping this way and that or the Swift Boat ads. Hey another campaign season is coming up. You can bet your bippy that Hillary or Obama or John Edwards will be swift boated or they will get footage akin to Dukakis riding around in a tank with an ill-fitting helmet on packaged into a negative ad. 

So you see, I hate advertising whether it's prescription drugs, political campaigns, Kerr Magee (I'm not in the market for an oil rig). But there's also hope on the horizon. There are anti-ad devices like VCRs, TiVos and ipods. You can get the same content sans ads. Some day you will probably be able to get all your TV and radio content via the internet sans ads. Oh happy day!

San Diego Progressive Talk Radio KLSD AM

On Monday, August 27, there was a rally in the parking lot outside the studios of KLSD, San Diego's Progressive Talk Station. Talk show host Stacy Taylor who has the 6 AM to 9 AM slot alternately conducted his show from the studio and the parking lot while hundreds of supporters protested the impending "change in format" for the station owned by media conglomerate Clear Channel. Clear Channel owns and operates more than 1200 radio stations in the United States, stages live shows at thousands of venues in dozens of countries, and operates more than 240 radio stations in Australia, Mexico and New Zealand programming 20 different formats with more than 17 million listeners weekly and a total of more than 2,000 employees. Premiere Radio Networks, Inc., a subsidiary of Clear Channel Communications, syndicates 90 radio programs and services to more than 4,600 radio affiliations and reaches over 190 million listeners weekly.  Premiere Radio is the number one radio network in the country and features the following personalities:  Rush Limbaugh, Jim Rome, Casey Kasem, Ryan Seacrest, Glenn Beck and others.

So why is Clear Channel considering a change in format rumored to be sports talk? The stated reason is that Progressive Talk is not earning enough money. At the rally there were pitches to the crowd to start purchasing more of the sponsors' products and testamonials from the crowd about how many of the sponsors' products they were buying. There were sentiments expressed by the crowd that this change of format is politically motivated, since Clear Channel, obviously a major backer of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, two of the rightest wing nutcases, may have a political agenda. But, no, program director Cliff Albert said. It was strictly about making money and maximizing profits and, evidently, progressive talk does not make as much money as right wing talk. Hmmm. I wonder why? You mean the listenership is just not there? People would rather listen to hate mongering, fear mongering and war mongering than a point of view that's about peace and love? I guess there's more money in violence, war and hate. But does this come as any surprise? Look at TV.  What are the most popular shows? Crime Scene Miami. Crime Scene this and Crime Scene that. Shows about crime. And movies? Shoot 'em ups. Blow 'em ups. The more violence the better. As far as talk goes, the more hate talk the better. There's money in it. No money in peace talk. What do TV news channels cover. Violence, disasters. Do they ever cover some constructive project that some neighborhood group is pursuing? No. Not exciting enough. Constructive activities are not exciting enough. If it bleeds, it leads. If it's a disaster, they cover it faster. If it's crime, it's sublime. That's what sells.

So it's no wonder that Air America went bankrupt and would be out of business if it hadn't been for the billionaire Green brothers who stepped in with an infusion of cash because their political philosophy coincides with that of Air America. Clear Channel would have you believe they have no political agenda; their only responsibility is to maximize profits for their stock holders. Maybe, yes. Maybe, no. But if they did have a right wing political agenda, why would they even put Progressive Talk on the radio at all? Let's face it. Progressive Talk, unfortunately, cannot compete in the market place with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Hate sells. Fear sells. Violence sells and crime sells.

Another thing... The advertising on KLSD is oppressive. There's too much of it. It's too strident. The volume is much louder than the talk, and it's totally inappropriate for the audience. For example, after Thom Hartmann goes on and on about universal health care, something his audience is almost entirely in agreement with, on comes an ad about some group bragging about how they're helping to prevent universal health care from becoming a reality. They've even had ads on there for DynCorp advertising for contractors to go to Iraq and make $100,000 a year when it's widely known that KLSD and Air America's audience is totally against the war and everything it stands for. Some of the local ads are appropriate, and I'm sure the audience trys to support San Diego Kitchen and Bath, Corky's Pest Control and Small Dog Electronics as well as Mossy Nissan. But there are tons of ads for people to teach you how to get rich quick and oriented towards turning the audience into a bunch of wealthy Republicans. Maybe that's their hidden agenda. I'm going to try and get Thom Hartman and Randi Rhodes via podcast, even if I have to pay for it, which I'd gladly do to get rid of the commercials which are highly annoying. After all, as far as Clear Channel is concerned, radio is just a commercial delivery vehicle in the way a cigarrette is just a nicotine delivery vehicle. Who cares about the actual content or the taste?

Schnickelgruberia

There has never been peace in Schnickelgruberia. That's because two different ethnic groups, the Schnickels and the Grubers, both claim this parcel of what we might term real estate, but to them it is much more than real estate: it is their holy land and their right to this land is by divine fiat. The Schnickels will tell you that it says right there in their Hubla (that's their Bible) that God gave them this land so that's it, period, end of story. However, the Grubers will tell you that it says right there in their Hruka (that's their Bible) that God gave them this land so no compromise is acceptable. To the Schnickels this land is Schnickeland, and to the Grubers this land is Gruberstan. Some rational person suggested, "Why not just share the land and call it Schickelgruberia," but, no, this is not acceptable to either side. Well then, why not divide the land into two parcels, and the Schnickels could occupy one segment and the Grubers, the other. But no, this is not acceptable to either side either. As soon as one of their leaders is nutty enough to want to share or cooperate or make peace, he or she is promptly assassinated so any rational solution is entirely out of the question. After all, say the Schnickels, the Grubers could just go to any one of a number of different countries which are also run by Grubers whereas how many countries are run by Schnickels? Hardly any! The Grubers, by the same token, say that the Schnickels could go anywhere and become investment bankers like, say, New York City.

