Clinton's Impeachment

Bill Clinton was the second president of the United States to be impeached by Congress over matters concerning perjury before a grand jury and abuse of power. These were very serious offenses which should have ended in his removal from office and it was immoral for the senate to acquit him. The offenses which he was accused of committing were proven beyond any doubt to have happened and not only was this done but overwhelming evidence was brought to the attention of the public. There was no justification for Clinton’s acquittal by the senate just because a few Republican representatives were found to be hypocritical because they were found to have been unfaithful to their spouses. 

Most of the latter stepped down from their positions because of their moral obligations to the American society but the President, whose actions had a greater significance than the others chose to retain his position. This was a sign of disrespect not only to the American people but to the whole world. It reduced the respect which the institution of the American presidency inspired among other world leaders and instead, brought a sense of disillusionment towards its authority. The best course of action that should have been taken against Clinton would have been his removal from office so that this action would have served as an example and warning to presidents who came after him. It would have set a precedence on how to deal with such matters within the presidency and reestablished the respect which the presidency deserved. However, this was not the case when the senate acquitted Clinton despite the fact that he had tarnished the image of his office.

Public Prejudice Towards Asylum Seekers in Australia

What underlies public prejudice towards asylum seekers?

Many Australians feel the government should maintain a tough policy on asylum seekers who arrive by boat.
Hadi Zader/Flickr, CC BY

Anne Pedersen, Murdoch University and Lisa Hartley, Curtin University

According to a poll taken last December, 60% of those surveyed think the Australian government should “increase the severity of the treatment of asylum seekers”. What’s behind this negative sentiment (otherwise known as prejudice) towards asylum seekers in Australian society?“

One very important and consistent predictor of prejudice is the acceptance of inaccurate information, or myths, as true. A 2006 study, carried out by one of this article’s authors, identified three frequently cited myths that depicted asylum seekers as "queue jumpers”, “illegals” and not having a genuine reason to seek asylum. This study found that people who were high in prejudice were significantly more likely to accept these myths as being true.

These beliefs have been linked with government rhetoric about asylum seekers under the previous Howard government. Under the Abbott government, there has been no shortage of hostile rhetoric. The punitive asylum seeker policies of the Labor government under Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd have also continued.

The ugly side of nationalism and perceptions of consensus

Some research links extreme levels of nationalism to prejudice towards asylum seekers. In one study into the phenomenon of flying Australian flags on one’s car for Australia Day, researchers from the University of Western Australia and Curtin University surveyed 501 people in public spaces in the week leading up to and on Australia Day in 2011.

The study found car-flag flyers rated more highly on measures of patriotism and nationalism and were significantly more likely to express prejudiced views against asylum seekers than non-flag flyers. Of those who flew flags, only 9.9% held positive views towards asylum seekers, compared to 24.7% of non-flag flyers.

Research suggests a correlation between nationalism and prejudice against asylum seekers.
Flickr/Brian Costelloe, CC BY

We have found that people who held prejudiced views against asylum seekers are also notably more likely to over-estimate support in the community for these views compared with those more accepting of asylum seekers.

A 2008 study carried out by one of the authors found while both groups over-estimated their support in the community, the effect was much more pronounced among people holding prejudiced views.

This finding is of concern because other research finds people who see themselves as having a “majority voice” are more likely to be vocal and less flexible in their views than others who see themselves as having a “minority voice”.

People who seek to be tolerant and accepting of asylum seekers often find it difficult to speak out. This compounds the problem: prejudiced people’s influence can be disproportionate to their numbers.

The role of emotion

In addition to these cognitive factors that underlie prejudice, some studies indicate community views about asylum seekers are strongly linked with emotions. Research in 2010 found people who are positive towards asylum seekers are more likely to feel empathy for them, to feel moral outrage at their situation and to express disgust and embarrassment at Australia’s policy stance.

