I initially thought it was both hilarious and a great response. Then I started thinking about who is going to pay for those lawsuits. Its not the people who voted for the changes.

Safely accommodating bikes on city streets can be done. Forcing car traffic to weave to pass oncoming cars is not an example of that. Many traffic problems come from mixing traffic of different speeds. That describes mixing bikes and cars. It can be done, but carefully and minimally. Why for instance are bike lanes needed on both sides? Why should bike lanes occupy the same width as the car lanes?

I don't have the hard data, but my observation is that the proportion of the traffic on bikes is quite small on these streets. I would further speculate that a majority of the bikers in this area are recreational. I have friends that are ardent bikers and at least one has spent more on their bikes than I do on my car. That's their choice on how to spend their wealth. The question here is whether the city should be helping to  pay for that habit.

Given this is Minnesota, there are months where the bikes on the street are zero. Unfortunately cars weaving because of bike lanes is even more dangerous when the roads are icy. 

Love this interesting and thoughtful podcast.

Fixing the "changes" made to the constitution by the courts is an unsolved problem. Using a constitutional amendment is usually dismissed as being both too difficult to formulate and too easy to come up with a bad result. I wonder if it might be easier politically and less risky if a constitutional amendment was constructed  in terms of a Supreme Court decision. For instance, an amendment that said: "Wickard v. Filburn was a blown call". All the scholarship that has been wrapped around that decision over the years would provide some confidence in the result. The focus would be narrow in a the sense of a clear change to a particular decision affected (not to say there are subsequent decisions affected) thus perhaps making the political discussion easier. Yes, grasping at straws...

All your points are on target. I think we can over think this though. I don't think Obama's thought process is nearly so deep. It's like someone discovering their neighbor's business is doing very well and looking to cash in: "Hey neighbor, remember when I loaned you my lawn mower once ten years ago? Don't you think I deserve a cut of your business profits as just compensation? Yeh, I know you loaned me your lawn mower once too, but you are the one that ended up with all the money." Obama wants the power that comes from confiscating the wealth that others have earned. It is an arrogant avarice. Any justification that achieves that end is acceptable.

We do need to attack this meme because it is a key part of a Democrat sleight of hand.  First yell "tax the rich".  That divides the electorate nicely in their favor.  But that is not enough revenue.  So the next beat of the mantra is "corporations are rich".  This ignores what Romney was trying to say that all corporate taxes are eventually paid by people.  The people paying those taxes are not confined to the rich.  Thus a new source of revenue is tapped that does indeed tax the middle class and poor and yet it is done under the banner of not doing so.

A basic tenet of science is that any study must be reproducible to be credible. Michael Mann produced a paper inferring temperatures over the past millennium. This study was key to the widely publicized hockey stick graph.  Some have been trying to reproduce that study for years, unsuccessfully.  Perhaps they just don't have the right laboratory equipment.  But wait, no laboratory is needed.  Mann's study took data produced by others (e.g. tree ring data), processed the data with a computer program and generated temperatures.  Anyone can run data through a computer program.  Why can't Mann's results be duplicated?  Because he wouldn't provide the precise data and program he used.  The excuse he gave to a congressional committee: the program is Mann's personal property.  No joke.
How does one bad apple condemn an entire field?  It is the job every other scientist in the field to call out such unscientific behaviour.  Most did nothing.  Many did worse and made excuses or claimed what he did was valid.  They circled the wagons.  They hid the decline.  Inexcusable.  I am skeptical of any scientist (or journalist) that does't admit this behaviour is anti-science.  

To flownover:

Sadly my father bought the subscription for my son.  I have to read it in self defense.

Cheers