Every so often, open war breaks out between the Schnickels and the Grubers, and then there is much loss of life, much suffering and much destruction of property. But, according to the Schnickels it's always the Grubers' fault and, according to the Grubers, it's alway the Schnickels' fault. There's no possibility that these two peoples who have widely varying customs would ever want to sit down at the same table and, for example, eat a meal together. For one thing the Schnickel men wear these funny looking little hats that barely cover their bald spots, and this is annoying to the Grubers. They wear them everywhere so insistently that the Grubers are always aware that they are dealing with a Schnickel and not just an ordinary, generic human being. The Grubers, on the other hand, insist that their women wear funny looking hats that they tie on their heads with weird scarves. These hats provide a little foundation, so to speak, for a little black box that is sort of a combination prayer holder and wish list. They actually place in the box some quotation from the Hruka. Sometimes, in an act of rebellion, the women also put their shopping list in there, but, if they're caught, they're punished most severely. After all this is a male dominated society unlike the Schnickels where the males are routinely given their marching orders by the women. One of the sects of the Schnickels distinguish themselves by wearing broad brimmed black hats. Likewise, the Grubers have their sect that makes the women wear a kind of fedora with a long feathered plume that they dare not let touch the ground or a wall or any object. This makes negotiating narrow passages most difficult.

The Grubers especially find Schnickel  holidays and celebrations most disgusting. On their special days, the Schnickel women put their bras on backwards and dance around singing something that sounds like, "Have a tequila. Have a tequila." Then the men throw crockery against the wall and stomp around in the broken pottery in their bare feet. This greatly excites the Schnickel women who then choose the man whose feet bleeds the most so that they can take great care in bandaging them. The Grubers in their celebrations put dark hoods over the womens' heads and then have them twirl around like whirling dervishes till they get dizzy and fall over. Meanwhile, the men enjoy smoking aromatic tobacco through long convoluted straws that are rumoured to have been made in China. There's one thing the Schnickel men are envious of and that is that the Grubers can each have as many as four wives at a time while they are confined to just one. However, in recent times this restriction has been gotten around by serial divorce and remarriage. Not to be outdone, the Grubers have gotten their laws changed so they can change out four wives at a time and get another four in there. This the Schnickels find especially disgusting and morally reprehensible. But then the Grubers think the Schnickel morals are lower than a snake because of the disgusting way the women dance around with their bras on backwards and sing "Have a tequila."

Each group finds the others' dietary habits especially disgusting. The Schnickels' favorite meal is rudabega with prosciutto while the Grubers enjoy fetid cheese and a kind of gruel made with arugula and skunk cabbage. Neither can stomach even the sight or the thought of the other ones' favorite dish. "Why in the world anyone would want to eat that disgusting crap is beyond me" is a sentiment that might equally be attributed to either group. And this makes it very problematic when the Schnickels drive onto Gruber property and immediately set up a car camp. After a few weeks they take up residence in the Grubers' living room like they really belonged there. If the Grubers ignore them, as they usually do, before long the Schnickels have moved into their bedroom and have started using the kitchen appliances. The Grubers consider them pests and swear they're worse than termites. After a few months the Schnickels are even electing their members to the local school board. The Schnickels claim the Grubers are technologically unsophisticated and that their (Schnickel) children routinely have higher IQs and score higher on the college boards.

Another complicating factor in this whole sorry situation is that both the Schnickels and the Grubers claim the same site as a place of worship. Their religious practices couldn't be more different. A couple thousand years ago the United Bombadiers of Vespucci (the UBV) dropped an atomic bomb on a Schnickel place of worship called a Holyplatz in a mistaken attempt to ferret out a few evildoers in their ongoing state of animosity with the United Powerful Provinces of Rubblebouncers (the UPPR). All that was left was a pile of rubble, but that didn't stop the Schnickels and Grubers from fighting over this pile of rubble each claiming that it was the holiest site in their religion. The Schnickels claimed that their Grand Poobah had a "push to talk" cell phone connection with God and God told him that this site belonged to the Schnickels. The Grubers pooh-poohed this assertion and said, "If that's true, give us your cell phone, and, if God tells us the site is yours, then we relinquish all rights to it." To which the Schnickels replied that only their Grand Poobah could talk to God over the "push to talk" cell phone connection. It was forbidden for anyone else to use this cell phone, much less a Gruber. As it turns out, the Grubers have their own direct line to God, whom they call the Final Authority, and their Most Highly Endowed Enlightened One can talk to the Final Authority without even using a cell phone, just by shouting up a camel's ass. He has it from the Final Authority that the rubble belongs exclusively to the Grubers. There has been an uneasy truce for about 100 years during which the Schnickels have worshiped on the west side of the rubble and the Grubers have worshiped on the east side.

