Some of us wonder if America isn't a mistake

English-speaking countries share a common

political ancestry in 18th century Britain

But the US has stayed fossilised in that

historical moment over two centuries ago,

while the rest of us have moved on

Rancher Bush IS a figurehead

No one who drinks as much as he does

and who suffers from terminal wet brain

could run a lemonade stand, let alone an administration

If you watch carefully, you can see

the strings they use to move his mouth

People who hate the policies of "Bush"

fail to see that he has no policies

Bush Puts the Knife in America

The current president has no interest in history. He has no intellectual curiosity. He hasn't much use for anything beyond a mountain bike.

For someone who so loudly questioned the patriotism of others, Bush is perhaps the least patriotic person imaginable.

His moves against the Constitution, erosion of checks and balances, his rejection of the rule of law, his undermining of the America established by the Founding Fathers is perhaps the most glaring example of anti-Americanism I can find.

Yes, let the Bush-apologists come back with trite comments about Jefferson owning slaves and moan about someone else co-opting their favorite label (anti-Americanism).

We went from Jefferson, who said he couldn't live without books to little Bush who said he doesn't much care for reading.

Jefferson had his flaws, but establishing an imperial presidencey was not one of them. It's hard to find anything about little Bush that isn't a flaw.

So happy birthday America. Blow up fireworks (illegal in most states) that were made in China. Wave flags that were made in China.

Celebrate the overthrow of a tyrant as we ignore the creation of a homegrown variety tyrant of our own.

At least this tinpot tyrant budding in the White House has learned from his namesake.

There can be no overthrowing of the new one - and not just because the people are too comfortable and concerned with Paris Hilton, sports and television to care.

The new tyrant can declare anyone who rises in revolution an "enemy combatant" and they will simply disappear.

Questions for the Bush-apologists: Do you really desire the end of the great democratic experiment, as Bush and co. seem to?

Do you think our leaders should be unchecked, unaccountable and above the rule of law? Do you think it should be a one-party nation?

Bush IS a figurehead. No one who drinks as much as he does and who suffers from terminal wet brain could run a lemonade stand, let alone an administration.

If you watch carefully, you can see the string they use to move his mouth. People who hate the policies of "Bush" fail to see that he has no policies.

Merely an ephemeral presence that sensible people wish would go away. He is like the Wizard of Oz, except that he plays the Straw Man who has no brain.

As for getting rid of him, unless his cabinet decide to mount a coup we soon shall be rid of him - and blessedly so - although not nearly soon enough.

His departure will be eight years too late, and more than eight years for those who suffered through his term as governor of Texas. None will be more relieved than his parents, who have had to squirm through so many years of embarrassment.

The larger problem is the Republican Party, which has always defined itself as "the party of the rich," and which has recently re-defined itself as an enemy of democracy.

Rigged voting machines, shenanigans in Florida, supreme court overturned electins, suspension of civil liberties, spitting at the Constitution, these are all manifestations of a trend that became painfully obvious when the Republicans tried to use Kenneth Starr to forcibly remove our last legitimately elected president.

They have made it clear that they shall be the party of the rich ruling the Government of the rich.

Democracy shall die and a one-party state, its minions plutocrats all, shall lumber from one sweetheart deal to the next, all carefully managed by Dick Cheney, at least until the battery in his pacemaker finally takes a break and gives the rest of us a break as well.

It is a squalid story, but the masses are not responsible for a plutocracy, even though Bush does have a small number of non-rich admirers among the drug and alcohol besotted who see something of themselves in him.

Fossil America

English-speaking countries share a common political ancestry in 18th century Britain. But the United States has stayed fossilised in that historical moment over two centuries ago, while most others have moved on.

The purpose of politics at that time was to seize control of a government's treasury and use it to distribute cash and jobs to the victor's friends.

Think Halliburton and those hosts of Bob Jones University graduates swarming through the White House and the Iraq occupation administration.

Think of the atavistic attachment to the death penalty, undiminished since the time of Tyburn Hill.

Even as the Founding Fathers complained about the overbearing demeanour of King George, they enshrined in the constitution a presidency with all, and perhaps even more, of the powers and perks of an 18th century British monarchy.

George W has abused his own power and his own subjects far more consistently and effectively than Farmer George III ever did.

Just compare the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence with the behaviour of George W.

It refers to a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind", a respect that his biggest American supporters legitimately cheer because of its complete absence in his diplomacy.

"That all men are created equal" and have "certain unalienable Rights .. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - it is difficult to reconcile that with stripping non-citizens of their civil rights after 9/11.

Indeed, one could hardly say that José Padilla was freely granted such rights even as a US citizen.

But then that is covered more freely in the list of gripes the Founding Fathers had against Farmer George:

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury", or "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences," both of which Rancher George has made a specialty.

The colonists' whinge that "he has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power", gets a little too close to the bone as well.

George III also "made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries," which in spirit, if not in letter, Rancher George has certainly been emulating that with federal attorneys.

Although less true of George W, his followers are certainly "endeavouring to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither."

In a constitutional monarchy, the presence of the intellectually challenged on the throne matters not one jot, since it has been stripped of power by generations of reform and was the result of random royal rogerings rather than the purchase of elections that produced the national symbol.

I mean, the British royals can ride horses, but as one correspondent suggested to me, did you ever see a picture of absentee ace pilot Rancher George on a horse?

But a US president is not only the national figurehead. He, or maybe even she, is the brains of the operation.

The president is commander in chief - even if he went Awol back during Vietnam.

He appoints ambassadors, even if what he knows about diplomacy could be gleaned from a reading of My Pet Goat. He appoints an unelected cabinet, and swings the supreme court appointments.

And as if these powers are not enough, George W is encroaching. His invocation of the "presidential prerogative," derived from the powers of the Hanoverian monarchy would have had the 18th century British parliament rising in rebellion.

(Sadly I am not so sure about the 21st century version.)

Even George III never thought of signing statements in which the head of state decides which parts of laws passed by the legislature, he would implement.

There is too much water under the bridge to rejoin the United Kingdom and, frankly, there would not be much popular enthusiasm there for the idea.

Certainly no one would want the ugly glottal stops of Blair's expediently acquired Estuary English as the official language any more than the swallowed vowels of Buckingham Palace.

But there are alternatives. Early on the morning that that John Kerry conceded the 2004 election, I was punditting on CNN.

Confronted with a map showing how the states had voted, it just came out:

"Look at the map, it's time to secede from the Union. Join Canada! Get free healthcare, reduce the murder rate - and get out of Iraq - all in one move."

Liberal Canadian bilingualism could expand to allow the use of "-ize," and the skip the "u" from "honour," and allow you not to say "oot and aboot," if it offends your linguistic sensibilities.

Americans would also get a constitutional monarchy at one remove, that they do not have to pay for, and unlimited royal gossip that is slightly more upmarket than Paris Hilton's escapades but occasionally every bit as salacious.

They would also get a charter of human rights that is taken seriously - as opposed to a constitution that the supreme court reinterprets in Rancher George's favour.

How can you go wrong? Think of the alternative - imagine Hillary as elected queen combining Victoria's lack of amusement with Thatcher's forbearance.

Ian Williams @ CIF