The Official WaccoBB.net Voter Guide!

[Barry]

Well, its that time of year again folks, when pretend to vote and they pretend to count our votes!

The hefty California Official Voter Information Guide arrived the other day and is now on my bedside table, where it can fuel dreams of democracy and Fascism.

The California state and local propositions always strike me as an excellent exercise in democracy. We in Sonoma County have 16 propositions to come to grips with, inlcuding Measures F (Sonoma County Open Space, Clean Water and Farmland Protection) and R (SMART). I have to admit I have yet to tune into any of it. With the election less than a month away, it seems time to start, so there is a chance to get a deeper understanding of some of the issues at stake.

So as I kick off my own personal investigation I thought it would both helpful and fun to do it with you guys! Larry Robinson has already weighed in with his reccomendations. Anybody else want to post your reccomendations? I think it would be most helpful if you included your reasoning behind your choices. Or how about some questions? And what about all those judges and school board elections?

I invite you to discuss any election related issues here in the Generally Community category. Start new threads or reply to existing ones as seems most appropriate and I'll try to keep it somewhat orderly.

Barry
Mayor of Waccoville

[Barry]

Well, its that time of year again folks, when pretend to vote and they pretend to count our votes!

The PeeDee is weighing in with a No on 87. What do you think?

Barry

From the Press Democrat
No on 87

Flawed measure isn't right way to reduce state dependence on oil

With Proposition 87, Silicon Valley venture capitalists hope to tap into voter outrage about high gas prices and record oil company earnings. They also hope to appeal to California's environmental sensibilities.


Unfortunately, the vehicle they chose is flawed. Proposition 87 would impose a severance tax, with rates ranging from 1.5 percent to 6 percent, on oil extracted from California wells. The money raised would be used to fund $4 billion of alternative energy programs. And proponents promise that consumers won't pay a penny.


If this sounds too good to be true, it's because it is.

The major problem with the measure is that the tax would apply only to petroleum extracted in California. By making California oil less profitable, the tax could lead oil companies to decrease production in the state and increase petroleum imports.

In other words, the measure could increase - not decrease - the state's reliance on foreign oil. Not only that, but it's questionable whether the environment would be helped by more oil being transported into California via tankers and pipelines.

The second issue is whether it's good public policy to create new programs to address every problem that is popular with voters. Yes, alternative energy development is important (and so was the cause du jour of 2004, stem cell research). But it's questionable whether the state should be in the business of granting billions of dollars to private companies to solve these problems.

Proposition 87 also suffers from sloppy drafting. It's unclear when and how the maximum tax rate would kick in. It's also uncertain how regulators can ensure that companies aren't passing the costs of the tax on to consumers, as is prohibited by the initiative. Answers would be determined by the state Board of Equalization but would likely be challenged in court.

The premise upon which the measure was built is important: Californians need to reduce their dependence on oil. Unfortunately, Proposition 87 is the wrong way to do it. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 87.

[lilmatty]

I think we need to start somewhere. Other States have an extraction tax. CA has 500,000 oil and gas wells. However the funds are applied, CA can use them. Other States use it to help build and maintain infrastructure. We use it to lead the way out of the dependence on oil.

Do you really believe that oil companies are going to walk away from any source of oil? Especially the kind that extracts locally and cheaper that tanker oil?

Vote yes.

[Juggledude]

Ok, thank you Barry and Wacco for prodding me into actualy picking up and reading the text of Prop 87, to formulate a reply. After careful reading and consideration, I strongly disagree with the position posted by the PD. I will respond in a line by line fashion, to share my thoughts with our community:

With Proposition 87, Silicon Valley venture capitalists hope to tap into voter outrage about high gas prices and record oil company earnings. They also hope to appeal to California's environmental sensibilities.

And rightly so! This introduction hooks with an emotional subject anyone with 1/2 a brain or conscience feels very passionately about. The inclusion of the term "Silicon Valley venture capitalists" imho, is chosen to reflect a negative connotation, one of big business or uncaring movtivation, when, in fact, I see no evidence of that at all.

Unfortunately, the vehicle they chose is flawed. Proposition 87 would impose a severance tax, with rates ranging from 1.5 percent to 6 percent, on oil extracted from California wells. The money raised would be used to fund $4 billion of alternative energy programs. And proponents promise that consumers won't pay a penny.