The Grubers find the Schnickels' religious practices disgusting and vice versa for the Schnickels. The Schnickels have what looks like little rubber mallets called probosci with which they tap their knees constantly trying to get a knee jerk reaction. They claim it transports them to an ecsatic state. The Grubers in turn attempt to stand on their heads and move around by lifting themselves up and bumping their head down a few inches away. By this method they circumnavigate their portion of the rubble sometimes falling all over each other and causing massive domino effects. It has been proposed that the rubble should be made into an international holy zone so that pilgrims from all over the world can come and visit. But the Schnickels and Grubers will not hear of this. They each want to control the rubble site as it is the holiest site for both religions. The Schnickels claim that this is the site where their Ancient Leader first had sex and, therefore, God has ordained that, in his honor and glory, this is where they must pray. Nonsense say the Grubers. This is the site where their Ancient One was born, married, died and ascended to LaLa Land, and the Final Authority has decreed that this site is holier for them than it is for the Schnickels. In fact it is so holy and God has told them time and again that it's theirs so they will not hear of sharing it or opening it to the tourist trade who would only defile it much as the Schnickels would do if they got the chance. For this reason there is no backing down, there is no middle ground, there is no compromise. It would be better to die than to compromise which many of them have proceeded to do. Unlike in Schnickel culture where it is considered unwise to die for your country but to make your enemies die for theirs, the Grubers don't mind dying as well as killing, so sure are they of their reward in the afterlife.

The Schnickels and Grubers are impaled on the horns of a dilemma, and are laboring under a delusion at the same time. How you ever get a dilemma underneath a delusion is beyond me, but they do it! Similar to the Sneetches who separated themselves into two groups years ago depending on whether or not they had stars on their bellies, there is no way out except intermarriage. If a Schnickel falls in love with a Gruber and they have little Schnickel-Grubers, then maybe there is hope that they all could live happily and peacefully in a united Schnickelgruberia, but short of that they will go on feuding and fighting and claiming they both own the same piece of land since God gave it to them. Both claim a direct pipeline to God. At least it's the same God. Only both claim a different Grand Poobah and a different Holy Book containing the will of God. However, God has been sending mixed messages telling one group that they own the land while telling the other group that they own the same land. Only when there are lots of little Schnickelgrubers will it become irrelevant who owns the land. It could be any one - even Sylvester McMonkey McBean or a large Chinese corporation. Calling Dr. Seuss...

Theoretical Physics: Hunting for MACHOS and WIMPS

Now that physicists have come up with the standard model of elementary particles which are particles that can't be broken down into any more basic particles, they are stymied in their search for dark matter and some empirical confirmation of string theory. It should be noted that the search for the elementary particles has cost billions and billions of dollars as the smaller the particle, the larger needs be the atom smasher to create and observe the particles. They consist of quarks of the following flavors: up, down, strange, charm, bottom, top; leptons such as the electron, muon, tau, electron neutrino, tau neutrino and muon neutrino; gauge bosons such as the gluon, W and Z bosons, photon; and other bosons such as the Higgs boson and graviton. There are also the antimatter equivalents of these particles. Now the interesting thing is that no one has ever seen a Higgs boson or a graviton for that matter. They are building, at the cost of approximately 3 billion euros, a Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which is located near Geneva, Switzerland. It is hoped that they will be able to see the Higgs boson with this apparatus. The photo above on the left is dark matter and the one on the right is not dark matter.

Speaking of  dark matter, it forms the bulk of all matter in the universe, but "astonomers readily admit that they don't know what dark matter is" according to Donald Goldsmith writing in Natural History Magazine, September 2007. Again physicists are racing to detect dark matter - so far unsuccessfully. According to Goldsmith, "Attempts to find the elusive particles that form dark matter have so far yielded only hope and construction contracts." Now the vaunted physicists are reduced to finding tiny amounts of it here on earth. Talk about looking for a needle in a haystack! There are supposedly two varieties of dark matter: relatively large objects called "Massive Compact Halo Objects" or MACHOs and little tiny objects called "Weakly Interacting Massive Particles" or WIMPs. Have these guys gone absolutely bonkers? They're spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money running around looking for MACHOs and WIMPS, Higgs bosons and gravitons. Is this insanity or what? The problem is theoretical physics is relatively cheap. Paper and pencil is about all Einstein required. But no theory is taken seriously unless it can be confirmed by empirical experiments. That's the so-called scientific method. These experiments are what costs billions of dollars. 

Now consider the third aspect of theoretical physics that has absolutely no experimental confirmation: string theory. String theory attempts to reconcile all the forces of nature in one theory. Einstein was working on this Unified Field Theory up until the moment of his death. The four forces are electromagnetism, gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces. String Theory postulates that  matter is made up of tiny vibrating strings and calls for many more dimensions than the four dimensions postulated by Einstein for space and time. Again theoretical physicists have developed nice theories without any trace of experimental confirmation. They are in the position of begging for even larger atom smashers costing even more billions of dollars. Some physicists even worry that they could start another "big bang" with the energy required and generated by these enormous contraptions. Needless to say, this would destroy the universe as we know it. Such a contraption was the Super Conducting Super Collider planned to be built in Texas, USA. It was thought that this apparatus might have been able to detect the Higgs Boson. According to Wikipedia:

In 1987, Congress was told the project could be completed for $4.4 billion, but by 1993 the cost projection exceeded $12 billion. An especially recurrent argument was the contrast with Nasa's contribution to the International Space Station  (ISS), which was of similar amount. Critics of the project argued that the US could not afford both of them. The project was canceled by Congress in 1993.

So the gap between theoretical physics and experimental confirmation of theory looms larger and larger to the point that theoretical physics is more of a belief system than anything else - sort of similar to religion. Sure it's probably more consistent than religion as any theoretical inconsistencies would invalidate the theory. But until there is experimental verification, which seems to be less and less likely, the closer physicists get to any ultimate explanation of the universe, the less they seem to be able to prove their theories. Instead physics consists of a collection of increasingly bizarre, unintuitive and unproven theories.

