FINDING THE TRUTH

The first basic, before any argument should begin, is to agree on the definitions and on the parameters of the argument. If a person does not understand objective versus subjective information, you cannot argue with them, especially when they want to use subjective information as objective information.
Objective Evidence is physical evidence that someone, when reviewing a statement, can inspect and evaluate for themselves. It provides compelling evidence that the statement actually represents the information which can be proven true, based on facts that substantiate the charge being made. The evidence must not be circumstantial but must be obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means. Another words, can we have the evidence this person is using to make this statement please?
Objective information is to subjective information as "matters of fact" is to "matters of taste." You can only really argue about matters of fact. Matters of taste are "subjective" in the proper sense of that term ("I like ice cream," "I think classical music is for the birds").
SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence that you cannot evaluate -- you have to simply accept what the person says or reject it. Subjectivity basically is a ‘personal opinion’ which can also be considered as ‘personal feeling’ or ‘personal conclusion’ which is based on ‘personal information’. Self-deception is the process or fact of misleading ourselves to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid. Self-deception, in short, is a way we justify false beliefs to ourselves. Believing in something false doesn't make it true! If I believe I can fly and I jump out a window, I'm still gonna fall.
When philosophers and psychologists discuss self-deception, they usually focus on unconscious motivations and intentions. They also usually consider self-deception as a bad thing, something to guard against. To explain how self-deception works, they focus on self-interest, prejudice, desire, insecurity, and other psychological factors unconsciously affecting in a negative way the will to believe. A common example would be that of a parent who believes his child is telling the truth even though the objective evidence strongly supports the claim that the child is lying. The parent, it is said, deceives him or herself into believing the child because the parent desires that the child tell the truth. A belief so motivated is usually considered more flawed than one due to lack of ability to evaluate evidence properly. The former is considered to be a kind of moral flaw, a kind of dishonesty, and irrational. The latter is considered to be a matter of fate: some people are just not gifted enough to make proper inferences from the data of perception and experience.
However, it is possible that the parent in the above example believes the child because he or she has intimate and extensive experience with the child but not with the child's accusers. The parent may be unaffected by unconscious desires and be reasoning on the basis of what he or she knows about the child but does not know about the others involved. The parent may have very good reasons for trusting the child and not trusting the accusers. In short, an apparent act of self-deception may be explicable in purely cognitive terms without any reference to unconscious motivations or irrationality. The self-deception may be neither a moral nor an intellectual flaw. It may be the inevitable existential outcome of a basically honest and intelligent person who has extremely good knowledge of his or her child, knows that things are not always as they appear to be, has little or no knowledge of the child's accusers, and thus has not sufficient reason for doubting the child. It may be the case that an independent party could examine the situation and agree that the evidence is overwhelming that the child is lying, but if he or she were wrong we would say that he or she was mistaken, not self-deceived. We consider the parent to be self-deceived because we assume that he or she is not simply mistaken, but is being irrational. How can we be sure? I will allow some slack to the accuser.
OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence you can examine and evaluate for yourself.
In the case of objectivity, we have an external and independent ‘object’, which can ‘verify’ the truth-value of the objective information or statement. In the case of ’subjectivity’, the contents of personal information, on which the subjective opinion was based, were known only to the person who held that subjective opinion whereas in the case of objectivity, the ‘external object’ (or event) on which the objective information is based, can be known to everyone whoever himself wants to verify the objective statement. In the case of an objective statement, there is an underlying assumption about the existence of some ‘external object’ that can verify the truth-value of that objective statement and vice versa that in a false objective statement there is a lack of any ‘external objects’ to verify the statement. Whoever is interested in knowing the truth-value of an objective statement, can resort to that ‘external object’ or the lack of any ‘external objects’ for this purpose.

The Truth

What's with the beating up staff for having opposing views. Then there's the stating things that aren't the truth without opportunities to correct. May be I'll call DWD. Oh, sorry, I meant I already knew what DWD was going to do.

Bond Sale

The recent Lake Mills GO Promissory Note sale was phenomenal for the City and should be celebrated. The City reached far below what the rating indicates in terms of an interest rate –Lake Mills’ interest rates beat the those of a higher rated Village (Moody’s Aa2) by a significant margin on the same day.

How I am Suppose to do That

There are some council members who function on a belief system rather than a rational decision process. If they believe there are too many employees, no amount of data will influence their belief and their resulting decision. Sidewalk engineers rarely have the full financial and resource capacity issues to grapple with when informing the council member of the problems. They also rarely see the full picture of plans for achieving the goal.
Trust is a resource that is very important in the council-manager relationship and it can become hard to maintain when the lines between policy determination and policy implementation become blurred.
The elected and appointed officials in our community who can listen to all the participants while analyzing the past as they contemplate the future and make decisions based on a balanced system of scientific rationalism will become the leaders or groups of leaders regardless of position or organization.

Where Too Today

Your behavior follows your beliefs no matter how insightful, unstructured or bewildered your comprehension of the issue may be.

Will We Actually do This?

A component of the Comprehensive Plan is the City of Lake Mills Transportation Plan which includes the Sidewalk Plan adopted in August 2004 and updated in January 2005. This plan calls for the repair of existing sidewalks and retrofitting of new sidewalks in older parts of the community where sidewalks were never installed. The City’s subdivision regulation requires sidewalks in all public rights-of-way serving new residential and commercial developments, and has provisions ensuring pedestrian access to industrially zoned areas as well.

Efficient or Optimal

Although on paper the larger governments seem orderly and efficient, voters have distrusted recommendations of planners and political scientists who traditionally have postulated that "fragmentation" of local government is not economically rational. Still, the voters have instinctively sided with smaller, perceived more accountable, decentralized governments instead of metropolitan government or major consolidations.
What reasons and data may be offered to justify smaller governments instead of moving toward centralized local government? The optimum allocation of resources, or economic efficiency, could be the underlying principle. The true level and mixture of local services taxpayers wish to purchase (police and fire protection, parks, sanitation services, and sidewalks, for example) is more likely to be reflected when different packages of goods are offered by competing local jurisdictions. Since people have the opportunity to vote with their feet, they can move to the jurisdiction offering the combination and level of local services at a price (or level of taxes) that best suits them. Some may deem backyard garbage collection so important that they wish to pay for it. Others may opt for a less costly method, but highly value police cruising through their neighborhoods. When only one level of local service is available, as offered by one centralized government, people have no choice. Thus there is no competition, and taxes are likely to be higher. The local government is invariably under pressure to provide the best possible service at the lowest possible cost. Local officials must deal with the difficult and contradictory tasks of providing quality and efficiency of service, as well as a decent working environment at an acceptable cost level. An extremely efficient service might eliminate lines, but costs are likely to be very high. On the other hand, poor service by keeping people waiting in a stressful environment is not compatible with sound customer service and certainly does not provide a positive working condition. The key is to find the correct balance between the service offered and the cost of providing that service.