Palin apparently was delighted this year to address the Alaska Independence Party, even after the founder of the party had said “the Fires of Hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred of the American Government”.

Bill Maher explains:

Salon News adds more fuel to the fire by pointing out that the new head of the party is rabidly anti-American and thinks Palin is not only a member, but that she exemplifies the founder’s ideals:

[Chairwoman] Clark was born in Illinois, moving with her family as a child to the Alaska territory in 1951. But, she says, “in my heart and mind, I’m an Alaskan. I don’t identify myself as an American.”

I guess you have to admit identity is a funny thing. Bush certainly hides his Connecticut/East-Coast pedigree well, but at least he doesn’t say he is Texan instead of American. Strange how many people think he is really from Texas, but imagine if they also thought that he was not from America.

The Alaskan Independence Party burst into the national spotlight when Clark released a statement reporting that Sarah Palin and her husband, Todd, were both members. After the ensuing uproar, Clark issued an apology and correction, declaring that only Todd was an actual member of the AIP. […] Since then, other AIP members have offered conflicting information about Sarah Palin’s affiliation with the party. And earlier this year, as governor, Palin addressed the AIP convention, stating that she shared the party’s “vision.”

“Keep up the good work,” Palin told party members. “And God bless you.”

So Palin seems to agree with the AIP, and the AIP agrees with Palin. Salon quotes Clark’s reaction to Palin’s speech:

“As I was listening to her, I thought she sounds like what we’ve been saying for years. I thought to myself, ‘My God, she sounds just like Joe Vogler.'”

Vogler was the craggy, fire-breathing secessionist who founded the Alaskan independence movement in the early 1970s. Among the colorful Vogler quotes now in circulation are “I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.” Then there’s “The fires of hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American government.” And “The problem with you John Birchers is that you are too damn liberal!”

The story gets even more strange as the AIP accuses the US of becoming a state that serves powerful corporate interests and is too far left.

By any other name that’s fascism. It certainly isn’t a democracy. Mussolini must have a grin as wide as the Yukon River, looking at what the United States has become.

I find it truly bizarre that the AIP condemns the US as a fascist state, and yet says things are too far left. That makes no sense at all. I also find it bizarre that Palin is said to sound like Vogler, a man who hated the UN but wanted to use it to align with Iran and even attack the US.

BikePortland.org has a detailed and interesting review of a court case regarding fixie bicycles and the definition of a brake:

“The state is overreaching in seeking to define a brake as a lever and a caliper. The question remains; is the fixed gear the brake? The statutes are clear that the answer is yes.”

To solidify his point, he took out a huge Webster’s dictionary and opened it to the word “brake.” The definition stated that a brake is a “device to arrest the motion of a vehicle.” It did not stipulate anything about a distinct lever or caliper.

The best part is the dialogue between cop and victim:

Now it was time for Officer Barnum to ask questions. He asked Holland,

“What would you do if your chain broke?”

Holland:

“I would use my feet.”

Officer Barnum:

“What if your leg muscles had a spasm?”

Indeed. And what if your legs were suddenly amputated by giant fireballs from angry dragons on the street? Then how would you stop?

The judge seemed unable to come up with a reasonable definition:

In the Judge’s opinion, gearing itself and/or leg muscles are not a sufficient source of braking power. He said,

“The brake must be a device separate from the musclulature of the rider. Take me for instance. I don’t have leg muscles as strong as a messenger…how would I stop safely?”

He then turned directly to Ginsberg and said,

“If your client had a stick she could rub against her tire, you’d have a case.”

I thought you needed twelve sticks to have a case. But seriously, this judge is clearly a fool for saying that muscles are not allowed as a braking device because they are not a separate device and therefore may not work effectively. Did he not realize that muscles are used to operate all brake levers on a bicycle? The chainrings and crank arms are levers separate from the muscles of the rider. Did he also not realize that something “to rub against a tire” could include a shoe? And why not rub something on the ground instead of the tire? Cable cars have a brake that hits the ground, which might also be called a shoe. Anyway, the fixie brake debate is a good one to watch.