Should nation states pour money into these endeavors? Well, compared to the trillions spent on armaments, weapons and war, the sum spent on the LHC at CERN is relatively trivial. Are there other areas where the money could be better spent than on the search for the elusive Higgs boson? Probably there are from a practical point of view. Why not search for the precursors of life? Aren't there theories about that and might money not be spent to verify them? If life is a fundamental feature of the universe, then its origins should be studied at the quantum level. All the disproofs of spontaneous generation, that is, life coming into existence from non-life, have been at the macroscopic rather than the microscopic level. The standard model of physics postulates that there are corresponding fields and particles. The Higgs boson, called "the God particle" by some, supposedly, gives mass to particles. Why not a field that gives life to particles? Is anyone keeping track of the number of viruses? These are considered the precursors to life. Could they be generated spontaneously or might there be an even more primitive quantum level precursor. The study of a Unified Unified Field Theory which took life into account at the quantum level might bear fruit.

Concert Reviews: Chris Botti with the San Diego Symphony Summer Pops and Winard Harper Sextet at San Diego City College KSDS Jazz Live

Saturday, August 11, trumpeter Chris Botti performed at Embarcadero Marina Park with the San Diego Symphony under the stars in their Summer Pops series, and Tuesday, August 14, the Winard Harper Sextet performed at the Saville Theatre at San Diego City College as part  of their Jazz Live series simultaneously broadcast over KSDS FM.  These performances represented totally different approaches to and perspectives on the concept of jazz. On the one hand, Chris Botti, who is an excellent trumpeter, mainly played a role of contributing solo trumpet to an overall lush and romantic atmosphere conjured up by the symphony arrangements.  Winard Harper represented the African-American jazz tradition started by Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington and continued with Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie. His group reminded me of the late Art Blakey and the many versions of the Jazz Messengers. Winard is central to the evolution of the tradition of jazz as exemplified by these people: burning creative energy, furious self-expression, respect for the tradition but each interpreting it from his own perspective and as a more or less new arrival on the scene.

The San Diego Symphony did an opening set without Chris Botti consisting of arrangements of Cole Porter compositions. They might as well have skipped the opening set. People were there to see Chris Botti, not listen to a bunch of lame arrangements and insipid interpretations which didn't do justice to Cole Porter, my favorite American songbook composer. Calling Nelson Riddle... When Chris came on, he played a couple of tunes to establish his credentials as a trumpeter of considerable technique with a beautiful, mellow sound before he started chatting with the audience. Once he did start chatting, he told us practically his whole life story which was actually pretty interesting. There was the bit where he got a call to play with Frank Sinatra and Frank told him, "Nice solo, kid." This led to visions of hanging with the Chairman which, after some openers, came to no avail when Frank's manager told him, "Don't ever bother Mr. Sinatra again."

Winard opened with Duke Ellington's "In a Sentimental Mood." Harper is one of the best jazz drummers playing today for my money. Incidentally, the concert was free for KSDS members of which I am one, but if I had to pay I would. Winard has my respect not only for being a great drummer but also for being a bandleader, not an easy feat in today's market. Inspired by Billy Higgins and Lee Morgan, they ripped into a tune that sounded so contemporary I was sure Winard had written it himself. It turned out to be a Charlie Parker tune. Since Parker died in 1955, it had to have been written over 50 years ago, yet so vital was the inspiration that, as so much of Charlie Parker's music is, it was timeless. Unfortunately, I didn't get the name of the tune, and I thought I had heard all of Parker's oeuvre, as I'm a Parker aficionado, but I guess not. Pianist Sean Higgins, the token white guy of the group, contributed a number of impassioned solos as did the effervescent and uncontainable Harper. African pecussionist, Alioune Faye, elevated the role of rhythym to an even higher level.

Chris Botti had an excellent small band with him that played within the context of the larger Symphony.  Chris had played with Sting and he seems to have adopted his hairdo. He even looks something like him, and appearance seemed to be a well thought out component of the entire presentation. Botti recounted how impressed he was with Miles Davis' mellow, romantic tone and he set out to emulate him rather than the more frantic beboppers. He played a number from Davis' "Kind of Blue" album, Flamenco Sketches. Chris' emphasis was on tonal beauty and creating a lush atmosphere rather than creative improvisation, and, therefore, I wouldn't place Botti, although a formidable trumpet player, in the mainstream of the jazz tradition. I wouldn't call him a smooth jazzer either because from a larger musical perspective, this was beautiful music. He didn't mention Chet Baker, but I see him as also having been influenced by him since Chet emphasized the romantic ballads and always had a chick hanging on him on his album covers. Botti has obviously traded fire and complexity for accessibility and, I'm sure, there are many people out there who are grateful for his CDs as a high class make out accompaniment.

Winard had the traditional trumpet/tenor saxophone front line played by Josh Evans and Stacy Dillars, respectively. Not yet fully fledged, these young men, nevertheless, contributed their spirit and energy to the proceedings. Bobby Timmons' "Moanin" turned out to be an amenable vehicle for the front line. The star, however, was Winard who alternately drove and sheparded the band and then unleashed meticulous, paroxysms of creative, rhythmic energy while still remaining true to the tradition. Not a pounder or a basher, Winard's solos were complex and full of finesse without being overly loud or obtrusive. He seems to combine the energy of Elvin Jones, the tastefullness of Billy Higgins and the band driving chops of Art Blakey. His career path has him committed to the jazz tradition composed of three parts improvisation, two parts technique and four parts creative self-expression.