The only flaw they point out in this statement is that proponents promise that consumers won't pay a penny. This appears to be a blatant falsehood, please quote the passage referenced? In my reading, I only saw a provision making it illegal for the oil producers to pass on the cost of this tax to the consumers. The analysis I read actually suggests that the real economic ramifications are slightly uncertain, and that given the factors involved in pricing oil, it will be difficult if not impossible to determine if the law is being obeyed by the oil producers.

If this sounds too good to be true, it's because it is.

Just because you say something, does not make it so, despite Mr. Bush's belief to the contrary, please elaborate...

The major problem with the measure is that the tax would apply only to petroleum extracted in California. By making California oil less profitable, the tax could lead oil companies to decrease production in the state and increase petroleum imports.

In other words, the measure could increase - not decrease - the state's reliance on foreign oil. Not only that, but it's questionable whether the environment would be helped by more oil being transported into California via tankers and pipelines.

This measure is designed to reduce California's reliance on OIL. Period. Regardless of that oil's origin or ethnicity. It is a smokescreen and diversionary tactic to bring in the boogeyman of 'foreign', to utilize the much loved fear based reactionary rhetoric so common in today's media. Can or would someone from the PD, or the supporters of prop 87 speak directly please, can you argue against reduction of petroleum dependency, in and of itself?

The second issue is whether it's good public policy to create new programs to address every problem that is popular with voters. Yes, alternative energy development is important (and so was the cause du jour of 2004, stem cell research). But it's questionable whether the state should be in the business of granting billions of dollars to private companies to solve these problems..

If the state, as a reflection of the will of the people, does not takes steps to address, let alone solve, "these problems", then who will? Private companies? perhaps! especially if they can do so in an economically viable climate, as is fostered by this measure. I'm happy to see agreement here, that alternative energy development is important, yet am vexed by the lack of constructive suggestions. I hear the PD saying this is NOT the way, but they remain curiously silent on what IS the way? To me, it speaks of a political blocking tactic, big money coming in and tugging the emotional heart strings of the voters to keep the money in their pockets. Did you notice the blatant attempt to associate and confuse this issue with the very passionate issue of abortion? Really, how gullible will we allow ourselves to be? stem cell research has absolutely nothing to do with alternative energy or oil taxation, at least within the scope of this proposition.

Proposition 87 also suffers from sloppy drafting. It's unclear when and how the maximum tax rate would kick in. It's also uncertain how regulators can ensure that companies aren't passing the costs of the tax on to consumers, as is prohibited by the initiative. Answers would be determined by the state Board of Equalization but would likely be challenged in court.

Here is a valid point, there does appear to be some ambiguity regarding the specific implementation of the taxation, as well as the regulation and enforcement of the prohibition on deffering the tax to consumers. In the complex arena of California's economic climate, it seems uncertain if the direct enforcement is even feasible. The measure does, however, postulate that the indirect forces of the economy would affect the pricing, and would be somewhat self regulating by nature. I admit to being unfamiliar with the minutia of economic theory, as well as the skills involved in elegant proposition drafting, but prop 87 seems to go a long way toward finding a solution, as opposed to merely declaiming the evils of sloppy drafting and doing nothing.

The premise upon which the measure was built is important: Californians need to reduce their dependence on oil. Unfortunately, Proposition 87 is the wrong way to do it. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 87.

The premise IS important, even the opposition agrees. If not prop 87 then what? The time to act is NOW, for our planet, for our children, for ourselves. I recommend a YES vote on prop 87.

Royce

[psaltz]

Bottom line on this one: The "No on 87" ads on TV are sponsored by Chevron Oil Company, just as the "No on 86" ads are sponsored by Phillip Morris Tobacco Co. That says it all for me. If Big Oil and Big Tobacco are for it, I am SO against it! I suspect Big Oil [and probably Big Tobacco] pays the PeeDee a lot for its opinions.

