Trust, Honesty and a Vote

Everyone wants to be trusted. Most people want to be able to trust others. And unfortunately whatever we may actually want, it seems far to many are unwilling to trust anybody.

I read the article in the S-T today, further to the state involvement in conducting the sound study for the turbines. As written by the reporter, Ariel Whittenberg, one can draw the reasonable inference that unless the state study actually finds a violation of the state audible noise standards, it is not going to be accepted as a valid study by some.  The "tell" in the article is from statements quoted therein attributed to a Windwise member:

"We welcome the state coming in but we don't trust them to be honest because clean energy is the governor's top priority," .... "This agency is part of his government."

Let's take this statement to the logical conclusion.  To do so, I add some further tidbits from the article:

Windwise wants to hire an acoustician to conduct a separate study.

"We don't want to completely rely on the state ..."

Of course if the study finds a violation, well everything will have been above board, however ...

If a reasonable person should not trust those in the state agency to conduct the test to be honest because clean energy is the governor's top priority as the state agency is part of his government, why should that same reasonable person trust a separate study, hired by the group who's top priority is to shut the turbines down?

Seems to me DEP has all ready shown a willingness to buck the Governor's clean energy policy based on the Falmouth study.  Is there something we are unaware of that would call into question why it wouldn't be as forthcoming in Fairhaven as in Falmouth?

You are certainly free to challenge the state findings if the same are not to your belief.  I am assuming this will be a given.  

On another matter ...

If you haven't been following the matter, the recall elections in Wisconsin were held yesterday.  The same stemmed from actions by the then newly elected Republican governor primarily concerning collective bargaining with government employee unions.  You may recall about a year and a half ago Democratic legislators leaving the state to prohibit a quorum on votes that drastically changed the laws of what the government and its various unions were required to do in collective bargaining.

While exact figures aren't available, or at least I couldn't find them, the turnout was estimated to be in the 60% to 65% range, and it appears the Governor defeated the recall effort, with a 53% vote.  Not so sure how this will play come presidential election time, as I think the issue was more state orientated rather than being a "national" issue.

It does seem to be indicative however of a growing trend across the country on an issue being faced in every state of the Union.  Specifically, how does government continue to deal with unions.

Even in the bluest of blue states such as Massachusetts, there have been changes to collective bargaining laws, pension reform and even benefits granted under statutes.  Granted, here at home the changes have not been anywhere near as radical.  

Yet unless there are significant improvements in the economy and just as significant tax increases, the changes will have to occur here out of simple financial necessity.

The vote in Wisconsin indicates several things.  First, while the margin in the recall vote is being described as overwhelming (as it was significant, but significant based on what we have become use to), it does reveal a large minority exists who were not very happy.  But the fact that the vote was not closure, also indicates a growing realization that the way government does business must change.  

The spin doctors are all ready out in full force about big money spending to save the governor's job,  lamenting the loss of union rights, and so much more.  Bottom line, several polls indicate that 9 out of 10 voters had made up their minds back in May on this issue.  

What it also means is the fact that there is support out there among the people for that change.  

I am not sure Mitt should be adding Wisconsin to his column, but I do think a whole lot of people should be paying attention to what just happened there.