Chris Botti's career path consists of one part hip appearance, one part presentation, two parts trumpet technique, one part personality and one part good taste in selecting beautiful arrangements. His introducer noted that he was a Columbia recording artist. Columbia has a reputation for only selecting artists they think can make money for the label. At any time they will only bet on one or two jazz trumpet players. They bet on Miles Davis, and he came through for them. Right now it seems to be Wynton Marsalis and Chris Botti. To say that Botti is making and probably will make a lot of money while Harper struggles to keep a band together would be stating the obvious. Accessibility, romanticism and Columbia promotion will always trump purity of art form and creative improvisation, unfortunately. Some would say the jazz tradition as exemplified by Winard Harper is passe, but, au contraire, the forms of traditional jazz, the music of Parker, Ellington, Mingus, Monk et al will be played 200 years from now just as Mozart's music is played today, and it will be as fresh then as the abilities and inventiveness of future musicians can make it. But let us hope also that the likes of Chris Botti, Dianna Krall and other accessible but authentic musicians will take over from Kenny G and the smooth, jacuzzi jazz crowd. If folks want accessible as opposed to artistic then at least let them have authentic rather than kitsch.

Uncle Sam, Your Banker Will See You Now

China recently told US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to go take a flying f$$k when he tried to jawbone them to revalue their currency higher versus the US dollar. They threatened to dump dollars which would cause the dollar's value to plummet resulting in financial turmoil in the US. China holds some $1.3 trillion in US dollar reserves thus effectively becoming America's banker. Cheap Chinese goods are flooding the US paid for in dollars which have built into a considerable pile in Chinese banks. As the world's largest debtor nation, the US is borrowing something like $2 billion per day to keep itself afloat and fight the Iraq war.

Two Chinese officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning, for the first time, that Beijing may use its $1,330 billion of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress. Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies. Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is breaking down through historic support levels. It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds more than $900 billion in a mix of US bonds.

Before Ronald Reagan the US was the world's largest creditor nation. Reagan immediately cut taxes and built up a national debt four times the debt accumulated by all the Presidents preceding him. George Bush has followed in Reagan's footsteps, cutting taxes and adding some $4 trillion dollars to the national debt, 45% of which is owed to foreigners. Evidently, Republicans not only believe that government does not work, but they're out to put the US government out of business altogether by driving it into bankruptcy!

The dollar is already losing ground with respect to the Euro and other currencies. It won't be long before countries will not want to hold large amounts of dollars as a reserve if the dollar keeps losing its value which it inevitably will as long as the US continues to spend huge amounts on wars and consumption while sending dollars overseas to its Chinese, Japanese and Saudi Arabian bankers.

Politicians have called the Chinese policy of keeping their yuan pegged artificially low with respect to the dollar "currency manipulation," harsh words indeed, and have introduced legislation calling for tariffs if China doesn't let the yuan float higher with respect to the dollar. The resulting difference in currency values is responsible for the large trade imbalance between the US and China. But the threat of dumping US dollars has left the US stymied as to what to do to prevent the hemorrhaging as it continues to slip further and further into hock to its traditional enemies who are increasingly in a position to call the shots. If the US does nothing, its trade imbalance with China will allow China to accumulate an even larger portfolio of US dollars which means it will be in an even more commanding position. If the US makes good on its threat to impose tariffs, China will dump US dollars wreaking havoc on the US financial system. So the US is in a lose-lose situation primarily caused by the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and its lack of fiscal prudence.

America is addicted to a daily "fix" of Chinese capital that floods in to purchase US government bonds and thereby fund the US budget and trade deficits. China finances the US deficits as part of a broader mercantilist strategy to keep its currency undervalued. The way it does so is to set a "fixed peg" between the US dollar and the Chinese yuan. To maintain that peg in the face of a record trade imbalance between the US and China, China simply recycles its surplus US dollars back into the US bond market. Today, as a result of its currency manipulation, China has become the largest monthly net buyer of US securities. More than two-thirds of its massive and highly undiversified $1 trillion in foreign currency reserves are estimated to be invested in US bonds. China will very shortly eclipse Japan as America's largest creditor. And its foreign currency reserves are projected to double within a few short years. Here's the clear and present danger: What may have started out as a simple mercantilist currency gambit for China to sell its exports cheap and keep imports dear has morphed into a powerful weapon to hold off any effective US response to China's unfair trade practices. And make no mistake: Such practices run the gamut from a complex web of illegal export subsidies and currency manipulation to rampant piracy and woefully lax environmental, health, and safety standards.

In addition China can simply refuse to continue to buy US Treasuries thereby discontinuing funding US deficit spending. So China possesses a dual edge sword: it can dump dollars and it can refuse to buy US Treasuries. Would China make good on its threat to "go nuclear" with respect to the dollar? Probably not, because then it would lose the lucrative US consumer market. No, China would like to continue the present arrangement as long as possible since it is getting richer as the US gets poorer. It would probably prefer to gradually divest itself of dollars thereby gradually beggaring the US without losing its lucrative market. This might be called the "hot frog" strategy. It is well known in scientific circles that, if you drop a frog into boiling water, it will jump right out. On the other hand, if you put a frog into lukewarm water, it will find the water relaxing and stay in. As you gradually raise the temperature of the water, the frog will get more and more relaxed until it's too late to get out, and the frog will eventually get cooked.

In addition China with its immense reserves soon approaching $2 trillion could go on a buying spree in America buying up US corporations and other real and tangible assets. Other foreigners have bought US assets but this would be different because it would be the Chinese government itself and not individual Chinese who would be doing the purchasing.

