The President doesn't really need to worry about anyone telling a joke about him in his presence unless it is well staged. He only appears at well-staged events and those allowed in his presence are not often given to "lese majeste", criticism of the king. This is the most protected President in my lifetime and he suffers from being too protected all too often. Of course telling a joke at the President's expense is an offense that will, in this administration, as in many before it, cast you into the outer darkness. A joke pointed at him in his presence will certainly end your access to the little prince who could.

Being led is different than being ruled. Every citizen of this nation should know that difference, or not be allowed to vote until they can explain it in simple terms. Concisely put, leaders require the explicit approval of those they lead, Rulers only require the implicit approval of those they rule. Implicit approval is merely the absence of rebellion; explicit approval requires an action like voting in a free and fair election. Now John Ashcroft is an example of a man with little or no humor in his view of himself as far as I can see. The Shrub Prince, on the other hand is full of self applied humor about his gaffes with language and other bits of his personality that are imperfect. They are both dedicated to the same proposition though; that the leadership of Bush shall make him into our ruler in spite of our constitution to the contrary.

His jokes at his own expense do not mean that he does not have a monstrous ego that will eat our Republic if we let it. Even his best efforts to prune back his own ego must often fail in the light of his dedicated supporters with no conscience among them. How else could those close to him sit around and watch a President claim that he has been chosen by God to lead us out of the shadow of Terrorism? How else could they stand idly by and watch him set a fiscal course that will demolish our economy and even our capacity to sustain our military strength over time? How else could they listen to his pronouncements about not leaving the children of our nation behind? Especially when his every economic policy will work to impoverish the workers of their nation before they are fully grown?

The difference between a President and a Ruler is often subtle; it is often a matter of demeanor and slight matters of the tone used in relating to the people of the nation. Absolute certainty can be indulged in a President only when his people are united behind him. In a ruler certainty is a given. Thus war can be used as a powerful tool for uniting a nation behind an elected leader; that was done in the election of 2002 and it gave the Republicans a victory. Certainty in a ruler is often viewed as a "divine right", one given directly by God. If God gives the President, of a great nation, instructions about how to lead does that man automatically become a ruler at God's command? Or is God in fact the ruler of the nation and the shrub only his humble vessel?

Charm is a great gift for a politician; it is even a greater gift for a ruler. Part of being charming is being able to project the sense that you are interested in people and their lives. That is almost certainly true of this President, he is a man who studies people carefully and gives away little of himself in the process. Those around him are kept somewhat off balance by that tactic. Only those who have his ear and can count on his acting on their advice, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Perhaps Ms. Rice, and apparently John Ashcroft are in that inner circle. It seems more like a Royal court than any set of advisors to a President that I have ever seen before. So, are we being ruled without explicit consent today? If we are, will we allow that process to continue beyond the next election? If not it will be no tragedy, and if we do it will be no comedy unless what is happening can be called a comedy of errors. God bless you all and keep you safe in this time in which comedy is a tool of those who would rule, and tragedy may only describe the consequences of their acts if we let them continue.