[Roland Jacopetti]

Hi, Waccocrats. You know, the mere idea that a corporate "newspaper" like the Press Democrat could possibly make a political recommendation that would be worth taking seriously is absolutely ludicrous. The corporate media are very fond of condemning proposed progressive legislation as "poorly written", "will create a multi-brazilian-dollar bureaucracy", "will only benefit special interests", "will raise the taxes of every man, woman, child and cockapoo in..." and so forth. Please, stop paying attention to these people. If you didn't read Larry Robinson's voting advice, find it and do so. Whatever you may think of it, it's intelligent advice from a decent person. And to that person who chided him for not qualifying his reasons for those recommendations - hey, stop complaining and go do the research that Larry did for yourself. Barry is right - everyone who has any feeling or knowledge of any person or issue on the ballot in the upcoming election should make it public. For now, Larry's recommendations seem sound to me. If I hear something different that seems worth making public, I'll do it. Thanks for reading.

Roland

[Juggledude]

If you didn't read Larry Robinson's voting advice, find it and do so. Whatever you may think of it, it's intelligent advice from a decent person. And to that person who chided him for not qualifying his reasons for those recommendations - hey, stop complaining and go do the research that Larry did for yourself. Roland

Roland,

As the person who "chided" Larry for posting advice on what but not why, I'd like to suggest you put two and two together before telling me to research that the answer is 4, or 5, or otherwise. I did the research, or, at least, I've started to, and have posted my ideas, processes and conclusions regarding prop 87 above. This type of discussion, imho, can not only deepen our regard and resolve for the principles that we obviously agree upon, but may stand some chance of shedding the light of reason into the dark corners of the conersvative mentality we are united against.

On the other hand, by simply relying on an inverse ad hominem fallacy "Larry is decent, therefore his advice is good" is not helpful, even for those of us who agree in principle, wether or not we know Larry (I personally have not had the pleasure) It is the spirit of the democratic system, if, unfortunately not the practice, that it relies upon educated voters. If we speciously make claims to 'vote this way because such and such says so' we reduce ourselves to the base propagandizing we are railing against from the entrenched power base we oppose. Granted, such tactics do work, and we may well be served by employing them, but if so, let us do so at least in a way that pays lip service to basic human intelligence, and the principles of democracy we claim to be trying to preserve.

Royce

[Hummingbear]

I've spent several hours poring over the state voter guide, and discovered some surprises. I'm happy to share my opinions and observations.

Prop 1A. This would amend the state constitution (red flag!) to lock in sales tax revenues for highways. We already have gasoline tax revenues that are devoted to highways. We already have numerous other limitations on how money can be raised. This is saying that we don't want the state to spend money on any priorities other than highways!
Very bad idea. In years when income tax revenue is high, it would do no harm; but when income is down, we'd quickly run out of ways to fund environmental pollution enforcement, public health, and education. Highway expansion can wait for better times, but kids can't.
Vote NO.

Prop 1B. This is again a lot more money--4.5 Billion for highways, above and beyond the routine. Typically, in highway-funding propositions, the authors slip in goodies (earmarks) for pet projects that will encourage development in their favorite areas. In this case, the state Transportation Commission gets to decide where the money goes, so we can't predict how the political appointees will award it. But in any case, it adds a lot to an already highly-burdened state debt that our kids will have to find some way to pay over the next 30 years. Vote NO.

Prop 1C. This is a surprise: the summary says it's for battered-women's shelters and homeless shelters -- who could be against that? But the legislative analyst breaks it down: of the $2.85 billion, only $50 million is for homeless shelters, and there's no mention at all of women's shelters. The lion's share, $850 million, is for urban "infill" development grants (it's not clear how "infill" will be defined or prioritized).
These all look like good programs, but I'm suspicious of anything that comes with deceptive labeling. I'm voting NO.

Prop 1D. School bonds. No opinion.

Prop 1E. Flood control bonds. I prefer prop 84, which accomplishes the same essential things with better priorities. NO.

Prop. 83. Sex offenders. Well, we have collectively picked out favorite whipping-boys for the pilot project Orwellian Control program. No one likes sex offenders, but once you start creating a government bureaucracy devoted to tracking the every movement of an unpopular minority, where do you stop? Besides, it will be expensive, and do little to prevent serious crime. Vote NO.

Prop 84. Another bond issue, for flood control (similar to 1E) plus conservation and wildlife habitat protection. An excellent, well-balanced plan. YES.

Prop 85. Parental notification. When kids are in danger of giving birth, of course their parents should be involved. If they can't del with that, then abortion is a better option than forcing a pregnancy into an already-dysfunctional family system. NO.