"The United States is a power, but it's hardly the only power, and it's certainly not a superpower anymore," said Jim Rogers, who co-founded the Quantum hedge fund with the billionaire investor George Soros in the 1970s. The dollar is perhaps the biggest problem. As a net debtor, the United States must attract some $3 billion every working day to finance a gaping current account deficit that in 2006 amounted to 6.5 percent of gross domestic product. Economic rivals like China and Japan, on the other hand, boast massive surpluses. Since Americans also spend more than they save, the money to cover the U.S. deficit must come from foreign lenders like central banks. China, which holds more than $1 trillion in foreign currency reserves, is one of the biggest creditors. As the dollar has steadily weakened over the past year, the value of the dollar-denominated assets held by central banks has also declined. The trend may motivate foreigners to start holding more euros instead, exacerbating pressure on the dollar and leading to faster U.S. inflation rates and a declining standard of living. That is increasingly possible because euro-denominated debt today accounts for a bigger share of the international bond market than do dollar-based securities. That also means that oil exporters could find it easier to start pricing crude in euros, Rogers said, adding to the financial burden on the United States, the world's biggest consumer of oil. While a weaker dollar may bolster U.S. exports and the profits of American companies with overseas operations, weaker foreign demand for U.S. Treasury bonds would push up long-term interest rates, raising mortgage payments for U.S. homeowners and borrowing costs for an indebted government.

Already, there is considerable foreign ownership of US industries. For instance, 97% of the sound recording industry, 63% of book publishers and 64% of the motion picture and video industry are foreign owned. At the same time the US buys 90% of its footwear, 87% of its audio and video gear and 67% of its apparel from foreign companies. So far, foreigners have been willing to let the US run up its credit card, but for how long, for how long?

The Global Imbalances and the US Economy The US global merchandise trade and current account deficits rose to $857 billion in 2006. This amounted to 6.5 percent of US GDP, twice the previous record of the middle 1980s. The deficits have risen by an annual average of $100 billion over the past four years. These global imbalances are unsustainable for both international financial and US domestic political reasons. On the international side, the United States must now attract about $8 billion of capital from the rest of the world every working day to finance the US current account deficit and foreign investment outflows. Even a modest reduction of this inflow, let alone its cessation or a sell-off from the $14 trillion of dollar claims on the United States now held around the world, could initiate a precipitous decline in the dollar. Especially under the present circumstances of nearly full employment and full capacity utilization in the United States, this could, in turn, sharply increase US inflation and interest rates, severely affecting the equity and housing markets and potentially triggering a recession. The global imbalances probably represent the single largest current threat to the continued growth and stability of the US and world economies.

So China continues to loan the US money much the same as a credit card company continues to loan its debtors money. Why? Because it makes money on the interest. China not only makes money on the interest, it makes money on the actual products it sells the US although, theoretically, it would make more money if the yuan were revalued with respect to the dollar. That is Chinese products would become more expensive in the American market, but then they would sell less of them. China seems to think that its interests are best served under the current arrangement. Forget revaluing the yuan! As bankers know, the real money is in collecting interest, not selling products, and the Chinese are doing quite well, thank you, buying up US Treasuries and debt instruments which accelerates the accumulation of US dollars and control over the US economy. And by the way, Taiwan is now low hanging fruit which gets lower by the day.

As the dollar depreciates with respect to the euro, it becomes worth less in the rest of the world even as China continues to increase its position as US banker. The US can, therefore, look forward to the loss of the dollar's position as the world's reserve currency and perhaps having to buy oil some day in euros which means it would have to pay a lot more for its oil. Meanwhile, rather than dumping dollars (always a credible threat), China can use them to buy up US assets much as the Saudis, the United Arab Emirates and other oil rich nations have done. After all, as bankers and credit card companies know, you'd much rather have your clients continue to pay you interest than have them go bankrupt and stop paying you at all!

The Financial Cost of War in Iraq

You don't hear too many arguments against the war in Iraq based on the financial costs. It's as if there is an unlimited budget for military adventurism. But we're slowly being bled to death at a cost of $12 billion a month. And what have we aacciomplished? Nothing. Iraqi citizens are demonstrably worse off now than before we invaded on false pretenses. Of course, we're playing right into the strategy of some of our enemies who don't want us to disengage but rather to "stay there and bleed." And that's exactly what we're doing except that we're hemmorhaging. The following article appeared in the San Diego Union:

GEORGIE ANNE GEYER War costs endanger our future security July 20, 2007 It seems at first thoughtless, with nearly 4,000 Americans dead and tens of thousands of Iraqis having perished in our war to “save” them, to talk about money. But the ever-soaring costs incurred by our boys in the White House is not something to gloss over out of sentimentality. Indeed, several of our best thinkers have delved into these costs, which will shake our national security and sanity for years to come. Their conclusions are shocking. In a book to be published in the fall, William R. Polk, a prominent Middle East specialist who taught at Harvard and was on the policy and planning staff in the White House, writes in a pre-publication summary: “The monetary costs are great and rising. Current costs are running at about $12 billion a month and are rising more than 20 percent a year. The direct costs of the war are expected to rise shortly to at least $700 billion. “According to Nobel Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce Linda Bilmes, the real cost to America, as it would be figured by standard accounting methods, is between $1 trillion and $2 trillion.” Polk has long been a student of guerrilla warfare and civil wars. He carries his scholarship still further in this book, “Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency, Terrorism & Guerrilla Warfare From the American Revolution to Iraq.” Trying to win over “the people” to your power as the legitimate authority in the country? “One searches the historical record in vain for an example of success. The foreign occupying force, by definition, is alien.” The government backed by us, in Vietnam or Iraq or any of the other examples, as the answer? “No insurgency has been defeated in this way for at least the last century.” Special forces as the answer, as espoused particularly by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld? “The 'Special Operations Command' is now composed of 53,000 men and operates on a budget in 2007 of $8 billion. It has already dispatched teams of Special Forces to some 20 American embassies in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. These teams operate separately from the embassies and are not subject to control by the senior civilian American representatives.” He further notes that America now has nearly 400 existing foreign bases with prepositioned weapons. In short, this administration is not only spending us into oblivion with its imperial delusions, but it also has empowered what are essentially alternative systems of military organization, outside the traditional American practice of civilian control. This development itself – if not its intention – can be seen in all the great dictatorships: Think Hitler and the SS, Khomeini and his Revolutionary Guards, Castro and his special personal guards. Another fine book has just been published about the American “adventure” in Iraq: “The Price of Liberty: Paying for America's Wars” by Robert D. Hormats, New York financier and former member of the White House National Security Council. It, too, is a must-read for those who dare to think about the cost of war and its relationship to security. Hormats goes back to the dawn of the great American experience, showing how American leaders from Jefferson, Madison and Lincoln to FDR, and from Eisenhower to George H.W. Bush, were adamant about keeping America secure through sound financial decisions. Comparing the “Victory bonds” and the shared sacrifice of World War II to the profligacy of today's “just go out and shop” attitude, he finds America in bad shape indeed. All of this becomes more dangerous because of U.S. dependence upon foreign capital. “In 2001,” Hormats writes, “foreign capital inflows totaled $780 billion; by 2005 . . . that figure had doubled to nearly $1.5 trillion. In 2005, foreign investors purchased more than half of the Treasury securities issued . . . meaning that foreigners financed over half of the government's deficit.” Indeed, “As the Founding Fathers recognized more than 200 years ago in the economic as well as the military realm, weakness invites aggression. For them, a sound economy and sound finances were as much a part of the nation's defense as a strong military. That remains true today. Chronic deficits, rising debt and significant dependence on foreign capital make the United States vulnerable and offer an added enticement to terrorists who think they can severely disrupt the U.S. economy.” Ironically, as both the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund have argued, instead of building up deficits, the United States ought to be doing exactly the opposite – developing big surpluses for the upcoming costs of the aging population. But no, that would be too dull for these armchair adventurers, too much in concert with the principles upon which the nation was founded. And so the administration continues to exercise its hubris in Iraq, and the country barely complains because – if you're not in Iraq – “the times are good.” Or the times seem to be good. Underneath that mirage stretches the desert of an unknown and dangerous future. Geyer is a nationally syndicated columnist focusing on international affairs.

A crisis, by definition, never hurts until it hits. We're going full speed ahead on a flat road with nothing but blue sky and straight road ahead. It's impossible to see that cliff ahead until we're right up on it, and then it'll be too late. That's the price we pay for imperial delusions spending us into oblivion! In precise terms the price is oblivion. We've built our house not on rock but on sand. Eventually, we'll have to pay the price when it comes tumbling down, when the infrastructure crumbles, and, as the world's largest debtor, that price will be enormous. The chickens will eventually come home to roost, and the US will have no one to blame but itself for fighting a war of aggression on borrowed money!

Range Voting Presidential Straw Poll

Please note: Click on the stars to vote. Click on all 5 stars to indicate a range vote of 5. Click on 1 star to indicate a range vote of 1 etc.

Medical Tourism

The following article entitled "US Patients choosing Mexican Hospitals for Price, Quality" by Alfredo Chorchado and Laurence Iliff appeared in the Dallas Morning News, July 28, 2007.