Hostile rhetoric from our politicians can build prejudice against asylum seekers.
AAP/Daniel Munoz

Our recent unpublished study found people who held prejudiced views against asylum seekers were more likely to feel threatened by them. This was the case in regard to perceived threats to both security and “Australian values”.

Prejudiced participants were also more likely to be angry at asylum seekers for their mode of entry. Once emotions are involved, the issue becomes even more difficult to resolve.

Participants were significantly more prejudiced against asylum seekers who arrive by boat compared with refugees who were accepted offshore and resettled through Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program. So, although racism – prejudice based on race – is clearly involved, it is not the whole story.

Countering the myths that fuel prejudice

The fact our participants were more negative towards boat arrivals relates to a myth touched on above: “queue jumping”. The term queue implies that an orderly resettlement process exists, but this is far from reality.

It may also be the case many Australians are quite sensitive to what they see as rule-breaking. Our 2012 study on prejudice against Muslim Australians found a strong predictor of resentment was a perceived lack of conformity with Australian culture. Asylum seekers are often seen as Muslim even though they come from a range of religions, including Christianity and Hinduism.

Our finding also relates to the “not genuine” myth. Yet, over the last decade, more than 90% of boat arrivals have been found to be refugees. These myths, among others, need to be refuted if we are to reduce prejudice.

Levels of prejudice in Australian society can be reduced. Studies of both university students and older Australians in the community show attitudes can become more positive. This is important, as individuals can turn into a critical mass that can change social norms and government policy.

Anne Pedersen, Associate Professor in Psychology, Murdoch University and Lisa Hartley, Lecturer, Centre for Human Rights Education, Curtin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A Pet Peeve

Pet peeves are a normal characteristic in all human beings and everybody has one which others find irritating (Johnston). My personal pet peeve is when I get interrupted when talking and when such a thing happens, I tend to lose my temper. This has tended to bring me into conflict not only with my coworkers, but also with my family and friends as well. I still believe that my actions are justified because it is very rude to interrupt someone when he is speaking and instead one should listen until the other person has finished articulating his ideas. I think that this is an essential part of human associations. Interrupting someone when he is speaking is a sign of lack of a respect, an insult, and most of all, a personal challenge.

Interrupting someone when he is speaking is a sign of lack of respect and I think that my reaction towards people who do this is justified (Joyce). Not only is this a lack of respect but it shows how these people regard me. It brings out a feeling of inadequacy within me which I find very hard to ignore and my first instinctive reaction is to lose my temper. Everybody has a right to get angry when disrespected in anyway and I do not see the difference between me and them. I do not see why people should be offended by my reaction towards what I consider to be a disrespectful gesture because all these other people have their own peeves which they consider to be disrespectful towards them. I consider being interrupted to be a sign of disrespect towards me and if those around me do not like how I react, then it would be best if they did not interrupt me when I am talking.

I consider being interrupted when speaking, especially when making a very important point to be very insulting. This is due to the fact that the person who has interrupted me does not see the importance of what I am talking about or disagrees with it and instead chooses to do this insulting thing. I would prefer to be told to my face that what I am talking about is not important or that it is boring instead of my speech being dismissed in such an insulting way. I would not get angry if one were to tell me this and I am sure that we would afterwards come to a very amicable solution to what I was saying.

Being interrupted when speaking is a personal challenge to the speaker and should be answered with the severity it deserves. Interrupting a person when he is speaking especially on a subject that the person who has interrupted knows nothing about is very personal because he is casting doubt on the knowledge of the speaker (Bromann, 24 - 28). The speaker’s angry reaction towards this is very much justified and he deserves the apology of the person who has interrupted him. If such a thing were done, then there would be no need for conflict between people.

In conclusion, it is a normal thing for everybody to have at least one pet peeve. These pet peeves may be rational or irrational and should be met with understanding. People should be careful to learn what the pet peeves of others around them are and should try their utmost to avoid them. This will ensure that there is always a calm and sociable place where everybody can live and work in peace.