Prop 86. Cigaretter Tax. The proposed health programs are way too important to rely on such a small taxpayer base to fund them. What next, encourage smoking so we can fund our health programs? We need *real* health care reform, not a token measure like this. Besides, the tax increase is so large, and so specialized, that smuggling will likely undermine even the modest income predicted by supporters. NO.

Prop 87. Oil Production Tax. Eloquently discussed elsewhere in this thread. YES.

Prop 88. Parcel tax for schools. Opponents complain that this is exploiting a loophole in Prop 13 by allowing a state-wide (rather than local) tax on real property. Since Prop 13 has just about destroyed the state by making so much property virtually tax-free, this could be a great idea. The program itself is no great shakes, but it's time to wake up California to the idea that we have to pay taxes to have a functioning state; it can't all be done on borrowing. YES.

Prop 89. Campaign funding. There are criticisms in the details, but don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. We desperately need this; it can be fine-tuned later, if need be. Vote YES!

Prop 90. Eminent Domain. NO!!!

Now, if only we had some good candidates to vote for...

Hummingbear

[lilmatty]

Some comments to hummingbears' comments:

Prop 1A. This would amend the state constitution (red flag!) to lock in sales tax revenues for highways. We already have gasoline tax revenues that are devoted to highways. We already have numerous other limitations on how money can be raised. This is saying that we don't want the state to spend money on any priorities other than highways!
Very bad idea. In years when income tax revenue is high, it would do no harm; but when income is down, we'd quickly run out of ways to fund environmental pollution enforcement, public health, and education. Highway expansion can wait for better times, but kids can't.
Vote NO.

Prop 1A: The legislature can declare an emergency and siphon (no pun) off gas tax revenue for just about anything. They've done this for way too many years. Now the roads are falling apart. They're a laughing stock. This gets their hands out of the cookie jar. They can't show constraint for pet project using these funds so we must make them do so.

Prop 88. Parcel tax for schools. Opponents complain that this is exploiting a loophole in Prop 13 by allowing a state-wide (rather than local) tax on real property. Since Prop 13 has just about destroyed the state by making so much property virtually tax-free, this could be a great idea. The program itself is no great shakes, but it's time to wake up California to the idea that we have to pay taxes to have a functioning state; it can't all be done on borrowing. YES.

Prop88: Those that were around to vote on Prop 13 know the circumstances that caused it to pass. Since then there's been a lot of folks complaining about it but no one willing to change it. Instead we spend tons of money on these silly little parcel tax and bond elections so that the fire and school districts can get enough money to survive. We should, instead, be screaming at Sacramento for not funding these local entities while keeping alive so many dubious programs. And perhaps Prop 13 needs to be changed. Perhaps we need another taxpayer revolt. Anybody out there with the political courage to be the next Howard Jarvis?

["Mad" Miles]

Dear Educated, Rational and Curious Fellow Citizens,

In case you're interested, here's the Green Party of Sonoma County's Voter Guide. It has links to candidates’ websites and some discussion on propositions:

https://www.sonomagreenparty.org/newspaper/nl0610.shtml#S1

Also, the Peace and Justice Center of Sonoma County usually includes in its bimonthly mailing a comprehensive Voter Guide which compares the positions of different NGO's. This guide is grouped by Labor, Environment, Civil Liberties etc. and uses check-off columns to compare the views of the different organizations. I haven't seen one yet for this coming mid-term election, and it isn't in the October/November Peace Press, but as soon as I do find it I'll place a link on this thread.

The League of Women Voters does not make recommendations but they do provide a good website with information about the Propositions and Candidates. Here's their URL:

https://www.smartvoter.org/

(Did someone already send this link to this discussion? If so I apologize for the redundancy.)


"Mad" Miles

P.S. "Another Howard Jarvis"?! No thanks, one was more then enough!!

[packardcarr]

Camejo is a good man and has good ideas. But....

A vote for Camejo is a vote for Schwarzenegger.

Since he has no hope of being elected Governor, Camejo's running for that office deprives us of the influence he could have if he were elected to the legislature. He has more of a chance there.

[Clancy]

Thought you all might appreciate another progressive guide to the 2006 election.
https://speakoutca.org/now/2006general.php

["Mad" Miles]

A vote for Camejo is a vote for Schwarzenegger.

