Another Question

So my room mate and me talked for a few hours about Org Comm and it sparked but another question. Do you think that leaders should, or have to hold themselves to a higher standard, and if so when they are done leading can they be more relaxed?
I think for a large part that perhaps they do. Often times followers don't go above and beyond a good leader; that would mean that the leaders top is the groups top. I am not sure though. What do ya'llt hink?

Blind Justice?

So this ain't for Org Comm but it was an interesting thing to consider for me so I thought I would post it on my blog and, ya know, be cool like that.
In my Juvenile Delinquency class we read an essay called "Roughnecks and the Saints" by Chambliss. We were then asked to write a paper about blind justice-being exactly fair in all our dealings even if it seems like doing something else will be okay or even better. This is what fell out of meh brain.

Blind Justice

Chambliss' article on the saints and the roughnecks questions how one should balance between mercy and justice, a problem as old as the dust of the earth and only solved by deity. At what point do we cut off the mercy given to those who make a minor mistake? At what point do we extend mercy to those who exhibit ceaseless disregard? At what point can mercy make or brake the placebo affect of young people? Is clear cut fairness the path to equality or does subjective judgment derive appropriate actions? Is equality fair? Is equality the best path? Should justice be blind?

Before I can decide how to be blindly just I wonder if I should be more exacting in my judgments then is my natural inclination, to keep me blind and fair, or if I should be exceedingly liberal in my decisions to account for the unbalanced justice forced on individuals. To clarify; Should I bear harder judgments on not only the roughnecks but the saints as well to insure that my doings are equally harsh? Or do I perhaps extend more understanding to the roughnecks, and extra austerity to the saints so as to make up the difference between what the rest of society deals them? I naturally think to keep judgments respective but is that what is fair? Is fair best?

I submit that what mankind can create as fair is anything but such. God created each individual diversely, and placed them on earth with differences. But decisions made by any person creates consequences, this being the definition of justice; every choice has a repercussion. I am led to follow the chronological order to make my choice then; each individual has great worth in Gods eyes, demanding mercy, but each person must meet the aftermath of their functioning. I believe it is morally upright then to extend a surplus of mercy to the seemingly 'roughneck' type, and exact firm, rigid, and stern assessment with those of the “saints.”

In class on Thursday we talked about communication barriers. I especially liked talking about the psychiatry of leaders-I am a recreational leadership major you see, and I have make leadership my forte. Last semester I took an outdoor leadership class in which we talked about the loneliness of leadership. Basically the leader bears all the burden, and no matter how much others try that can't really help that. It reminds me of Lord Of The Ring when Sam wants to help Frodo take the ring. Sam goes to Mordor with Frodo, but the rings toll is still all on Frodo's shoulder. I think this defiantly affects the psychic of the leader. Responsiblility has the potential to crush-think of what would happen of Atlas shrugged the world off just once. I know that the times I have been a leader I have to seperate myself from everyone else to a minimal degree atleast.
just meh thunks.