

Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever. — Gandhi
"What is the greatest threat facing us now?" Colin Powell asked. "People will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves.
Nelson Mandela is still very much alive despite an embarrassing gaffe by U.S. President George W. Bush, who alluded to the former South African leader's death in an attempt to explain sectarian violence in Iraq. "It's out there. All we can do is reassure people, especially South Africans, that President Mandela is alive," Achmat Dangor, chief executive officer of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, said as Bush's comments received worldwide coverage.
In a speech defending his administration's Iraq policy, Bush said former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's brutality had made it impossible for a unifying leader to emerge and stop the sectarian violence that has engulfed the Middle Eastern nation.
"I heard somebody say, Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas," Bush, who has a reputation for verbal faux pas, said in a press conference in Washington on Thursday.Jailed for 27 years for fighting white minority rule, Mandela became South Africa's first black president in 1994. He won a Nobel Peace Prize for preaching racial harmony and guiding the nation peacefully into the post-apartheid era.References to his death -- Mandela is now 89 and increasingly frail -- are seen as insensitive in South Africa
In the 500-page book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Mr. Greenspan describes the George W. Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Mr. Bush’s first two Treasury secretaries, Paul H. O’Neill and John W. Snow, as essentially powerless. Mr. Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. "The Republicans in Congress lost their way," writes Mr. Greenspan, a self-described libertarian Republican. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose" in the 2006 election, when they lost control of the House and Senate.
Of the presidents he worked with, Mr. Greenspan reserves his highest praise for Bill Clinton, whom he described in his book as a sponge for economic data who maintained "a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth." It was a presidency marred by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he writes, but he fondly describes his alliance with two of Mr. Clinton’s Treasury secretaries, Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers, in battling financial crises in Latin America and then Asia.
By contrast, Mr. Greenspan paints a picture of Mr. Bush as a man driven more by ideology and the desire to fulfill campaign promises made in 2000, incurious about the effects of his economic policy, and an administration incapable of executing policy.
Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.I can usually tell if someone is a Republican or a Democrat by talking to them for just a short while. Conservatives tend to speak in absolutes and take well worn steps to forming their opinion while Liberals tend to talk more broadly about subjects and are more diverse in their opinion formulation. Conservatives tend to try to make the world fit their beliefs while liberals seem to react to the situation they find and adapt their beliefs to it.
However, I would argue that radical liberals also have an absolutist mindset. There are some on the left (far fewer and much, much less influential) who think just like a typical self defined "Conservative". I would hypothesize that those who KNOW that 9-11 was an inside job have the same mentality as those who KNOW Saddam Hussein planned those attacks. They believe what they believe and no amount of facts or common sense will sway their mind. They are different politically but the same mentally. (Notice how many people switch from one extreme to another... and how few moderates evolved into radicals?)
Another aspect of this is that we tend to assume that others think like we do. Since Conservatives embrace their opinion with zealotry - they assume that anyone who disagrees is going to be equally as extreme and unwavering in their beliefs. Again, look at the way the right wing demonizes liberals - describing them in ways that I have never seen in my lifetime. Yet, their followers, who are themselves unmovable in their philosophy, are easily convinced that everyone thinks that way. Liberals often get in trouble by assuming that conservatives will come around to their way of thinking. We give those who disagree with us the benefit of the doubt - sometimes with terrible results. Bush has used this beautifully to keep extending the Iraq war by 6 months at a time while Democrats kept hoping that at some point republicans would have to realize that things had to be changed. It didn't happen.
No doubt both mentalities have to be represented in a democracy. The real argument, I suppose, is the proper proportion necessary to have the greatest success in moving us all forward in a humane and productive way. You'll notice that even that idea requires seeing the world in some shades of grey and therefore will be rejected or misunderstood by many.