Since he has no hope of being elected Governor, Camejo's running for that office deprives us of the influence he could have if he were elected to the legislature.

Willy Brown, who is no slouch when it comes to understanding California electoral politics, (pace Horseman, aka John Jenkel. John please don't put me on your blast list!) just announced that the "Gropenfuhrer" has a lock on reelection. Angelides is over twenty points behind. Unless "Der Gubernator" screws up big time, and he's not that stupid, he seems to have successfully positioned himself as a moderate and looks to be a shoe-in. If that is true, then a vote for Camejo is not a vote for "Aaahhhnuld". Instead it is a vote for values which trump both major parties. When is a protest vote more justifiable? When the outcome is certain? Or when the result hangs in the balance? My answer, it depends.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of Peter C. His role in the national GP around the push for Ralph Nader (third time around, Ralph said he wasn't interested from the get-go and refused to even register as a Green. Long story, water under the bridge, best not explored here) as our (GPUS) 2004 Presidential nominee, left a bad taste in my mouth. Peter has good ideas and an interesting history, but his demonstrated ability to use consensus process, a key Green value, has not been encouraging.

Essentially your point is a return to the spoiler criticism. This was explored last winter on this thread. There I more fully expressed my own views on these matters.

For as much useful and digestible information as possible,

"M"M

[Roland Jacopetti]

Hi. I've been casting negative votes my entire life, to keep the world safe from... (whomever the current boogie man might be.) Is it possible that a single person out there believes that Angelides has any more chance of being elected governor than Camejo? I feel like there's absolutely no reason not to vote for anyone you like for governor - any of the candidates - write someone in - vote for the nicest, most intelligent, fairest, holiest person you know. We've got to start doing that sometime, rather than continuing to vote over and over for the Democratic yo-yos that get picked for us. Sure, Camejo would be a good candidate for the legislature. But that's no what he's running for right now. Hasta la vista, baby.


Roland

Camejo is a good man and has good ideas. But....

A vote for Camejo is a vote for Schwarzenegger.

Since he has no hope of being elected Governor, Camejo's running for that office deprives us of the influence he could have if he were elected to the legislature. He has more of a chance there.

[Roland Jacopetti]

Hi, again, Royce. I have much respect for your viewpoints, but I've just gotta say that I wish we could all stop talking about democracy. Our "democratic" country has killed millions of people worldwide, in quite a short time, because they don't like "democracy" enough. Russia, on the other hand, decided that communism was for the birds, and decided to try democracy, because they'd heard such good things about it. Check out Russia these days to see where that's gotten them. So many people tell us that Communism "can't work." I don't see the slightest evidence that democracy can work, either, except as a catch phrase to justify the reprehensible acts of the ruling class. That's part of what makes it very difficult for me to vote for a party that calls itself "Democratic", even though I'm registered as one. By the way, I'm looking for a bumper sticker that says "Don't Vote For Suits." Thanks for reading.


Roland

Roland,

As the person who "chided" Larry for posting advice on what but not why, I'd like to suggest you put two and two together before telling me to research that the answer is 4, or 5, or otherwise. I did the research, or, at least, I've started to, and have posted my ideas, processes and conclusions regarding prop 87 above. This type of discussion, imho, can not only deepen our regard and resolve for the principles that we obviously agree upon, but may stand some chance of shedding the light of reason into the dark corners of the conersvative mentality we are united against.

On the other hand, by simply relying on an inverse ad hominem fallacy "Larry is decent, therefore his advice is good" is not helpful, even for those of us who agree in principle, wether or not we know Larry (I personally have not had the pleasure) It is the spirit of the democratic system, if, unfortunately not the practice, that it relies upon educated voters. If we speciously make claims to 'vote this way because such and such says so' we reduce ourselves to the base propagandizing we are railing against from the entrenched power base we oppose. Granted, such tactics do work, and we may well be served by employing them, but if so, let us do so at least in a way that pays lip service to basic human intelligence, and the principles of democracy we claim to be trying to preserve.

Royce

[oldrose]

I agree with some of your comments , BUT ( there always is one) I have been a property owner here since 1986. Since then my taxes have been raised by bond issues that I am now paying over $2,500.00 in taxes for one small lot ( Iam not talking a mc mansion here, my house is under 1,000 sf.) Although I am a Teacher I cannot bear the burden of more bonds. I believe that ALL people in Sonoma county benefit from well funded schools and emergency services. So therefore I recommend that it be paid by a sales tax so we all bear the burden and pay our share. So please think it through and vote NO on the bond issues.