When Carrollton resident Brian Woods needed laser eye surgery last year, he scrutinized options in North Texas for the best deal. McAllen resident Cesar Vega was concerned about the long wait he faced to treat his broken leg after a motorcycle accident during the weekend leading into the July 4 holiday. Both ended up in Monterrey, Mexico. Traditionally, the city affluent residents have traveled to Dallas, Houston or San Antonio for their medical needs. "All around I was very impressed, and the experience surpassed any expectation I had," Mr. Woods said. "I could have been in Zurich, Switzerland, but it was Mexico. I found the care to be top quality, what you would expect at a U.S. hospital and more." Like vacations in sparkling Cancún or Cabo San Lucas, health care in Mexico is becoming high-quality, cheap and convenient, advocates say. As more Americans go without heath insurance or feel the pinch of managed care, some are making a run for the border for treatment ranging from routine care to live-saving procedures. Two North Texas-based hospital chains, Christus Health of Irving and International Hospital Corp. of Dallas, are tapping into a need and an opportunity by providing in their hospitals in Mexico what their executives say are the best of both worlds – U.S.-quality health care and relatively low Mexican prices. "Our goal is to have the safest hospitals in the international market," said Cliff Orme, CEO of International Hospital Corp. "We're implementing U.S. standards into these hospitals so you won't notice the difference going to a hospital in Dallas than one in a Latin American country." Some experts, including Peter Maddox of Christus Health, see Mexico as an answer to the complex question of how to treat aging and underinsured Americans at a time when the retirement of baby boomers will further tax the U.S. health care system. An estimated 43 million Americans, about 15 percent of the population, are uninsured, according to a Census Bureau study. "Our country will go broke unless we find a health care alternative," said Mr. Maddox, Christus' senior vice president for business, strategy and corporate development. "Mexico is a wonderful alternative with incredible potential." A New Kind of Tourist Indeed, Mexico is becoming a top destination for the multibillion-dollar "medical tourism" industry, joining countries including India, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia. Experts estimate as many as 150,000 Americans travel abroad every year for lower-cost medical care. Although care in Mexico may not be as inexpensive as care in some Asian nations, the proximity to the U.S. is a big advantage to patients. Some U.S. companies are now sending employees to Mexico for their annual checkups. Underscoring the trend, Mexican state governments are spending money to refurbish communities near these hospitals, hoping visiting patients will stay there while receiving medical care or even move there permanently. Such is the case in Santa Eulalia, Chihuahua, and Villa de Santiago, near Monterrey. "We think that Villa de Santiago could also be an area for the retirees from the United States," said Alejandro Paez Aragón, secretary of economic development for the state of Nuevo León. "Our aim is to turn Monterrey into one of the world's medical tourism leaders in the next five to 10 years, and we're well on our way." David Warner, a health researcher at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, said the hospitals run by U.S. companies are primarily for Mexicans, but they also hope to attract medical tourism, Americans without insurance and Mexicans living in the U.S. "And they'd like to get some U.S. insurers to cover them," he added. But Mexico faces serious challenges in trying to become a world leader in the medical tourism industry. A turf war among drug traffickers is keeping some tourists away. Monterrey, in particular, has seen a surge of drug-related killings in recent months. "Their plans aren't worth a thing if it's not safe to come here," said Luis Moreno, U.S. consul general in Monterrey. And Dr. Warner, the UT health researcher, said that surveys done by his students show that many Americans are pleased with the "tender loving care" they received in Mexico, but others have found services to be substandard. Nonetheless, over the next 10 years, Christus Muguerza, a partnership of Christus Health and Monterrey-based Muguerza, has identified 40 communities along the U.S.-Mexico border where it plans to expand. And International Hospital Corp. is finishing a new hospital in Puebla, near Mexico City. "I have patients coming here from Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio," said Michael Tarabay, director International Hospital Corp.'s Santa Engracia hospital in Monterrey. "Whether you leave from Dallas, San Antonio, Houston or Austin, it's about an hour plane ride, a 20-minute taxi ride, and you're here." Cheaper Care Mr. Orme, International's CEO, said that his company's hospitals served "several hundred" American clients last year and that Santa Engracia has served about 300 so far this year. Mexico is on average 40 percent cheaper for basic surgical procedures, Mr. Warner and officials for both hospital companies said. A bill in the Texas Legislature sponsored this year by Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr., D-Brownsville, would have allowed U.S.-based insurers to cover health services in Mexico with the goal of making policies affordable for uninsured groups like the working poor. There was also a House version of the bill. Coverage would have been limited to Texans who live within 75 miles of the border. The bill did not get out of committee. "We have a crisis right now," Mr. Lucio said in an e-mail. "There are simply too many residents in Texas lacking health care coverage. Cross-border health plans present an opportunity to increase our rates of private health insurance coverage, particularly in an area of high poverty and greatest need." Cross-border health insurance plans typically cost 40 percent less than traditional policies, he said. "Cross-border health plans have been effective in California, and the primary concern for me is how we can address the lack of health care coverage along the border," he said. For now, most Americans coming to Mexico for health care are considered "medical refugees," as in the case of Mr. Woods, 43, a network engineer. He visited a Christus Muguerza hospital in Monterrey last Christmas and stayed with his wife's relatives there. He had looked into getting laser eye surgery close to home, but the cost made that impossible, he said. U.S. doctors wanted to charge him $4,000, Mr. Woods said, but he paid $1,500 in Mexico. "People were very cordial, warm," Mr. Woods said of the experience. "They treated me very well, and I wouldn't hesitate returning for other medical procedures." Mr. Vega's wife, Adriana, said the couple had a similar experience. She frantically checked South Texas hospitals after her husband's motorcycle accident, but was told hospitals were short-staffed before the holiday weekend. When Mr. Vega was examined, he was told he would have to wait more than 72 hours for treatment for his broken leg, she said. The exam alone cost $1,000, she said. Furious, Ms. Vega told her husband, "We're going to Monterrey." Once there, he was immediately admitted and operated on, she said. "I drove back to Texas two days later." The couple paid about $4,000 – one-third of what she was told the treatment would cost in Texas. "I thought the quality was the same as any U.S. hospital," she said. "What really stood apart, however, was the service. The Mexicans were much more cordial, warmer. Here in the U.S., everyone is worried about being sued, especially doctors. No one seems to smile." Impossible in the U.S. Christus Murguerza's specialties include cardiology, orthopedics, oncology, transplants and plastic surgery. Its hospitals in Monterrey boast state-of-the-art telemedicine systems, which allow doctors to monitor and follow up with patients anywhere in the world in hospitals that share this technology. International Hospital Corp.'s Santa Engracia hospital is in an upscale neighborhood, near hotels that give a preferential rate to hospital patients. In the hospital itself, a private room looks more like a hotel suite, with a separate living room, two televisions and space for an entire family for $300 per night – something unthinkable in the United States, said hospital director Mr. Tarabay, who has managed U.S. hospitals. About 90 percent of Santa Engracia patients are well-off or well-insured Mexicans, many of whom used to go to Texas for top-notch health care. Mr. Moreno, the U.S. consul in Monterrey, said he bought a home for retirement in San Antonio, in part to be close to the medical facilities in Monterrey, a four-hour drive away. "They have a cultural thing here in Mexico where you're not treated like a number," said Mr. Moreno. "Without a doubt, these are the best medical facilities that I've ever seen in my foreign-service career."