Further more I am REALLY pissed off at the open space district. I do not believe that paying someone thousands if not millions of dollars to support open space that I cannot use nor do I have acess to . Open space is already protected by our STRICT general plan. ( Have you ever tried to split a lot in this county? It's impossible already) is a way to spend my $. I have no say in where the money is spent Yes I know that it would put more restraints on the OSD I will NOT vote for it this time. Lets make a better plan for clean acessable drinking water like limits on wells dug by agribusiness and pesticide spraying limits. I would rather support those issues.

[Dixon]

...vote for the nicest, most intelligent, fairest, holiest person you know.

Roland;

Thanks for your support. I see from your comment above that I can count on your vote this year.

Dixon
Chairman, Dixon for Deity in 2006 Committee

[Treasure]

Wacco folks,

We can ill-afford to allow our current Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson, to continue in office. My choice to replace him is California State Senator Debra Bowen.

Bowen has done an incredible job of assuring that California voters who are eligible to vote (1) will actually be allowed to cast their ballots, instead of being rejected by McPherson's voter validation system, and (2) that voters who cast their ballots on touchscreens can have some measure of trust that their votes will count as they intend them to.

Sure, McPherson supported the legislation that now requires every touchscreen used in California to include a printer that prints out a paper record of the vote. This means that sighted voter can SEE a printed record of their vote, instead of just trusting that the invisible electronic record is accurate. But McPherson STRONGLY OPPOSED S.B. 370, authored by Debra Bowen. Now California law, S.B. 370 requires election officials to actually USE the paper trail for audits and recounts. Under the previous McPherson-supported law, election officials had the choice of using either the invisible electronic record for audits and recounts (what a joke!), or the paper audit trail for those purposes. Debra Bowen put some teeth into what had been a toothless law.

More background for those who are interested:
After discovering that Diebold Election systems inserted untested and un-certified source code in its touchscreen voting machines all up and down the state, our previous Secretary of State, Kevin Shelley, had the good sense to de-certify Diebold touchscreens. Since then, gaping security holes in Diebold's wildly unstable voting machines have scandalized computer scientists, and any rational American who has heard about them, across the nation. Yet, shortly after replacing Shelley, McPherson RE-CERTIFIED Diebold's touchscreens. He has also certified other touchscreens, including Sequoia's, which has an annoying habit of ignoring the voters' choices and selecting the opposing candidate instead. (In 2004, aware voters in Washington, California, Florida, and other states noticed that when they pushed the button for Kerry, the display on the Sequoia machine they were using highlighted Bush instead.)

McPherson also implemented a voter validation system that rejected the registrations of tens of thousands of eligible California voters. Alerted in January that this was happening, McPherson announced that he intended to keep the system just as it was until AFTER the June 2006 primary. Debra Bowen and others harped on him for months on end, finally shaming him into making some changes before the primary.

For those who would like still more information, see my feature article in the October issue of the East Bay Monthly, https://www.themonthly.com. Or, see the version on my website, which includes some of my late editorial changes: https://www.sonic.net/~treasure/tug.html.

Best,
Tara Treasurefield

[helenscott08]

In past I have found the League of Women Voters had a list of their recommendations but I can't seem to find it. Is there anything similar out there.

I am not saying I would follow their recommendations ver batim, only want to see it.

hs

["Mad" Miles]

Previously on this thread I mentioned a website that compared organizations positions on the various initiatives. I didn't have the citation at the time, but now do.

www.electioninfo.org

May the information help and not overwhelm...

"Mad" Miles

[Indigo]

Ballot Proposition recommendations
* by ten progressive groups -
https://speakoutca.org/now/2006general.php
* by liberal & conservative groups -
https://www.electioninfo.org/
* by Progressive Democrats of Sonoma County -
https://www.pdsonoma.org/

The above websites came from the Peace & Justice Center in Santa Rosa. I think you'll find them helpful.
~ indigo

In past I have found the League of Women Voters had a list of their recommendations but I can't seem to find it. Is there anything similar out there.

I am not saying I would follow their recommendations ver batim, only want to see it.

hs